5 years for ILR rule implemented

[Globetrotter]

Good Evening Everyone,

I has indeed been quite a while since my last post, I wish that my return was under better circumstances.

Words can't describe my outrage at this implementation of change to people like ourselves WHO ARE ALREADY UNDER HSMP or equivalent. I don't understand what type of message the IND or WPUK are trying to send. As far as I can remember, on the documents I received after my extension, I would be eligible to apply for ILR after completion of my further 3 years under HSMP. Now my ILR and citizenship have potentially been pushed back yet another year.

I am going to write to my MP as I cannot in good faith vote for a party that would draft and implement such a clause (yes I am a Commonwealth Citizen). I'm sorry, but I shall shed no tears if this Labour Party goes the same way as the Liberal Party did in Canada and we see a Tory minority.

I'll be happy to support whatever fight is raised as this decision to apply the new rules RETROACTIVELY goes beyond words...

Going to need a stiff shot of Crown Royal now Ladies and Gents...

GT

[morerightsformigrants]

i just got this from another forum:

Here is part of a new letter from Tony McNulty MP,
Minister for Immigration, Asylum, Nationality

"Changes in the settlement rules

You have raised a number of points in your letter, which I will deal with in turn. I understand that you raised these points with Baroness Ashton at the time of the passage through the House of Lords of the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Bill, You will understand, therefore, if I reply in similar terms,

You state that the Chinese community was not consulted over the move to the five year qualification period and that the change is retrospective, The change in the minimum qualifying period for settlement was announced by the Government in February 2005 in its paper ontrolling Our Borders: the Five Year Strategy for Asylum and Immigration? We consulted extensively on many of the new elements Contained in that paper, principally the points- based system. in the period between February 2005 and now - the time of the actual rules change - the Government has not received any views on the change in the qualifying period for settlement.

This is possibly because the change does not affect anyone right to remain and work in the UK; anyone with valid leave to remain and who is continuing in employment will qualify to remain as before and should have no difficulty in completing the fifth year. If their employment were about to cease after four years they would not qualify for settlement anyway. It is therefore difficult to accept the argument that a particular group's immigration position is being worsened or made less secure by this measure.

You also mention the effect that this change will have on Chinese nationals who are in the United Kingdom for business purposes. I am sorry to hear that you feel that this will have a hard effect on those members of the Chinese community who are here for work-related reasons. I have explained above

that this change does not affect anyone's right to stay in the UK and to follow their chosen employment or way of earning a living. The UK welcomes those people still. We do not believe that anyone is being unfairly required to change things like remaining in employment or the number of visits to relatives as a result of this. We believe that this change is also of benefit to those arriving in the UK as entrepreneurs or to set up in business. A 5-year qualifying period leads to a pattern of leave being granted of 2-years followed by 3 years. This will be of benefit to those setting up in business or entering as investors, innovators and in a self-employed capacity where a 2-year inital leave period for establishing oneself is more realistic.

I am sorry that you feel that this is a surprise change and that it will affect the plans of the Chinese people working here. I do not share this view. Nobody s being asked to change the amount of work that they do or to change how they make their living. We would not grant settlement to someone who had no likelihood of continuing to earn their living as they had before.

You also mention the effect that this might have on things such as Chinese people applying for a mortgage or for admission to university. I have sympathy for anyone who has difficulty in getting a mortgage and I acknowledge that it can be a stressful endeavour, but the lending policy of banks and building societies is a matter for those individual organisations. It is not something that can be directed by Government. Similarly, although local authorities have a residence policy when it comes to education there is no substantial change in the way that university places are allocated as a result of our change. Nevertheless, we are ready to listen to you about any unintended hardships that are directly instigated by this change but for most areas of life, if not all, things will simply continue as usual.

You raise the issue of whether this will be seen as a welcome or unwelcome signal to potential newcomers. I have explained that we think that this change will be of benefit to those arriving in the UK to set up in business or carry out investment activity. The UK is one of the most welcoming environments internationally for those seeking to set up in self-employment.

Finally, you point out that EU Directives do not prevent a member state granting settlement after 4 years. This is true but the Government does not feel that there are any benefits to be had by maintaining a different provision for EU nationals in the UK than applies elsewhere in the EU. There is a great deal of sense in being in line with other partners where this is possible. Once this is accepted, then the UK is left with applying the same to all nationals, EU and non-EU, or having a system with one qualifying period for EU nationals and a separate one for non-EU nationals. This would be undesirable and it is not something that we want.

The UK is committed to being an attractive destination for hard working and skilled people. Indeed, we have acknowledged frequently the great benefits that migrant groups bring to this country. These changes do not alter that view, but we are equally committed to settlement as one of the later stages in a journey towards attachment and integration into the UK."


