Zambrano Settled Status EU settlement scheme Paper Application Form - NEW

[Mecry2020]

Four potential grounds to base an appeal against a Home Office / SSHD EU Settlement Scheme refusal?

the Secretary of State should have considered, and failed to consider, exercising her general discretion to grant indefinite leave to remain outside the Immigration Rules

the provision (or the decision based on that provision) is contrary to the terms of the UK’s Withdrawal Agreement

the provision of Appendix EU which provides for mandatory refusal of a former Zambrano carer on grounds that s/he has limited leave to remain on some other basis is unlawful (because it is more restrictive than the previous provision under the Immigration (EEA) Regulations 2016

a decision to refuse to grant settlement is in breach of a Zambrano carer's legitimate expectation

The law of legitimate expectation is a move away from the standard grounds on which to challenge Home Office decisions.

A legitimate expectation claim is based on the assumption that, where the SSHD states that it will or will not do something, a person who has reasonably relied on that statement should be entitled to enforce it; if necessary, through the courts.

The Home Office stated publicly after Brexit that provision would be made for Zambrano carers. Forcing Zambrano carers to reapply and risk being refused under Appendix FM (or similar) is not meeting their promise.

For a legitimate expectation to arise, the public body's statement must be clear, unambiguous and without qualification. Interference with legitimate expectations may be justified on public policy grounds.

Hi everyone,
I know things have been awkward on this platform for a while. I would implore everyone to respect other's opinion and mind the way we response to any post on this platform. I believe we are all here for help or to assist others, please don't forget the purpose of this platform. Together we can all achieve our goal with love and kindness even without seeing each other. Kindness always finds its way of repaying one, lets us be wise.
Sorry for my sermon, just thought it will be nice to say something about that.

Please can someone explain the above post.

Thanks.

[hapacan]

the Secretary of State should have considered, and failed to consider, exercising her general discretion to grant indefinite leave to remain outside the Immigration Rules

Someone could argue in court that eventhough a person does not meet the rules for settlement, the Home Office should have nonetheless approved the application because

1.) the Home Office has that power, and
2.) something about that person's overall circumstances means he/she deserves settlement anyway

The Home Office has the power to grant a Zambrano carer settlement under the EU settlement scheme - EVEN IF the applicant does not technically meet the rules.

That can explain why some Zambrano carers with leave to remain get settlement, while other Zambrano carers are refused settlement.

[hapacan]

the provision of Appendix EU which provides for mandatory refusal of a former Zambrano carer on grounds that s/he has limited leave to remain on some other basis is unlawful (because it is more restrictive than the previous provision under the Immigration (EEA) Regulations 2016

The Immigration (EEA) Regulations 2016 were written by the EU. Appendix EU was written by the UK and not by the EU.

Documents created by the UK should not be more restrictive than documents written by the EU, because the UK is part of the EU.

For example, if the EU makes a law that says anyone who's name begins with letters A or B should get £5,000, the UK can not create a document that says only people whose names begin with just letter A should get £5,000. Any document the UK creates should allow both people who's names begin with letters A and B to get the £5,000. This is not a law, it is just an example.

However, the Home Office guidance says that any Zambrano carer who has limited leave to remain (that was not granted under Appendix EU) should be refused settlement under the EU settlement scheme. The Immigration (EEA) Regulations 2016 do not have that limitation.

This type of argument has to occur in the High Court or Supreme Court. You can't make this argument in the First Tier Tribunal or the Upper Tribunal.

[Nyamebeye]

Sadly the EEA Zambrano route comes to an end in Dec 2020. Between now and then, it is less likely that there will be a case that will go pass the First Tier and Upper Tribunal. the trend now is that the HO does not bother to attend the hearings these day even pre-Covid times. They know they are in the wrong but still pursue and issue their negative decisions. With the exception of those who already have pending applications and appeals, Zambrano will be quiet from next year.

[hapacan]

Sadly the EEA Zambrano route comes to an end in Dec 2020. Between now and then, it is less likely that there will be a case that will go pass the First Tier and Upper Tribunal. the trend now is that the HO does not bother to attend the hearings these day even pre-Covid times. They know they are in the wrong but still pursue and issue their negative decisions. With the exception of those who already have pending applications and appeals, Zambrano will be quiet from next year.

A challenge to the lawfulness of UK guidance (Appendix EU) would be lodged directly in the Upper Tribunal. You would not file it in the First Tier or the Upper Tribunal.

