- 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
xyz123, it's so easy to say this after getting your ILR last year, isn't it?xyz123 wrote:
You are saying as if it's our right to just go to any other country, live there for X no of years and get citizenship. Our commitments alone doesn't matter at all. The country that we go to has right to decide whether we can stay here permanently or not.
Exactly my point and same is confirmed in the JR policy document. So fingers crossed that should be the case!salina02 wrote:HSMP INDEFINITE LEAVE TO REMAIN (ILR) JUDICIAL REVIEW: POLICY DOCUMENT
Introduction
1.
Prior to 3 April 2006 the continuous residence requirement for ILR under the Highly Skilled Migrant Programme (HSMP) was that migrants should show that they had spent four years continuous residence in the United Kingdom. The four year qualifying period was increased to five years on 3 April 2006.
2.
The HSMP Forum Ltd brought a Judicial Review on the grounds that those who entered onto the HSMP before the qualifying period for Indefinite Leave to Remain (ILR) was increased from four to five years should be eligible to apply for settlement (ILR) after four years on the scheme. The judge found in favour of the HSMP Forum on this point. A copy of the judgment can be found at the following web address: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2009/711.html
3.
The purpose of this policy is to give effect to the High Court’s judgment and enable affected migrants to apply after four years continuous residence in the United Kingdom in a qualifying category. Under this policy, migrant’s will not have to demonstrate a knowledge of language and life in the United Kingdom in order to obtain ILR.
4.
The High Court’s decision also covered migrant’s who entered the scheme after the Rules change of 3 April 2006 but before the scheme was suspended on 7 November 2006. As such the policy also provides for those who entered the scheme prior to 7 November 2006 to be considered under the ILR rules that were in place at that time. Whilst this group will therefore have to complete five years continuous residence before being eligible for ILR they will not be subject to a knowledge of language and life in the United Kingdom test.
Guys Dont you think the above bold lines help us in anyway.
i dont think it helps. You forget that HSMP applicants were given in writing that they are eligible for ILR after 4 years and the biggest reason the home office lost this was this particular commitment they made to HSMP applicants.salina02 wrote:HSMP INDEFINITE LEAVE TO REMAIN (ILR) JUDICIAL REVIEW: POLICY DOCUMENT
Introduction
1.
Prior to 3 April 2006 the continuous residence requirement for ILR under the Highly Skilled Migrant Programme (HSMP) was that migrants should show that they had spent four years continuous residence in the United Kingdom. The four year qualifying period was increased to five years on 3 April 2006.
2.
The HSMP Forum Ltd brought a Judicial Review on the grounds that those who entered onto the HSMP before the qualifying period for Indefinite Leave to Remain (ILR) was increased from four to five years should be eligible to apply for settlement (ILR) after four years on the scheme. The judge found in favour of the HSMP Forum on this point. A copy of the judgment can be found at the following web address: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2009/711.html
3.
The purpose of this policy is to give effect to the High Court’s judgment and enable affected migrants to apply after four years continuous residence in the United Kingdom in a qualifying category. Under this policy, migrant’s will not have to demonstrate a knowledge of language and life in the United Kingdom in order to obtain ILR.
4.
The High Court’s decision also covered migrant’s who entered the scheme after the Rules change of 3 April 2006 but before the scheme was suspended on 7 November 2006. As such the policy also provides for those who entered the scheme prior to 7 November 2006 to be considered under the ILR rules that were in place at that time. Whilst this group will therefore have to complete five years continuous residence before being eligible for ILR they will not be subject to a knowledge of language and life in the United Kingdom test.
Guys Dont you think the above bold lines help us in anyway.
wp holders were also given in writing that they can apply after 4 years and then the rules were changed retrospectively. hsmp holders had an addditional promise, that future rule changes would not effect them thats why they won. wp holder didnt have that promise.xyz123 wrote:i dont think it helps. You forget that HSMP applicants were given in writing that they are eligible for ILR after 4 years and the biggest reason the home office lost this was this particular commitment they made to HSMP applicants.salina02 wrote:HSMP INDEFINITE LEAVE TO REMAIN (ILR) JUDICIAL REVIEW: POLICY DOCUMENT
Introduction
1.