It seems that the minisiter is expressing some degree of willingness to LISTEN. Everyone affected must gather their cases this Sat at the public meeting. Christine Lee will be meeting the Home Office officials on the 10th with the evidence.

this is the public meeting time and place please be there.

Saturday 8th April – 2pm

Oriental City

Cultural Room, 2nd Floor

299 Edgware Road

NW9 0JJ

本文章由 joseph.DJ@558.net于 3 Apr 2006, 14:09 重新编辑过


--------------------
Spectrum Radio Cantonese Programme broadcast daily between 6-7pm on 558AM and online http://558.net

[morerightsformigrants]

i just got this from another forum:

Here is part of a new letter from Tony McNulty MP,
Minister for Immigration, Asylum, Nationality

"Changes in the settlement rules

You have raised a number of points in your letter, which I will deal with in turn. I understand that you raised these points with Baroness Ashton at the time of the passage through the House of Lords of the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Bill, You will understand, therefore, if I reply in similar terms,

You state that the Chinese community was not consulted over the move to the five year qualification period and that the change is retrospective, The change in the minimum qualifying period for settlement was announced by the Government in February 2005 in its paper ontrolling Our Borders: the Five Year Strategy for Asylum and Immigration? We consulted extensively on many of the new elements Contained in that paper, principally the points- based system. in the period between February 2005 and now - the time of the actual rules change - the Government has not received any views on the change in the qualifying period for settlement.

This is possibly because the change does not affect anyone right to remain and work in the UK; anyone with valid leave to remain and who is continuing in employment will qualify to remain as before and should have no difficulty in completing the fifth year. If their employment were about to cease after four years they would not qualify for settlement anyway. It is therefore difficult to accept the argument that a particular group's immigration position is being worsened or made less secure by this measure.

You also mention the effect that this change will have on Chinese nationals who are in the United Kingdom for business purposes. I am sorry to hear that you feel that this will have a hard effect on those members of the Chinese community who are here for work-related reasons. I have explained above

that this change does not affect anyone's right to stay in the UK and to follow their chosen employment or way of earning a living. The UK welcomes those people still. We do not believe that anyone is being unfairly required to change things like remaining in employment or the number of visits to relatives as a result of this. We believe that this change is also of benefit to those arriving in the UK as entrepreneurs or to set up in business. A 5-year qualifying period leads to a pattern of leave being granted of 2-years followed by 3 years. This will be of benefit to those setting up in business or entering as investors, innovators and in a self-employed capacity where a 2-year inital leave period for establishing oneself is more realistic.

I am sorry that you feel that this is a surprise change and that it will affect the plans of the Chinese people working here. I do not share this view. Nobody s being asked to change the amount of work that they do or to change how they make their living. We would not grant settlement to someone who had no likelihood of continuing to earn their living as they had before.

You also mention the effect that this might have on things such as Chinese people applying for a mortgage or for admission to university. I have sympathy for anyone who has difficulty in getting a mortgage and I acknowledge that it can be a stressful endeavour, but the lending policy of banks and building societies is a matter for those individual organisations. It is not something that can be directed by Government. Similarly, although local authorities have a residence policy when it comes to education there is no substantial change in the way that university places are allocated as a result of our change. Nevertheless, we are ready to listen to you about any unintended hardships that are directly instigated by this change but for most areas of life, if not all, things will simply continue as usual.

You raise the issue of whether this will be seen as a welcome or unwelcome signal to potential newcomers. I have explained that we think that this change will be of benefit to those arriving in the UK to set up in business or carry out investment activity. The UK is one of the most welcoming environments internationally for those seeking to set up in self-employment.

Finally, you point out that EU Directives do not prevent a member state granting settlement after 4 years. This is true but the Government does not feel that there are any benefits to be had by maintaining a different provision for EU nationals in the UK than applies elsewhere in the EU. There is a great deal of sense in being in line with other partners where this is possible. Once this is accepted, then the UK is left with applying the same to all nationals, EU and non-EU, or having a system with one qualifying period for EU nationals and a separate one for non-EU nationals. This would be undesirable and it is not something that we want.

The UK is committed to being an attractive destination for hard working and skilled people. Indeed, we have acknowledged frequently the great benefits that migrant groups bring to this country. These changes do not alter that view, but we are equally committed to settlement as one of the later stages in a journey towards attachment and integration into the UK."


It seems that the minisiter is expressing some degree of willingness to LISTEN. Everyone affected must gather their cases this Sat at the public meeting. Christine Lee will be meeting the Home Office officials on the 10th with the evidence.