Any Zambrano carer who is worried about an outstanding legal claim can ask for their case to be expedited or fast tracked.

The Zambrano carer (claimant) can argue that, unless judgment on its substantial claim was given by the English court before December 2020, the argument becomes 'academic'.

The claimant would contact the Court to make an application for expedited hearing.

[snooky]

This is my last antidote for all who will need to appeal

Changes to the Immigration Rules following the Supreme Court decision in Alvi




In R (on the application of Alvi) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] UKSC 33 the Supreme Court held that the UK Border Agency cannot refuse immigration applications purely because of Policy Guidance that is not contained in the Immigration Rules.

The Immigration Rules set out the requirements that people have to meet in order to be granted a visa or further leave to remain. They have to be laid before Parliament before coming into force, which gives them legal authority. However, the UKBA has often issued Policy Guidance and other documents, particularly in relation to the Points Based System, that claims to introduce additional requirements that are not contained in the Immigration Rules. The Supreme Court has now said that the Policy Guidance does not have the status of law. This means that it would be wrong to refuse someone who did not meet a requirement in the Policy Guidance unless that requirement was also contained in the Immigration Rules.

For example, the applicant in Alvi had been refused leave to remain as a Tier 2 (General) Migrant because his job was not at the correct level in the UKBA's Codes of Practice. However, the Supreme Court said that he should not have been refused for this reason because the Codes of Practice were not in the Immigration Rules and therefore they were not part of the law.
This confirms the judgment of the Court of Appeal in Secretary of State for the Home Department v Pankina and others [2010] EWCA Civ 719.

In response to this, new changes have been made to the Immigration Rules. The UKBA have attempted to put all the requirements of the Policy Guidance and other documents such as the Codes of Practice into the Immigration Rules so that they are now able to refuse applications that do not comply with them. The changes mainly affect applications under the Points Based System and applications by family members.

This means that the Immigration Rules are now a lot more complicated, with several new appendices. It would therefore be very easy to miss some of the strict new requirements. You are advised to seek legal advice if you want to apply for a visa or for leave to remain in the UK.

Whether EEA or Domestic immigration it could be part of your argument

My last and last post

[Fustrated2019]

@snooky please don’t leave us now . I have just received the refusal letter for the settlement scheme. The only reason stated was that I have leave to remain under another category. I have 28 days for administrative review. I have an application for derivative pending. It’s been 8 weeks since I applied. What do I do ?
Thank you

[IST]

@snooky please don’t leave us now . I have just received the refusal letter for the settlement scheme. The only reason stated was that I have leave to remain under another category. I have 28 days for administrative review. I have an application for derivative pending. It’s been 8 weeks since I applied. What do I do ?
Thank you

@Fustrated2019

As Snooky has mention on the previous post, I think you should rather concentrate on the EEA application and is better to do a new EUSS application then AR.
AR is waste of money and 97% of the refusal are Zambrano application.

[LULUBABY]

This is my last antidote for all who will need to appeal

Changes to the Immigration Rules following the Supreme Court decision in Alvi




In R (on the application of Alvi) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] UKSC 33 the Supreme Court held that the UK Border Agency cannot refuse immigration applications purely because of Policy Guidance that is not contained in the Immigration Rules.

The Immigration Rules set out the requirements that people have to meet in order to be granted a visa or further leave to remain. They have to be laid before Parliament before coming into force, which gives them legal authority. However, the UKBA has often issued Policy Guidance and other documents, particularly in relation to the Points Based System, that claims to introduce additional requirements that are not contained in the Immigration Rules. The Supreme Court has now said that the Policy Guidance does not have the status of law. This means that it would be wrong to refuse someone who did not meet a requirement in the Policy Guidance unless that requirement was also contained in the Immigration Rules.

For example, the applicant in Alvi had been refused leave to remain as a Tier 2 (General) Migrant because his job was not at the correct level in the UKBA's Codes of Practice. However, the Supreme Court said that he should not have been refused for this reason because the Codes of Practice were not in the Immigration Rules and therefore they were not part of the law.
This confirms the judgment of the Court of Appeal in Secretary of State for the Home Department v Pankina and others [2010] EWCA Civ 719.

