- FAQ
- Login
- Register
- Call Workpermit.com for a paid service +44 (0)344-991-9222
ESC
Welcome to immigrationboards.com!
Moderators: Casa, Amber, archigabe, batleykhan, ca.funke, ChetanOjha, EUsmileWEallsmile, JAJ, John, Obie, push, geriatrix, vinny, CR001, zimba, meself2, Administrator
First of all the declaration was "I intend to make UK my main home", secondly even after changing the rules the Government could conveniently argue that is is not stopping HSMP holders from making UK their main home - they are happy for them to do so but instead of 5 years it will take 8 years!!timesofindia wrote:I have been reading this thread and would like to put my view:
1. everyone who joined HSMP after Nov'2006 did sign saying "they understand and accept that rules could change in future" and need not remain same for extensions etc..
2. BUT they also signed saying "I will make the UK as my main home",.
This has been a very important line with regard to HSMP Forum case where Lawywers argued based on Article 8 of ECHR and in other cases judge simply referred to these judgements..
Judge's argument was that they were asked to make the UK as main home and migrants did so .. so it will be unfair to changes the rules at a future to make it difficult for them..
http://www.hsmpforumltd.com/aitappeals.html
3. Probably this is the reason the "main home" clause was removed from Tier 1 forms..
Considering the above I would assume that Government would put transitional arrangements for people who first came in thru HSMP even though they HAD TO switch to tier 1 and will be on TIER 1 at the time of ILR.
Hi,timesofindia wrote:I have been reading this thread and would like to put my view:
1. everyone who joined HSMP after Nov'2006 did sign saying "they understand and accept that rules could change in future" and need not remain same for extensions etc..
2. BUT they also signed saying "I will make the UK as my main home",.
thanks, good point, but... old WP's didn't sign anything about understanding and agreeing that rules can change in the future, unlike newer WP/Tier 2 applicants. Didn't they add this question as a result of HSMP Judical review if I understand correctly? If yes, it means that a similar case could be brough for old WP's as well.sushdmehta wrote:Why do you think there should be .. such an exception ..
Completely agree. Please see the article here:sushdmehta wrote:... understand the basis of the HSMP legal challenge (legitimate expectation) ...
Similarly, many of old WP's are no longer able to qualify under changed rules.The HSMP sought to attract people who were likely to command high earnings to the UK. Under its terms, applicants had among other things, to show that they intended to make the UK their main home, and accordingly many successful applicants had brought their families with them and had put down roots in the UK.
In November of 2006, the Secretary of State brought in changes to the Immigration Rules whereby the qualifying criteria for entry under the HSMP were made far more demanding.
Controversially, the changes also affected people who were already in the UK under the HSMP. They had to meet these stringent new tests in order to qualify for extensions of their stay in the UK. Prior to the changes applicants had needed only to show that they had remained "economically active in the UK" to succeed in applying for indefinite leave to remain after having spent the required number of years in the UK under the scheme.
Many of these people were simply unable to qualify under the changed rules.
Over a quarter (29%) of those who entered the UK in the work leading to citizenship) route in 2004 were granted settlement after five years.
The majority (60%) of migrants granted work (leading to citizenship) visas were no longer in the immigration system after five years.
"But I was also struck by some of the individual applications I saw under the skilled worker category; people running take-away restaurants and production-line workers on salaries in the low £20,000s. These are not the sort of jobs people talk about when we think of bringing in skilled immigrants who have talents not available among our own workforce among our own unemployed. And there is some evidence that not all those coming in under the highly skilled route find highly skilled work in this country. Certainly we cannot assume that everyone coming here to work has skills that the UK workforce cannot offer."MJNair wrote:http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/media-cent ... mmigration
Found this in the Home Office website
Agree with you, having seen so many media info last couple of days on immigration, wondering is this a sham to hide the soon coming tight governments spending review or may be interest rate hike etc etcExisting PBS will prevent these people from getting extensions anyway. So what's the point of targeting them with caps?
Number of interesting things Prof was talking aboutProfessor Metcalf: You can operate on the outflow of work to get the numbers down as well as operating on the inflow. The difficulty with operating on the outflow in the short term is that probably many of the people who are here have what sometimes they refer to as legitimate expectations of being able, for example, to extend or to settle - because the way that you work on the outflow is influencing the duration of the stay. That would be things like weakening the link between work and settlement; possibly on the post-study work route making that more selective, for example. Frankly, I don’t think that it’s likely that these policies would kick in, even if you were to introduce them now, until 2013-14. So I think in the initial period - this year, for our recommendations the following year - we’re going to have to be making recommendations dealing with the inflow of work but while simultaneously addressing a number of considerations that the Government may want to think about to address the problem in the longer term.