Saturday 8th April – 2pm

Oriental City

Cultural Room, 2nd Floor

299 Edgware Road

NW9 0JJ

本文章由 joseph.DJ@558.net于 3 Apr 2006, 14:09 重新编辑过


--------------------
Spectrum Radio Cantonese Programme broadcast daily between 6-7pm on 558AM and online http://558.net

[abcd1]

I got following response from HO regarding my question when I shall be eligible for ILR

=============================
For all employment related categories of entry to the UK, the
qualifying
period for settlement ("Indefinite Leave to Remain") will change from
four
to five years on 3rd April 2006. For applications submitted on or after
3rd
April 2006, the applicant will need to have completed the five year
qualifying period.

There is no set amount of time you can remain out of the UK, however
absences will be taken into consideration by the caseworker and an
extension maybe granted rather than settlement, to make up the 5 years.
Any short absences due to paid leave or business trips are acceptable.

The Home Office must be satisfied that the applicant has spent a
continuous period of 5 years in approved employment.

In order to apply you will need the application form: SET(O) which is
available to request by calling: 0870 241 0645, or it can be downloaded
from: www.ind.homeoffice.gov.uk.

=============================

Now I request you to note the bold lines! Previously it was offically mentioned that 3 months gap is acceptable. I know many people has got ILR with 8-9 months gap as well. But the point is that, if you have say 7 months gap, they may grant you 7 months extension to make up 60 months. So, does it mean that if somebody has gaps, he need to be in UK physically 60 months before getting ILR?

Really confusing???

[timefactor]

This february one of my friend got ILR, though he had a contineous 5 months break due to medical reason. He mentioned this in SET (O), but case worker has given another form and advised not to mention this.

All in case worker's hands

I got following response from HO regarding my question when I shall be eligible for ILR

=============================
For all employment related categories of entry to the UK, the
qualifying
period for settlement ("Indefinite Leave to Remain") will change from
four
to five years on 3rd April 2006. For applications submitted on or after
3rd
April 2006, the applicant will need to have completed the five year
qualifying period.

There is no set amount of time you can remain out of the UK, however
absences will be taken into consideration by the caseworker and an
extension maybe granted rather than settlement, to make up the 5 years.
Any short absences due to paid leave or business trips are acceptable.

The Home Office must be satisfied that the applicant has spent a
continuous period of 5 years in approved employment.

In order to apply you will need the application form: SET(O) which is
available to request by calling: 0870 241 0645, or it can be downloaded
from: www.ind.homeoffice.gov.uk.

=============================

Now I request you to note the bold lines! Previously it was offically mentioned that 3 months gap is acceptable. I know many people has got ILR with 8-9 months gap as well. But the point is that, if you have say 7 months gap, they may grant you 7 months extension to make up 60 months. So, does it mean that if somebody has gaps, he need to be in UK physically 60 months before getting ILR?

Really confusing???

[supertiger]

I think it means you need to live in UK 59 months minimum now to apply for ILR if all other requirements met, with no long gaps. If there's a gap of 7 months for example they may give you an extension of 7-8 month instead of granting ILR... - if that;s the case, it actually can mean 5.5 or 6 years to many people...

[RobinLondon]

Hello,

I'm meeting with my MP Tessa Jowell on Friday to discuss this issue. As you can see from my previous postings on this matter, I have had a correspondence with her and with the Home Secretary Charles Clarke in which I was told that no changes affecting current visa holders would be made. I would like to show this letter from Mr McNulty to her to demonstrate that these promises have been contradicted.

Thanks,

Rob
UK Ancestry holder, Canadian citizen and frequent voter!

[rooi_ding]

Good Luck RobF

[tvt]

RobF,

I would also discuss with her the little discussed issue of extending the qualifying period for naturalisation.

Under British Nationality Act the qualifying period for naturalisation was 5 years (inc. one year at ILR status).

To change an Act of Parliament one needs to introduce a bill which needs to pass 3 readings and is subject to the scrutiny of both Commons and Lords.

The recent changes to the Immigration Rules have practically modified the qualifying period so from now you'll need to be resident in the UK for 6 years (inc. one year at ILR status) instead of 5.

With all due respect, it's completely unconstitutional to effect changes to major legislation by changing the Immigration Rules (which are not even considered to be secondary legislation as they are not published as a Statutory Instrument).

[RobinLondon]

I'll be sure to bring it up in the discussion. I wonder to what extent she will understand/be swayed by this constitutional argument.

[aj77]

Really good news and great progress from another forum. One of member has met solicitor today and please find the following information.