In response to this, new changes have been made to the Immigration Rules. The UKBA have attempted to put all the requirements of the Policy Guidance and other documents such as the Codes of Practice into the Immigration Rules so that they are now able to refuse applications that do not comply with them. The changes mainly affect applications under the Points Based System and applications by family members.

This means that the Immigration Rules are now a lot more complicated, with several new appendices. It would therefore be very easy to miss some of the strict new requirements. You are advised to seek legal advice if you want to apply for a visa or for leave to remain in the UK.

Whether EEA or Domestic immigration it could be part of your argument

My last and last post

Thank you Snooky. You have never let us lack any useful information. You have always been quick to come to our aid at various times. You have always been quick to give us useful advice and information to aid us in this very difficult journey. You have saved us all lots and lots of money (Solicitors / Legal fees).

One last request Snooky, please do always log in and keep reading to know how we are faring. We will keep searching and reading up your previous posts and advice to us. I don’t know about others but I will not give up.

Thank you for this LAST UPDATE.

May God bless and reward you and your family abundantly.

[IST]

This is my last antidote for all who will need to appeal

Changes to the Immigration Rules following the Supreme Court decision in Alvi




In R (on the application of Alvi) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] UKSC 33 the Supreme Court held that the UK Border Agency cannot refuse immigration applications purely because of Policy Guidance that is not contained in the Immigration Rules.

The Immigration Rules set out the requirements that people have to meet in order to be granted a visa or further leave to remain. They have to be laid before Parliament before coming into force, which gives them legal authority. However, the UKBA has often issued Policy Guidance and other documents, particularly in relation to the Points Based System, that claims to introduce additional requirements that are not contained in the Immigration Rules. The Supreme Court has now said that the Policy Guidance does not have the status of law. This means that it would be wrong to refuse someone who did not meet a requirement in the Policy Guidance unless that requirement was also contained in the Immigration Rules.

For example, the applicant in Alvi had been refused leave to remain as a Tier 2 (General) Migrant because his job was not at the correct level in the UKBA's Codes of Practice. However, the Supreme Court said that he should not have been refused for this reason because the Codes of Practice were not in the Immigration Rules and therefore they were not part of the law.
This confirms the judgment of the Court of Appeal in Secretary of State for the Home Department v Pankina and others [2010] EWCA Civ 719.

In response to this, new changes have been made to the Immigration Rules. The UKBA have attempted to put all the requirements of the Policy Guidance and other documents such as the Codes of Practice into the Immigration Rules so that they are now able to refuse applications that do not comply with them. The changes mainly affect applications under the Points Based System and applications by family members.

This means that the Immigration Rules are now a lot more complicated, with several new appendices. It would therefore be very easy to miss some of the strict new requirements. You are advised to seek legal advice if you want to apply for a visa or for leave to remain in the UK.

Whether EEA or Domestic immigration it could be part of your argument

My last and last post

Thank you Snooky. You have never let us lack any useful information. You have always been quick to come to our aid at various times. You have always been quick to give us useful advice and information to aid us in this very difficult journey. You have saved us all lots and lots of money (Solicitors / Legal fees).

One last request Snooky, please do always log in and keep reading to know how we are faring. We will keep searching and reading up your previous posts and advice to us. I don’t know about others but I will not give up.

Thank you for this LAST UPDATE.

May God bless and reward you and your family abundantly.

Lulubaby

I am doing the same going through the previous notes Of Snooky.

Have you got any response yet from AR?

Good luck

[Sebel]

This is my last antidote for all who will need to appeal

Changes to the Immigration Rules following the Supreme Court decision in Alvi




In R (on the application of Alvi) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] UKSC 33 the Supreme Court held that the UK Border Agency cannot refuse immigration applications purely because of Policy Guidance that is not contained in the Immigration Rules.

The Immigration Rules set out the requirements that people have to meet in order to be granted a visa or further leave to remain. They have to be laid before Parliament before coming into force, which gives them legal authority. However, the UKBA has often issued Policy Guidance and other documents, particularly in relation to the Points Based System, that claims to introduce additional requirements that are not contained in the Immigration Rules. The Supreme Court has now said that the Policy Guidance does not have the status of law. This means that it would be wrong to refuse someone who did not meet a requirement in the Policy Guidance unless that requirement was also contained in the Immigration Rules.

