ESC

Click the "allow" button if you want to receive important news and updates from immigrationboards.com


Immigrationboards.com: Immigration, work visa and work permit discussion board

Welcome to immigrationboards.com!

Login Register Do not show

5 years for ILR rule implemented

General UK immigration & work permits; don't post job search or family related topics!

Please use this section of the board if there is no specific section for your query.

Moderators: Casa, Amber, archigabe, batleykhan, ca.funke, ChetanOjha, EUsmileWEallsmile, JAJ, John, Obie, push, geriatrix, vinny, CR001, zimba, meself2, Administrator

Locked
kangkang
Newly Registered
Posts: 5
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2006 11:15 am

letter to Byrne, Mr. Liam

Post by kangkang » Sat Jun 24, 2006 11:50 am

I think we should send a letter to Mr. Liam Byrne against the transitional arrangements. There are lots of things we can argue,


Such arrangements are in place to ensure that those who apply immediately before the changes can be dealt with under the old rules even if the decision is made after 3 April.

It seems what they cared is when you sent your application out, not when you arrived here.

There are also transitional arrangements for those who apply for settlement immediately after 3 April having only completed four years in the UK. Those applicants will have the opportunity to vary their application from a settlement application to a one-year leave-to-remain application without losing their original application fee.

But most of applicants have lost their application fee.

nonothing wrote:Second Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/p ... 620s01.htm

sowhat
Member
Posts: 100
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 4:57 pm

Re: letter to Byrne, Mr. Liam

Post by sowhat » Sat Jun 24, 2006 12:49 pm

kangkang wrote:I think we should send a letter to Mr. Liam Byrne against the transitional arrangements. There are lots of things we can argue,

But most of applicants have lost their application fee.
it does not seem true. I guess only those lost their fees who applied for ILR without completing 5 years, but whose visas did not require extensions.

kangkang
Newly Registered
Posts: 5
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2006 11:15 am

Re: letter to Byrne, Mr. Liam

Post by kangkang » Sat Jun 24, 2006 1:48 pm

Yes, they may not need to extent their visas now, but that does not mean their current visas will fully cover the 5 years period.
sowhat wrote:
kangkang wrote:I think we should send a letter to Mr. Liam Byrne against the transitional arrangements. There are lots of things we can argue,

But most of applicants have lost their application fee.
it does not seem true. I guess only those lost their fees who applied for ILR without completing 5 years, but whose visas did not require extensions.

a11
Member
Posts: 123
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:13 pm
Location: London

Post by a11 » Sun Jun 25, 2006 1:40 pm

May I just remind everyone that along with letters to the Minister, it is of vital importance to write to your MPs and try as hard as possible to lobby them into defending your case whenever and wherever they have a chance to do so. This is especially true if your local MP is Labour. Our success in this campaign greatly depends on the number of Labour MPs supporting us.

easylife4me
Junior Member
Posts: 79
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2006 10:09 am
Contact:

Post by easylife4me » Mon Jun 26, 2006 9:37 am

The Times June 26, 2006


Migrants made to wait extra year
By David Charter

Ministers are accused of hostility towards 200,000 skilled workers who want to settle in Britain


THE Home Office was accused of creating chaos in the lives of up to 200,000 skilled workers and their families yesterday through a “vindictive” change in immigration law.

Legal migrants, including doctors, dentists, engineers and teachers, have been told that they must wait a year longer before they can settle permanently in Britain. Campaigners say that their lives have been disrupted by a Home Office decision to make retrospective the increase from four to five years that legal migrants must work in Britain before they can settle permanently.



Those affected must reapply for work permits and have complained that any plans that they might have had to apply for mortgages and university places have been disrupted. Members of the London Chinese community staged a protest at the changes this month and 33 MPs have signed a Commons motion expressing anger at the policy.

Christine Lee, a solicitor, accused ministers of playing with people’s lives by changing the rules. “What about the people who believed they would be able to stay in Britain after four years?” she said. “They have paid their taxes, made sure they did not get into trouble and thought they would be able to integrate into the community.”

She added: “These are people who have contributed to British society and who wanted to continue to contribute. These rules should not apply retrospectively.”

Ministers were criticised when they pushed the rule change through a Commons committee. Damian Green, the Shadow Immigration Minister, called the change unfair and vindictive.