Time: 12:00~13:00 Tue, 28 Mar. 06
Attendee: Louis, G******y
Topic: Legal Advising about extending ILR qualifying years from 4 to 5

Minutes:
1. Mr G******y H*****g is the senior immigration caseworker of Barnet Law Centre. Before working for law centre, he was a charted barrister. Barnet Law Centre is part of community legal service sponsored by Barnet council.
2. By English law, any new policy/law must be reviewed and consulted by public. As far as the adviser knew, many immigration organizations expressed serious concerns about the changes but Home Office still decided to push the 4->5 regardless any critics. “The home office consulted us because they had to do so by law, but they never listen actually”. There is no way to make them change minds in fact.
3. Home Office has to sustain themselves by income from passport application fees and visa application fees, so they intend to enlarge qualifying period to make more money from that. Many unexposed reasons/trade-offs make immigrants harder.
4. Immigration law is particularly unfair part in whole English law, because only affected persons are immigrants…
5. The deadline of suing is within 3 months after refused decision made from Home Office.
6. If any person wins in Court, this case can be directly applied to others with similar situation. (One wins, all wins)
7. Non-retrospective is a major principle in English law. If the barrister can prove the change is retrospective, he/she will definitely win in the court. But Home Office can argue that the application for ILR is a different application for work permit/HSMP, so the 4 to 5 years change to current WP/HSMP holders is not retrospective at all. Only judge can make the final decision.
8. Louis got an immigrant-specific solicitor’s phone number and would try to have a talk with them t

Non-retrospective is a major principle in English law

I wouldl be thankful if anybody could reply these questions in detail

1.Can anybody define word" retrospective" as most of us need clear understanding of this word?

2.What was the main idea of launching the programme of HSMP?Were they looking some workers for short term?

3.Who was responsible for making that policy?

4.Is ILR part of HSMP programme or ILR is different issue altogether?

5.if ILR was not the part of HSMP, on whom behalf HSMP Team invited to apply for ILR after 4 years to HSMP applicants and why it has been included in HSMP Guidance policy

6.Considering the email replies sent to HSMP applicants by HSMP Team not by any individual,does it have any legal value?
or they have full descretion to say anything or interpret their wordings by their own way or they are bound to reply responsibly?

7.these changes are retrospective or not?

I am asking all this related to HSMP because it looks like this can become stronger case and can make the ways for others too.Surely they did some other violationts too but we should be clear by ourselves first that these changes are retrospective or not?

[timefactor]

I've received a letter from Home office, forwarded by MP. Covering letter from HO says, they need further information of myself to locate the correct file and on receipt of this, they will answer to MP's letter.

Anything wrong in giving my home office reference number?

[supertiger]

I think should be ok as we are all genuinely seeking some support nothing wrong with that. If you have any concerns can just reply to HO and copy to MP, show the "copy to" on the letter send to HO. But they normally reply generally, did you raise any points to make them dig into yr file?

[timefactor]

No points raisen, than we discussed here. Also my file is clean.

I think should be ok as we are all genuinely seeking some support nothing wrong with that. If you have any concerns can just reply to HO and copy to MP, show the "copy to" on the letter send to HO. But they normally reply generally, did you raise any points to make them dig into yr file?

[supertiger]

Does it indicate HO start to consider some level of compromise? as their previous reply only says " all 4s are now substitutes with 5s" or etc. How long did you get the reply after you first wrote to MP? I haven;t got reply from MP yet.

[timefactor]

First reply in 7 days time.

Does it indicate HO start to consider some level of compromise? as their previous reply only says " all 4s are now substitutes with 5s" or etc. How long did you get the reply after you first wrote to MP? I haven;t got reply from MP yet.

[RobinLondon]

TVT, I've checked out the text English Public Law from the Oxford series and have found the section on substantive legitimate expectations (16.32-16.89) to be most useful. I think this would be the main thrust of any argument I would have.

But do you think it would pass the Wednesbury rule?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wednesbury ... onableness

[a11]

I'm not a lawer, but it seems that we are arguing against the law not on the grounds of 'unreasonableness', but on the grounds of it violating other laws. Which seems (to me, a diletant) to be quite a different thing.

[morerightsformigrants]

guys if you can't make it to the meeting please fill this up and post it to them. remenber this is for everyone affected by this law not only chinese.