For example, the applicant in Alvi had been refused leave to remain as a Tier 2 (General) Migrant because his job was not at the correct level in the UKBA's Codes of Practice. However, the Supreme Court said that he should not have been refused for this reason because the Codes of Practice were not in the Immigration Rules and therefore they were not part of the law.
This confirms the judgment of the Court of Appeal in Secretary of State for the Home Department v Pankina and others [2010] EWCA Civ 719.

In response to this, new changes have been made to the Immigration Rules. The UKBA have attempted to put all the requirements of the Policy Guidance and other documents such as the Codes of Practice into the Immigration Rules so that they are now able to refuse applications that do not comply with them. The changes mainly affect applications under the Points Based System and applications by family members.

This means that the Immigration Rules are now a lot more complicated, with several new appendices. It would therefore be very easy to miss some of the strict new requirements. You are advised to seek legal advice if you want to apply for a visa or for leave to remain in the UK.

Whether EEA or Domestic immigration it could be part of your argument

My last and last post

@snooky, how else do you want us to beg you. Snooky,onbehalf of our colleagues I am deeply, kneeling and begging on you not to leave us. Snooky, your reward will never come from us but from God . Please don't leave those who are already in your train at the tunnel without a driver. Snooky please cool down ,came back to us, we really appreciate your highly contributions. Is just a mere misunderstanding for we didn't mean any harm or any offence to you.

Some of us are slow learner,are uneducated and even don't know the laws. Even the law you just drop now, to be honest, I haven't digest it,is still on my throats and need water(you) to push it down my throats. Please @snooky don't leave us. Give us last chance.

Hope yourself and hapacan will really help us . Thank you in advance. Hear our cry snooky.
Thanks

[Fustrated2019]

@snooky please don’t leave us now . I have just received the refusal letter for the settlement scheme. The only reason stated was that I have leave to remain under another category. I have 28 days for administrative review. I have an application for derivative pending. It’s been 8 weeks since I applied. What do I do ?
Thank you

@Fustrated2019

As Snooky has mention on the previous post, I think you should rather concentrate on the EEA application and is better to do a new EU Settlement Scheme application then AR.
AR is waste of money and 97% of the refusal are Zambrano application.

Thank you. Should I wait for the outcome of the EEA application or put in a new Eu settlement application?

[LULUBABY]

Here goes the saying that “you don’t know the value of what you have until you lose it”.

We all have our ‘TOLERANCE LIMITS’

I hope and pray that: 1). We learn from what has happened and what we are experiencing now. 2). This topic / discussion doesn’t end up getting locked like the previous one.

Life has taught me that if you don’t package yourself properly “people will price you as if you are worth three for the price of one. It is worse than being priced as if you are worth a pound a bowl”.

As far as I am concerned my membership of this forum is a privilege and not a right.

This forum is FREE and very HELPFUL. May we not abuse it.

[LULUBABY]

This is my last antidote for all who will need to appeal

Changes to the Immigration Rules following the Supreme Court decision in Alvi




In R (on the application of Alvi) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] UKSC 33 the Supreme Court held that the UK Border Agency cannot refuse immigration applications purely because of Policy Guidance that is not contained in the Immigration Rules.

The Immigration Rules set out the requirements that people have to meet in order to be granted a visa or further leave to remain. They have to be laid before Parliament before coming into force, which gives them legal authority. However, the UKBA has often issued Policy Guidance and other documents, particularly in relation to the Points Based System, that claims to introduce additional requirements that are not contained in the Immigration Rules. The Supreme Court has now said that the Policy Guidance does not have the status of law. This means that it would be wrong to refuse someone who did not meet a requirement in the Policy Guidance unless that requirement was also contained in the Immigration Rules.

For example, the applicant in Alvi had been refused leave to remain as a Tier 2 (General) Migrant because his job was not at the correct level in the UKBA's Codes of Practice. However, the Supreme Court said that he should not have been refused for this reason because the Codes of Practice were not in the Immigration Rules and therefore they were not part of the law.
This confirms the judgment of the Court of Appeal in Secretary of State for the Home Department v Pankina and others [2010] EWCA Civ 719.

In response to this, new changes have been made to the Immigration Rules. The UKBA have attempted to put all the requirements of the Policy Guidance and other documents such as the Codes of Practice into the Immigration Rules so that they are now able to refuse applications that do not comply with them. The changes mainly affect applications under the Points Based System and applications by family members.

This means that the Immigration Rules are now a lot more complicated, with several new appendices. It would therefore be very easy to miss some of the strict new requirements. You are advised to seek legal advice if you want to apply for a visa or for leave to remain in the UK.