Prior to 3 April 2006 the continuous residence requirement for ILR under the Highly Skilled Migrant Programme (HSMP) was that migrants should show that they had spent four years continuous residence in the United Kingdom. The four year qualifying period was increased to five years on 3 April 2006.
2.
The HSMP Forum Ltd brought a Judicial Review on the grounds that those who entered onto the HSMP before the qualifying period for Indefinite Leave to Remain (ILR) was increased from four to five years should be eligible to apply for settlement (ILR) after four years on the scheme. The judge found in favour of the HSMP Forum on this point. A copy of the judgment can be found at the following web address: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2009/711.html
3.
The purpose of this policy is to give effect to the High Court’s judgment and enable affected migrants to apply after four years continuous residence in the United Kingdom in a qualifying category. Under this policy, migrant’s will not have to demonstrate a knowledge of language and life in the United Kingdom in order to obtain ILR.
4.
The High Court’s decision also covered migrant’s who entered the scheme after the Rules change of 3 April 2006 but before the scheme was suspended on 7 November 2006. As such the policy also provides for those who entered the scheme prior to 7 November 2006 to be considered under the ILR rules that were in place at that time. Whilst this group will therefore have to complete five years continuous residence before being eligible for ILR they will not be subject to a knowledge of language and life in the United Kingdom test.
Guys Dont you think the above bold lines help us in anyway.
For Tier 1/ Tier 2/ WP holder no such commitments was made.
Why do you think that only HSMP holder were excempt from rule change from 4 to 5 years. Why did similar case by WP holders was ruled in favor of home office?
So can the HSMP applicants take these lines (As such the policy also provides for those who entered the scheme prior to 7 November 2006 to be considered under the ILR rules that were in place at that time) as a promise that the future rules changes (not just number of years but also the salary,criminal, etc...)would not affect their ILR.eager2learn wrote:wp holders were also given in writing that they can apply after 4 years and then the rules were changed retrospectively. hsmp holders had an addditional promise, that future rule changes would not effect them thats why they won. wp holder didnt have that promise.xyz123 wrote:i dont think it helps. You forget that HSMP applicants were given in writing that they are eligible for ILR after 4 years and the biggest reason the home office lost this was this particular commitment they made to HSMP applicants.salina02 wrote:HSMP INDEFINITE LEAVE TO REMAIN (ILR) JUDICIAL REVIEW: POLICY DOCUMENT
Introduction
1.
Prior to 3 April 2006 the continuous residence requirement for ILR under the Highly Skilled Migrant Programme (HSMP) was that migrants should show that they had spent four years continuous residence in the United Kingdom. The four year qualifying period was increased to five years on 3 April 2006.
2.
The HSMP Forum Ltd brought a Judicial Review on the grounds that those who entered onto the HSMP before the qualifying period for Indefinite Leave to Remain (ILR) was increased from four to five years should be eligible to apply for settlement (ILR) after four years on the scheme. The judge found in favour of the HSMP Forum on this point. A copy of the judgment can be found at the following web address: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2009/711.html
3.
The purpose of this policy is to give effect to the High Court’s judgment and enable affected migrants to apply after four years continuous residence in the United Kingdom in a qualifying category. Under this policy, migrant’s will not have to demonstrate a knowledge of language and life in the United Kingdom in order to obtain ILR.
4.
The High Court’s decision also covered migrant’s who entered the scheme after the Rules change of 3 April 2006 but before the scheme was suspended on 7 November 2006. As such the policy also provides for those who entered the scheme prior to 7 November 2006 to be considered under the ILR rules that were in place at that time. Whilst this group will therefore have to complete five years continuous residence before being eligible for ILR they will not be subject to a knowledge of language and life in the United Kingdom test.