He said that those who wanted to take out a mortgage or send their children to British universities without paying international fees would be hit, even though they paid taxes and intended to settle in Britain.

Mr Green said: “Those who have been working here and paying taxes for a long time and who intend to stay here, people who are already contributing to the community and wish to contribute more, regard the change not only as a blow but as a hostile act by Britain.

“There will be bewilderment at the fact that the Government have chosen to make life more difficult for precisely the highly skilled migrants who they say they want to attract here in ever-increasing numbers.”

Nick Clegg, the Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman, said that the introduction of the new time limit was brutal.

“I have come across a large number of families who, if the measure proceeds, will need to change their plans, leave their work or studies, sell their homes and take their children out of school or university because they have received no warning that the rules have changed, or that the understanding on which they entered this country has summarily changed,” he said.

“The measure seems to fly in the face of the basic fairness, transparency and predictability that anybody who is resident and working in this country expects and deserves.”

The Home Office said that nobody would be forced to leave Britain because of the changes.

Liam Byrne, the Immigration Minister, said: “Anyone with valid leave to remain who is continuing in employment or earning their living or investing in the UK still qualifies to remain here and should have no difficulty completing their fifth year.”

He added: “The measure prevents no one from carrying on what they were doing in the UK. They are simply being asked to carry on for one more year.”
THANKS

chibuya
Newbie
Posts: 34
Joined: Thu May 25, 2006 7:31 pm

Post by chibuya » Mon Jun 26, 2006 10:25 am

That is encouraging – means that there are more and more publicities

In related to that I like to put some issues to discuss

1 Publicity – EDMs hardly change anything and by now there is only some 60 MPs involved. There is no deny that the progress and the affords made by now. However the reality is the government hardly overturn their policy by so little amount of pleas.

The general public in the UK does not know what is the change and what this means to us. They may more concern about their holiday destinations this year or world cup.

So anybody who is working in PR industry- in an event like this is that more effective to rise pubic awareness in order to win the campaign? Should we consider this direction to accompany with the lobbying to MPs activity?

2 Legal actions- should be consult the law firms about how to get this case into court- we need to find out if there is a ground or not such a ground to take this case to court. As far as I know some lawyers think the HO could be taking to court on the ground that they are override our ‘legitimate expectations’. Should we start to consult further with more layers?

In order to do so we could collect as many as cases – there are some cases I seen here is very good examples.

We may need a kick off fee- but if it 1,000 pounds, there are so many of us even each of us put in 1 pound we could get things started.

The danger of sitting down and waiting and put all of our hopes in lobbying is we will lose precise time. There maybe a time limit that for us to take legal actions.

Smit
Member of Standing
Posts: 375
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2005 8:23 pm
Location: London

Post by Smit » Mon Jun 26, 2006 11:02 am

In my opinion, the only way of reversing the retrospective application of the rules will be by court action.

No amount of publicity, campaigning or involving MP's will change anything.

hvac2006
Newly Registered
Posts: 25
Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2006 11:41 am

Post by hvac2006 » Mon Jun 26, 2006 12:03 pm

Smit wrote:In my opinion, the only way of reversing the retrospective application of the rules will be by court action.

No amount of publicity, campaigning or involving MP's will change anything.
Now i think we done quite good efforts to involve more and more MPs and press. Now i agree with Smit that the only way to get it reverted is court case. If we calculate on the basis of proposed legal action voting result, everage agreed amount to be denoteded for court case is about £14000, which is quite reasonable to start with and more and more peoples will be invoved in the process when the things will go ahead. So it is better to involve some good legal firm in process and see the outcome thier advise.

pumkin
Newbie
Posts: 41
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 4:12 pm

Post by pumkin » Mon Jun 26, 2006 12:46 pm

Besides the unfairness of the 4 -5 years, are the MP's and public aware that its not just a matter of 'waiting another year', but that it will also be costing £365 per application for that year.

Papafaith
Member of Standing
Posts: 376
Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2004 10:45 am
Location: United Kingdom

Post by Papafaith » Mon Jun 26, 2006 12:56 pm

Many of us have long agreed for a court case, but only 17 has signified intension to contribute. Most of the affectected migrants as far as i see are ok with the one year extension.
Anyone willing to donate for the cause should signify in this thread and i will update it.

http://www.immigrationboards.com/viewtopic.php?t=8265
An eye for an eye will make the whole world blind.

kangkang
Newly Registered
Posts: 5
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2006 11:15 am

Post by kangkang » Mon Jun 26, 2006 1:55 pm

I do not think most of the affectected migrants are ok with the one year extension, the fact is they can do nothing but accept this.