Whether EEA or Domestic immigration it could be part of your argument

My last and last post

Thank you Snooky. You have never let us lack any useful information. You have always been quick to come to our aid at various times. You have always been quick to give us useful advice and information to aid us in this very difficult journey. You have saved us all lots and lots of money (Solicitors / Legal fees).

One last request Snooky, please do always log in and keep reading to know how we are faring. We will keep searching and reading up your previous posts and advice to us. I don’t know about others but I will not give up.

Thank you for this LAST UPDATE.

May God bless and reward you and your family abundantly.

Lulubaby

I am doing the same going through the previous notes Of Snooky.

Have you got any response yet from AR?

Good luck

I haven’t received any response yet.

[Sebel]

Here goes the saying that “you don’t know the value of what you have until you lose it”.

We all have our ‘TOLERANCE LIMITS’

I hope and pray that: 1). We learn from what has happened and what we are experiencing now. 2). This topic / discussion doesn’t end up getting locked like the previous one.

Life has taught me that if you don’t package yourself properly “people will price you as if you are worth three for the price of one. It is worse than being priced as if you are worth a pound a bowl”.

As far as I am concerned my membership of this forum is a privilege and not a right.

This forum is FREE and very HELPFUL. May we not abuse it.

What are you really saying? Did you really read what happened? For me, I saw no offence onthe write up. Just that we should be tolerant too. I think if it was an insults, the admin inthis forum, would have locked it up.
Please don't say it as if there was really an offence in it no bad feelings, and don't get me wrong.

[IST]

@snooky please don’t leave us now . I have just received the refusal letter for the settlement scheme. The only reason stated was that I have leave to remain under another category. I have 28 days for administrative review. I have an application for derivative pending. It’s been 8 weeks since I applied. What do I do ?
Thank you

@Fustrated2019

As Snooky has mention on the previous post, I think you should rather concentrate on the EEA application and is better to do a new EU Settlement Scheme application then AR.
AR is waste of money and 97% of the refusal are Zambrano application.

Thank you. Should I wait for the outcome of the EEA application or put in a new Eu settlement application?

I think you can put a new EUSS application will not effect your EEA application, and with new EUSS application you’ll have a right of appeal .
Good luck

[hapacan]

@snooky please don’t leave us now . I have just received the refusal letter for the settlement scheme. The only reason stated was that I have leave to remain under another category. I have 28 days for administrative review. I have an application for derivative pending. It’s been 8 weeks since I applied. What do I do ?
Thank you

You should apply for administrative review. Your administrative review will almost certainly be refused. The Court will eventually want to see the AR refusal letter.

Because of the timing, you will need to file an appeal in court, assuming you are going to be refused.

If your settlement application was made after 1 February 2020, you will need to appeal to the First Tier Tribunal.

If you applied for settlement before 1 February 2020, you will need to challenge the refusal by way of a judicial review in the Upper Tribunal.

If you want to challenge the lawfulness of the Home Office guidance (that says they can refuse people who have leave to remain), you need to file in the High Court.

The key issue is that 4600 families have been refused settlement.

Zambrano carers who have been refused for similar reasons should get together and file a joint claim.

They should then ask for that claim to be expedited through the courts.

Too many people are filing on their own and getting lost in the system.

The problem with filing multiple applications is that you are running out of time. Also, the decision making is 100% in the hands of the Home Office. If you appeal to the Court, the Home Office will have to be transparent. They will tell the Court, "this challenge should be refused because the claimant will be successful if they make another application under the derivative scheme" or similar.

You want the Home Office to tell the court why you are wrong. Then you have proof. If you keep making applications to the Home Office, there is no independent oversight over the way they treat you.

If you don't have the money to pay the court fees, that is understandable. But if you can afford to pay the court fees or get legal assistance, you should escalate matters to the Court. You are essentially paying for the Home Office to put in writing their position on your case. In this way, they have to make their thought process available for everyone to see and judge.

[hapacan]

The good news for people who go through the Court

Your records can never be deleted. Remember the Windrush generation? Their records were apparently destroyed by the Home Office.

Many EU citizens are concerned about the settlement scheme because there is no physical documentation. Apparently, one woman was hassled when reentering the UK recently. They couldn't find her in the system and she had no physical proof that she is entitled to live in the UK.