Guys Dont you think the above bold lines help us in anyway.
For Tier 1/ Tier 2/ WP holder no such commitments was made.
Why do you think that only HSMP holder were excempt from rule change from 4 to 5 years. Why did similar case by WP holders was ruled in favor of home office?
I think you got the point - It clearly mentioned that ILR rules that were in place at that time and at that time there were no such requirements.salina02 wrote:So can the HSMP applicants take these lines (As such the policy also provides for those who entered the scheme prior to 7 November 2006 to be considered under the ILR rules that were in place at that time) as a promise that the future rules changes (not just number of years but also the salary,criminal, etc...)would not affect their ILR.eager2learn wrote:wp holders were also given in writing that they can apply after 4 years and then the rules were changed retrospectively. hsmp holders had an addditional promise, that future rule changes would not effect them thats why they won. wp holder didnt have that promise.xyz123 wrote:i dont think it helps. You forget that HSMP applicants were given in writing that they are eligible for ILR after 4 years and the biggest reason the home office lost this was this particular commitment they made to HSMP applicants.salina02 wrote:HSMP INDEFINITE LEAVE TO REMAIN (ILR) JUDICIAL REVIEW: POLICY DOCUMENT
Introduction
1.
Prior to 3 April 2006 the continuous residence requirement for ILR under the Highly Skilled Migrant Programme (HSMP) was that migrants should show that they had spent four years continuous residence in the United Kingdom. The four year qualifying period was increased to five years on 3 April 2006.
2.
The HSMP Forum Ltd brought a Judicial Review on the grounds that those who entered onto the HSMP before the qualifying period for Indefinite Leave to Remain (ILR) was increased from four to five years should be eligible to apply for settlement (ILR) after four years on the scheme. The judge found in favour of the HSMP Forum on this point. A copy of the judgment can be found at the following web address: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2009/711.html
3.
The purpose of this policy is to give effect to the High Court’s judgment and enable affected migrants to apply after four years continuous residence in the United Kingdom in a qualifying category. Under this policy, migrant’s will not have to demonstrate a knowledge of language and life in the United Kingdom in order to obtain ILR.
4.
The High Court’s decision also covered migrant’s who entered the scheme after the Rules change of 3 April 2006 but before the scheme was suspended on 7 November 2006. As such the policy also provides for those who entered the scheme prior to 7 November 2006 to be considered under the ILR rules that were in place at that time. Whilst this group will therefore have to complete five years continuous residence before being eligible for ILR they will not be subject to a knowledge of language and life in the United Kingdom test.
Guys Dont you think the above bold lines help us in anyway.
For Tier 1/ Tier 2/ WP holder no such commitments was made.
Why do you think that only HSMP holder were excempt from rule change from 4 to 5 years. Why did similar case by WP holders was ruled in favor of home office?
Just want to know did the Hone Office mentioned anything like (ILR rules that were in place at that time) for the HSMP apllicants after NOV 2006.surajban wrote:I think you got the point - It clearly mentioned that ILR rules that were in place at that time and at that time there were no such requirements.salina02 wrote:So can the HSMP applicants take these lines (As such the policy also provides for those who entered the scheme prior to 7 November 2006 to be considered under the ILR rules that were in place at that time) as a promise that the future rules changes (not just number of years but also the salary,criminal, etc...)would not affect their ILR.eager2learn wrote:wp holders were also given in writing that they can apply after 4 years and then the rules were changed retrospectively. hsmp holders had an addditional promise, that future rule changes would not effect them thats why they won. wp holder didnt have that promise.xyz123 wrote:
i dont think it helps. You forget that HSMP applicants were given in writing that they are eligible for ILR after 4 years and the biggest reason the home office lost this was this particular commitment they made to HSMP applicants.
For Tier 1/ Tier 2/ WP holder no such commitments was made.
Why do you think that only HSMP holder were excempt from rule change from 4 to 5 years. Why did similar case by WP holders was ruled in favor of home office?