If you have had a detail plan to take HO to court and could show us what you would do and how much the cost should be, I believe we can find money to do that. We should not just rely on anyone in this forum, but all the affected migrants.

So the most important thing is how to make that happen! In other words, we need a leader. Can VBSI take the leader?
Papafaith wrote:Many of us have long agreed for a court case, but only 17 has signified intension to contribute. Most of the affectected migrants as far as i see are ok with the one year extension.
Anyone willing to donate for the cause should signify in this thread and i will update it.

http://www.immigrationboards.com/viewtopic.php?t=8265

timefactor
Member of Standing
Posts: 271
Joined: Tue Mar 30, 2004 11:46 am
Location: london-UK

Post by timefactor » Mon Jun 26, 2006 4:21 pm

that's pity!

no point in thinking about court action without the funds at least in the form of promise.

If i'm paying to a known person (in this board) via bank transfer i don't mind contributing the promised money now itself
Papafaith wrote:Many of us have long agreed for a court case, but only 17 has signified intension to contribute. Most of the affectected migrants as far as i see are ok with the one year extension.
Anyone willing to donate for the cause should signify in this thread and i will update it.

http://www.immigrationboards.com/viewtopic.php?t=8265

LRaj
Newly Registered
Posts: 5
Joined: Thu Jun 22, 2006 3:40 pm

It's not only the £365 but

Post by LRaj » Mon Jun 26, 2006 9:39 pm

I agree that we should take it to court. I am ready to contribute within my means although I am currently unemployed.

On going to court, I came across some institutions which may be of help and worth contacting. They are

1. Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants - www.jcwi.org.uk

2. Statewatch - www.statewatch.org. Monitors civil liberties in EU.

The first one provides legal advice for free. It may be that they can file case for us.

Hope this helps

LRaj
Newly Registered
Posts: 5
Joined: Thu Jun 22, 2006 3:40 pm

Post by LRaj » Tue Jun 27, 2006 9:05 pm

Hi All,

Surprise and disgust.

Today I found a job advertised on Reed.co.uk (Enfield) which I decided to apply, but every time received an electronic reply that I was not eligible to work in UK.

I called the recruitment consultant and was told that I was not eligible to apply for permanent positions because I was not a permanent resident or British National. Thought probably was a government job. Mistaken, I was. It was not what i thought.

It seems that this is the policy of some Agencies that if you are on a work permit, they will not consider you for permanent jobs.

How can we be treated in such a manner? Is there any decency over here? Are we humans or not?

Really disgusting.

olisun
Diamond Member
Posts: 1079
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2002 2:01 am

Post by olisun » Tue Jun 27, 2006 10:02 pm

LRaj wrote:I am currently unemployed.
LRaj wrote:It seems that this is the policy of some Agencies that if you are on a work permit, they will not consider you for permanent jobs.
if you don't mind, can I ask if you are WP or HSMP?

hvac2006
Newly Registered
Posts: 25
Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2006 11:41 am

Post by hvac2006 » Wed Jun 28, 2006 8:31 am

Hi All

It is regarding the previous discussion for court case, the only way forward. But there is some thing more than begining the couart case and that is the Judiciary review. Doctors have already started the proceedings. All we need to do now is for the immediate appeal for donations at a flat rate say about £2o/-. I think there will be no shortage of funds once the things are getting started.

LRaj
Newly Registered
Posts: 5
Joined: Thu Jun 22, 2006 3:40 pm

Satus in UK

Post by LRaj » Wed Jun 28, 2006 8:32 am

I am an HSMP holder.

LRaj
Newly Registered
Posts: 5
Joined: Thu Jun 22, 2006 3:40 pm

Post by LRaj » Wed Jun 28, 2006 8:33 am

Hi Olisun,

I am an HSMP holder

LRaj

sowhat
Member
Posts: 100
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 4:57 pm

Post by sowhat » Wed Jun 28, 2006 8:46 am

LRaj wrote:Hi All,

Surprise and disgust.