If you go to Court, the documentation from your claim will be kept safe. No one can destroy a judge's ruling.

[LULUBABY]

Hi Snooky,

I am just seeing my refusal email today, it went to my junk mail.
the reason was that I am currently on ltr till next year and I would like to do AR but only got 3days.
Please can you guide me through AR, am not giving up without a fight!

Thanks

@Mecry sorry to hear and don’t give up. Continue the fight as HO is hell bent on frustrating Zambrano applicants for money gains. They now have a special team dealing with paper application and they are dishing out the refusals like Santa Claus. Can I ask when you made your application and where you asked to provide additional evidence?

Hello,
Are they just ‘dishing’ out refusal letters to applicants with visas already or just in general? Thanks

@Shay007 HO have refused Zambrano applications with expired LTR even with members on the forum. The number of people refused post-Brexit immigration status under the EU settlement scheme has surged by 700 per cent in a month. Data published by the Home Office shows that 1,400 applicants were refused settled status in June, compared with 200 in May. The HO have recently stopped breaking down the percentage of refusal stating it makes collating of the monthly stats quicker and they have refused a FOI request to provide stats on Zambrano applications.

The HO is hiding under the disguise that refusal decision is couched in terms that, the Appellants having been granted leave to remain under Appendix FM of the Immigration Rules previously, and there being no change in their circumstances, were required to apply under the said Rules/ Article 8 Human Rights and that “… a derivative right to reside is a right of last resort which only applies if a person has no other means to remain lawfully in the UK”. It’s interesting to note that there was nothing contained within the EEA Regulations which stipulates/requires that an applicant must exhaust all other means to remain lawfully in the United Kingdom under “domestic immigration law”.

Paper application caseworkers are relying on Home Office Policy Guidance “Free Movement; Derivative Rights of Residence, Version 5.0, 2nd May 2019, which appears to be based upon the Court of Appeal decision in Patel v SSHD [2017] EWCA Civ 2028, which in turn appears to have been recently considered by the Supreme Court in Patel v Secretary of State for the Home Department UKSC59(16 December 2019).

I have twice been asked to provide evidence but tbh with you, I have zero confidence in the system atm.

Onomskky, any news yet on your application?.

[hapacan]

Surely, there must be 10 Zambrano carers on this thread who were all refused because they have limited leave to remain?

If so, just get together, file a claim and share the costs. You will have a good chance of getting a pro bono solicitor and/or barrister.

The judge will look at each case independently and make a decision.

Good luck!

[IST]

This is my last antidote for all who will need to appeal

Changes to the Immigration Rules following the Supreme Court decision in Alvi




In R (on the application of Alvi) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] UKSC 33 the Supreme Court held that the UK Border Agency cannot refuse immigration applications purely because of Policy Guidance that is not contained in the Immigration Rules.

The Immigration Rules set out the requirements that people have to meet in order to be granted a visa or further leave to remain. They have to be laid before Parliament before coming into force, which gives them legal authority. However, the UKBA has often issued Policy Guidance and other documents, particularly in relation to the Points Based System, that claims to introduce additional requirements that are not contained in the Immigration Rules. The Supreme Court has now said that the Policy Guidance does not have the status of law. This means that it would be wrong to refuse someone who did not meet a requirement in the Policy Guidance unless that requirement was also contained in the Immigration Rules.

For example, the applicant in Alvi had been refused leave to remain as a Tier 2 (General) Migrant because his job was not at the correct level in the UKBA's Codes of Practice. However, the Supreme Court said that he should not have been refused for this reason because the Codes of Practice were not in the Immigration Rules and therefore they were not part of the law.
This confirms the judgment of the Court of Appeal in Secretary of State for the Home Department v Pankina and others [2010] EWCA Civ 719.

In response to this, new changes have been made to the Immigration Rules. The UKBA have attempted to put all the requirements of the Policy Guidance and other documents such as the Codes of Practice into the Immigration Rules so that they are now able to refuse applications that do not comply with them. The changes mainly affect applications under the Points Based System and applications by family members.

This means that the Immigration Rules are now a lot more complicated, with several new appendices. It would therefore be very easy to miss some of the strict new requirements. You are advised to seek legal advice if you want to apply for a visa or for leave to remain in the UK.

