Wanderer wrote:4444 wrote:sakura wrote:4444 wrote: after all Chikwamba is an article 8 case and you can only get indefinate leave to remain after 6years. some people wud not like to wait that long for ILR so they wud rather return home and get their 2year spouse visa quick and return to Britain so they can get their ILR in 3years . i cant see longer queues of incounty application coz HO is taking years to deal with article 8 cases in country anyway. probably they will now change their artitude of delaying cases because EB(Kosovo ) will work in applicant's favour. either way Chikwamba and EB (Kosovo) are a releif to immigrants hurray.........
Doesn't the Chikwamba case only grant discretionary leave? The claimant (Chikwamba) was not granted a spouse visa, right, meaning she has to wait five or so years for ILR (unless she ca switch from DL)?
yes she was granted discreationary leave to remain based on article 8. i dont know why frontier mole thinks zimbabweans can use Chikwamba for in country spouse visa pplication. Chikwamba was an article 8 case and thats it.
I thought it was mainly cos the appellant was from ZIM, a country on the HO 'no go' list and unable to return, hence allowed to stay. kind of Art 8 based on that fact - if the appellant was from say, Swaziland and all other circs being the same I've venture the appellant would have been returned, art 8 or not.
I'm will to be proved wrong on this tho.
sorry wanderer i will have to to prove you wrong on this one. here is a successful appeal based on Chikwamba . the appelant was not Zimbabwean
ASYLUM AND IMMIGRATION TRIBUNAL
Appeal number: IA/17708/2007
THE IMMIGRATION ACTS
Heard at: Newport Date of Hearing: 17 July 2008
Promulgated on: 05 August 2008
Before:
Mr C M G Ockelton, Deputy President of the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal
Senior Immigration Judge Grubb
Between
[ ]
Appellant
and
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent
Representation
For the Appellant: Mr A Barcello, instructed by Hoole & Co Solicitors
For the Respondent: Miss T Powell, Home Office Presenting Officer
DETERMINATION AND REASONS
The appellant, a citizen of Somalia, appealed to the Tribunal against the decision of the respondent on 10 October 2007 refusing to vary his leave in order to enable him to remain in the United Kingdom as a spouse. The proposal was that he be removed to Somalia. The Immigration Judge dismissed his appeal. He found that the appellant could meet the maintenance and accommodation requirements of para 284 of the Statement of Changes in Immigration Rules, HC 395, but that it would not be disproportionate to require him to return, as a citizen of Somalia, to Tanzania, and to obtain entry clearance there.
The appellant sought and obtained an order for reconsideration and thus the matter comes before us.
Before us, Miss Powell, noting the substantive findings made in the appellant’s favour made by the Immigration Judge and the decided cases including Chikwamba v SSHD [2008] UKHL 40, SM [2007] UKAIT 00010, and MS [2005] UKAIT 00129, said that she accepted that the appellant ought, on the facts as found by the Immigration Judge, to be granted entry clearance on application and that it would be disproportionate to require him to leave the United Kingdom in order to get it.
In the circumstances we find that the Immigration Judge materially erred in law in dismissing the appeal on human rights grounds. We substitute a determination allowing the appeal on human rights grounds.
C M G OCKELTON
DEPUTY PRESIDENT
Date:
.... you have made my day. I wil definitely look into it.