Today I found a job advertised on Reed.co.uk (Enfield) which I decided to apply, but every time received an electronic reply that I was not eligible to work in UK.

I called the recruitment consultant and was told that I was not eligible to apply for permanent positions because I was not a permanent resident or British National. Thought probably was a government job. Mistaken, I was. It was not what i thought.

It seems that this is the policy of some Agencies that if you are on a work permit, they will not consider you for permanent jobs.

How can we be treated in such a manner? Is there any decency over here? Are we humans or not?

Really disgusting.
I heard about it. In one case my wife was refused to register with one of the agencies on the same basis. I had to call thier headquaters and talk to thier lawyer and they apologised for that and sorted it out. The thing is that the people in local branches are 1) often ignorant, 2) too cautious as they may be fined for soliciting emplyment for a person who is not eligible to work in the UK. So to be on the safe side they make sure that the candidates have ILR which is a safe bet. To distinguish between other types of visa is too complicated for them.

hvac2006
Newly Registered
Posts: 25
Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2006 11:41 am

Post by hvac2006 » Wed Jun 28, 2006 8:48 am

Papafaith wrote:Many of us have long agreed for a court case, but only 17 has signified intension to contribute. Most of the affectected migrants as far as i see are ok with the one year extension.
Anyone willing to donate for the cause should signify in this thread and i will update it.

http://www.immigrationboards.com/viewtopic.php?t=8265
It is not the case that only 17 numbers are ready for the court case, the numbers has already gone to 320 who are prepared to share the cost as the site has moved to vbsi site.

hvac2006
Newly Registered
Posts: 25
Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2006 11:41 am

Post by hvac2006 » Wed Jun 28, 2006 11:29 am

Papafaith wrote:Many of us have long agreed for a court case, but only 17 has signified intension to contribute. Most of the affectected migrants as far as i see are ok with the one year extension.
Anyone willing to donate for the cause should signify in this thread and i will update it.

http://www.immigrationboards.com/viewtopic.php?t=8265
The list is not updated since 8 june now the number is risen to 23 please ammend the list.

hvac2006
Newly Registered
Posts: 25
Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2006 11:41 am

Post by hvac2006 » Wed Jun 28, 2006 11:49 am

I think we should be looking the list displayed by the vbsi which is exceeding now 346 who are willing to contribute.

garichd
Newbie
Posts: 37
Joined: Fri Apr 28, 2006 3:15 pm

Post by garichd » Wed Jun 28, 2006 1:54 pm

Friends,

If we are considering court case then may I suggest this...

The Home office tried to impose such Brutal rules in the past as well on the people who wanted to get married with non-EU citizen (Known as Sham marriage case)

People challenge home office and home office faces defeat.

Tough government rules to prevent sham marriages discriminate against immigrants, the High Court has ruled.
In a significant defeat for the government, Mr Justice Silber said the rules were unreasonable and breached human rights.


Full story here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4894544.stm

What I am suggesting is we should tired to consult the same LAW firm as they will have experience fighting against home office...

Any thoughts....

John
Moderator
Posts: 12320
Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2004 2:54 pm
Location: Birmingham, England
United Kingdom

Post by John » Wed Jun 28, 2006 2:17 pm

Tough government rules to prevent sham marriages discriminate against immigrants, the High Court has ruled.
In a significant defeat for the government, Mr Justice Silber said the rules were unreasonable and breached human rights.
Absolutely right, but do appreciate why the Government lost this. It was not so much that there could not be rules in place to control non-EEA citizens ability to get married in the UK. It was about how those rules favoured those wanting to get married .... very specifically .... in a Church of England Church!

The Home Office is still thinking about how to react to the judgement. It is widely expected that the restrictions will stay in place .. and indeed be extended to those wanting to get married in a Church of England Church. Making the change in that way will stop the blatant discrimination and indeed lead to the rules actually being tougher ... more extensive ..... than before.
John

jayj
Junior Member
Posts: 60
Joined: Thu Jun 22, 2006 12:27 pm

Post by jayj » Wed Jun 28, 2006 3:44 pm

John,

Does that mean I'm going to have a problem getting married to my girlfriend who's part of the EU when we decide to marry ? This aint gonna be no sham marriage or whatever they call it at the HO.
That's outrageous to start policing people on who they can marry and who they can't....sometimes HO takes things too far...

Locked