Whether EEA or Domestic immigration it could be part of your argument

My last and last post

Thank you Snooky. You have never let us lack any useful information. You have always been quick to come to our aid at various times. You have always been quick to give us useful advice and information to aid us in this very difficult journey. You have saved us all lots and lots of money (Solicitors / Legal fees).

One last request Snooky, please do always log in and keep reading to know how we are faring. We will keep searching and reading up your previous posts and advice to us. I don’t know about others but I will not give up.

Thank you for this LAST UPDATE.

May God bless and reward you and your family abundantly.

Lulubaby

I am doing the same going through the previous notes Of Snooky.

Have you got any response yet from AR?

Good luck

I haven’t received any response yet.

Fingers cross

[hapacan]

For people who applied for settlement before 1 February 2020:

You should not wait more than 3 months for a decision from the Home Office to an Administrative Review.

You have only three months from the date you receive your refusal letter to file for judicial review.

[hapacan]

For anyone considering applying to the Court, or who has a case pending in Court:

Apparently, the UK is giving ministers the power to instruct the Courts after 31 December 2020.

Therefore, the First Tier Tribunal and Upper Tribunal will have to decide cases based on what MPs think - even if the judge disagrees. In the past, the judge would determine whether you won or lost.

My understanding is that after December 2020, ministers will change the law so that the judges can rule against Zambrano carers much more easily.

Therefore, anyone who has a case pending should try to get it heard before 31 December 2020.

Judges of the Upper Tribunal are appointed by the Queen, on the recommendation of the Lord Chancellor. The current Lord Chancellor, as of January 2020, is xxxxxxxx, who is also Secretary of State for Justice. His voting record: He consistently voted for a reduction in spending on welfare benefits, almost always voted for a stricter asylum system, consistently voted for mass surveillance of people’s communications and activities, consistently voted for stronger enforcement of immigration rules. Most of the current judges of the Upper Tribunal were appointed in the period after 2010 with previous PMs.

[IST]

For anyone considering applying to the Court, or who has a case pending in Court:

Apparently, the UK is giving ministers the power to instruct the Courts after 31 December 2020.

Therefore, the First Tier Tribunal and Upper Tribunal will have to decide cases based on what MPs think - even if the judge disagrees. In the past, the judge would determine whether you won or lost.

My understanding is that after December 2020, ministers will change the law so that the judges can rule against Zambrano carers much more easily.

Therefore, anyone who has a case pending should try to get it heard before 31 December 2020.

Judges of the Upper Tribunal are appointed by the Queen, on the recommendation of the Lord Chancellor. The current Lord Chancellor, as of January 2020, is xxxxxxxx, who is also Secretary of State for Justice. His voting record: He consistently voted for a reduction in spending on welfare benefits, almost always voted for a stricter asylum system, consistently voted for mass surveillance of people’s communications and activities, consistently voted for stronger enforcement of immigration rules. Most of the current judges of the Upper Tribunal were appointed in the period after 2010 with previous PMs.
[/quot

@Hapacan

How can we try to get it heard before 31 December 2020?
I thought in our power is that we submit the appeal within the timeframe and after is up to the court, I might be wrong.

[hapacan]

@Hapacan How can we try to get it heard before 31 December 2020?
I thought in our power is that we submit the appeal within the timeframe and after is up to the court, I might be wrong.

Call the court you are dealing with. They will tell you how to expedite. You may be able to just send a letter via email asking for expedition.

Contact the First Tier Tribunal
Your appeal form must be received at the Administrative Support Centre no later than 14 Calendar days after you are sent the Refusal Letter by the Home Office. The Tribunal cannot allow a late appeal to proceed unless there are special circumstances. Who do I contact if there are any questions after I have sent my form to the Tribunal? By telephone HM Courts & Tribunals Service - Customer Service Centre on +44 (0) 300 123 1711 By email:Customer.Service@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk

Contact the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber)
If you applied for settlement before 1 February 2020, the T480 claim must be filed promptly and in any event no later than three months after the date of the decision, action, or omission to which the application relates. You can ask for your claim to be expedited on T480, otherwise any other applications may be made in a separate application (form T484).
Email FieldHouseCorrespondence@justice.gov.uk
Telephone +44 (0) 300 123 1711

Upper Tribunal
Phone: 020 7947 6655
Email:
administrativecourtoffice.listoffice@hmcts.x.gsi.gov.uk administrativecourtoffice.generaloffice@hmcts.x.gsi.gov.uk