To Whom It May Concern,

I hereby declare my objection towards the new Immigration Rules on Indefinite Leave to Remain (ILR) which changes the length of time required to obtain ILR for UK work permit holders from 4 years to 5 years. I am opposed to the retrospective impact of the 5 year rule on permit holders who had applied before 3rd April 2006.
我特此聲明: 本人反對新移民法案中勞工紙持有人四年改五年後才可申請長期居留的修改。本人反對新法例追溯影響到2006年4月3日前申請勞工紙的人士。

I believe the rule has a negative impact on the existing employment related category visa
holders since we were under the impression that I was eligible to apply for indefinite leave to remain after 4 years. I have planned my life and my family’s lives around this and as a result we are anxious about the changes and its effects on us.
本人相信此條例對現時所有勞工居留的有關人士有負面的影響，因為我們覺得四年後有資格申請長期居留。我和我的家人已經計劃好在英國未來的生活，因此我們對此修改及其對我和我家人的影響感到焦慮。

Signature: ___________________________ Date: __________
簽名: 日期:

Name: ______________________________
姓名:

Address: __________________________________________________
地址:
__________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________


Comments:_______________________________________________________________
意見:
________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________
If you support the above objection, please kindly sign above and return to:
如閣下支持以上的反對書, 請簽名并填妥有關資料, 寄回李貞駒律師行的以下地址:

Christine Lee & Co (Solicitors) Ltd
Unit 3
Colindale Business Centre
126 Colindale Avenue
London
NW9 5HD

Thank you very much for your support.
非常感謝閣下的支持。

[/img]

[supertiger]

Allrightsforimmigrants, I have raised some suggestion to joseph.DJ@558.net who initially posted the form, please check with him any amendments needed. cheers.


**********************
joseph.DJ@558.net I don't understand why you constantly differenciate Chinese national from other nationalities, I have explained for you in another discussion board that Ms Chrisine Lee may have her reason or the letter from the minister also answering some of her other enquiries regards the chinese community... the bi-lingua form is even confusing: all employment visa holders have or at least should have competent English level so the use of Chinese is not convincing and will certainly cause other nationalities' discrimination criticism. So I suspect whether it is the solicitor's design or yourself's... secondly I doubt the purpose of the declaration as most of us have more or less left our details in various places, so if Ms lee only need some quantitative nos the online petition is still going on this is a very good resource to use, if she needs anything for legal use, the data protection action should be specified and she should provide a clear procedure before we declare anything to let people know the use of these information... thanks.

[Globetrotter]

>>I believe the rule has a negative impact on the existing employment related category visa holders since we were under the impression that I was eligible to apply for indefinite leave to remain after 4 years. I have planned my life and my family’s lives around this and as a result we are anxious about the changes and its effects on us. <<

It should read either

I believe the rule has a negative impact on the existing employment related category visa holders since I was under the impression that I was eligible to apply for indefinite leave to remain after 4 years. I have planned my life and my family’s lives around this and as a result we are anxious about the changes and its effects on us.


or

I believe the rule has a negative impact on the existing employment related category visa holders since we were under the impression that we were eligible to apply for indefinite leave to remain after 4 years. I have planned my life and my family’s lives around this and as a result we are anxious about the changes and its effects on us.

Take your pick, the original does not sound quite right.

Cheers,

GT

[morerightsformigrants]

>>I believe the rule has a negative impact on the existing employment related category visa holders since we were under the impression that I was eligible to apply for indefinite leave to remain after 4 years. I have planned my life and my family’s lives around this and as a result we are anxious about the changes and its effects on us. <<

It should read either

I believe the rule has a negative impact on the existing employment related category visa holders since I was under the impression that I was eligible to apply for indefinite leave to remain after 4 years. I have planned my life and my family’s lives around this and as a result we are anxious about the changes and its effects on us.


or

I believe the rule has a negative impact on the existing employment related category visa holders since we were under the impression that we were eligible to apply for indefinite leave to remain after 4 years. I have planned my life and my family’s lives around this and as a result we are anxious about the changes and its effects on us.

Take your pick, the original does not sound quite right.

Cheers,

GT

you are right, mate.

[supertiger]

I wrote to my MP through http://www.writetothem.com 2 weeks ago but haven;t got reply while many got reply within 1 week... has anyone used that link? or shall I send another through other links? I thought they are the same but maybe not quite...

[sowhat]

I wrote to my MP through http://www.writetothem.com 2 weeks ago but haven;t got reply while many got reply within 1 week... has anyone used that link? or shall I send another through other links? I thought they are the same but maybe not quite...

I used the same link and got my reply in less than a week I guess. They will send you email in two weeks after you wrote a letter asking if your MP replied to you.

[timefactor]

No, i've used another one mentioned here

I wrote to my MP through http://www.writetothem.com 2 weeks ago but haven;t got reply while many got reply within 1 week... has anyone used that link? or shall I send another through other links? I thought they are the same but maybe not quite...