5 years for ILR rule implemented

[easylife4me]

any news on Bapio court case

[easylife4me]

its seems like bapio have lost thier case

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index ... 847AAKJOow

[rg1]

The judges are also appointed by UK govt. The entire law system is governmed by UK govt. So, they will exercise might is right policy.

Damn

[a11]

Our friends at HSMP2006 got in touch with a senior BAPIO representative and according to him, no decision has been made yet.

[Miami]

Our friends at HSMP2006 got in touch with a senior BAPIO representative and according to him, no decision has been made yet.

What are the repercussions on the other JR applications?

The 4-5 ILR JR was supposed to be put before a judge in the last week of January if the BAPIO verdict was not given. HSMP2006 are certain that their JR will be heard next week (after the 5 Feb 2007)........

[ssi]

How can the HSMP Forum (formerly also known as HSMP2006) be certain that their case will be heard in the court at all? Their case will only be submitted next week. They now are at the stage the BAPIO was on 7 June 2006.

We have not heard from the solicitors re the ILR 4-to-5 case yet. As soon as they write to us, we will post this information on the VBSI site and here. Please consider sending affidavits with personal cases to Harvey Son & Filby Solicitors (see the VBSI site for their address), as they need to be prepared in advance.

[easylife4me]

has anyone heard from the solicitors re the ILR 4-to-5 case yet ?????
its already 5th of Feb ....

[easylife4me]

any updates...

[ssi]

ILR 4-to-5 JR update
"Tuesday 06 February 2007"
Stephen Kong of Harvey Son & Filby Solicitors writes: "As the judgment in BAPIO is due to be given this week, consideration or this application for permission is to be deferred until 7 days after that judgment is handed down. Save as aforesaid, the order of Mr Justice Charles of 29 November 2006 is to remain in force."

SK also asks to send as many more affidavits with personal cases as possible. Please do not think that you are affected "just a little" and your case might not be useful in court. The sheer number of these documents will have an effect as well.

[easylife4me]

LONDON: Tony Blair was officially forced on Wednesday into acknowledging the plight of nearly 50,000 people, including 30,000 Indians, who entered Britain on the Highly Skilled Migrant Programme (HSMP) and now claim to be disenfranchised under new immigration rules weighted against non-Europeans.

Blair promised the British parliament he would look into the matter when an opposition MP raised the issue of HSMP-affected people from India and elsewhere during PM's questions.

Blair's promise came 24 hours after the newly-formed Indian-led campaigning group HSMP Forum formally took legal steps to seek a judicial review of the British government's new immigration rules, which they say penalise them with retrospective effect and will force them to leave the UK.

The formal legal case was filed after the British government refused to reply to a 14-day-old technically-titled "letter before action" from counsel representing the affected Indians.

The Indians' lawyers said in their legal submission that "there could be no greater unfairness than enticing people to come to the UK and to commit their future lives here for the benefit of the UK, only to change the rules under which they entered."

The affected HSMP visa-holders said the only legal remedy they want is "to be treated as per the old rules of visa extensions based on economic activity alone".

On Wednesday, in a sign of a gathering political campaign to raise the profile of the HSMP-affected Indians' case, the opposition Liberal Democrat MP, Martin Horwood, asked Blair why Britain seemed determined to deport the wrong people (such as HSMP visa-holders).

Horwood used an illustrative example of one his own constituents, who left his home country New Zealand to move to the UK on the promise that he could settle here.

The MP asked why the British government was reneging on its original promise of right-to-settle, thus forcing the New Zealander him to leave because he allegedly no longer fit the HSMP category.

The MP declared that the New Zealander's plight was typical of the suffering of large numbers of Indians.

The British PM responded by promising to look into the matter but defensively insisted experience dictated that there was more to such cases than often meets the eye.

The Blair government's stringent new HSMP rules with devastating retrospective effect came into force in early December.

Liam Byrne, Blair's home office minister responsible for immigration, has repeatedly refused to move on the issue, even to the extent of refusing to meet the Immigration Law Practitioners' Association (ILPA), which has fiercely criticised the retrospective application of immigration rules, without consultation or warning.

Byrne has always insisted the government had no reason to consult widely with affected stakeholders and explained the rule changes as an attempt "to make sure that the people who succeed under the (HSMP) programme are those who will make the greatest contribution to the UK economy, to make the requirements clearer and more objective and to make sure that the programme is robust against abuse."

The HSMP Forum's lawyer Chris Randall, who also belongs to ILPA, said that the HSMP visa-holders had a legitimate expectation under previous rules that they would "qualify for extensions of stay and eventually for indefinite leave to remain in the UK

[hvac2006]

Blair's promise came 24 hours after the newly-formed Indian-led campaigning group HSMP Forum formally took legal steps to seek a judicial review of the British government's new immigration rules, which they say penalise them with retrospective effect and will force them to leave the UK.

I just want to clarify that HSMP forum is not only indian led compaigning group. It is a group of effected HSMP visa holders of all the nationalties. All the members specially leaders of the group like Amit, Safu and all the other commettes members contributed for the cause of HSMPvisa holders.

[mona-de-bois]

Dear friends,

there are two bad news.

1. Dr. Imran Yusaf, one of the people who filed the BAPIO case, has taken his own life a few days ago. It's a crashing, devastating news for all of us, and it underlines the destroying impact of the new reptrospective rules on people's life.

2. Today we found that BAPIO has lost the case.

Please have a look:
http://www.vbsi.org.uk/index.php?mact=N ... eturnid=15
and
http://www.bapioaction.moonfruit.com

[Dawie]

Unfortunately court cases against the Home Office are usually only won where it can be shown that the Home Office has incorrectly applied an existing law or rule.

[olisun]

Dear friends,

there are two bad news.

1. Dr. Imran Yusaf, one of the people who filed the BAPIO case, has taken his own life a few days ago. It's a crashing, devastating news for all of us, and it underlines the destroying impact of the new reptrospective rules on people's life.

2. Today we found that BAPIO has lost the case.

Please have a look:
http://www.vbsi.org.uk/index.php?mact=N ... eturnid=15
and
http://www.bapioaction.moonfruit.com

It's sad news but I still don't understand why people have to give up their lives.

[rg1]

More on Economic Times


http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/150 ... 586875.cms

[desiguy]

It's heating up. Following from Times Of India.

------------------------------------------------------

MPs join Indians' HSMP battleAdd to Clippings
Rashmee Roshan Lall
[ 5 Jan, 2007 2347hrs ISTTIMES NEWS NETWORK ]
RSS Feeds| SMS NEWS to 8888 for latest updates

LONDON: Leading British MPs and peers have weighed into the battle being waged by an estimated 30,000 embattled Indians who claim the British government is victimising them by changing the rules of the Highly-Skilled Migrants Programme (HSMP) under which they left the mother country to work here.

The Indians, who have instructed their lawyers speedily to file a case in the High Court in London for judicial review of the changed immigration rules, urgently appealed for "intervention" by the Indian president, prime minister and foreign affairs minister on Friday.

In a letter to the Indian government, seen by The Times of India, they said this was the "last resort". They called for the Indian authorities to seek a "discussion with UK prime minister Tony Blair to resolve the burning issue of the very survival of Indians and other commonwealth country citizens against the retrospective changes."

The Indians' case is being supported by a cross-party group of MPs and peers that includes the Conservative shadow immigration minister Damien Green, governing Labour Party MP Andrew Dismore, Liberal Democrat parliamentarian Michael Fallon and the British Indian academic who sits in the house of Lords, Bhikhu Parekh.

The Indians said in their letter to New Delhi, "We have been made targets of undemocratic, illegal and ill-motive changes. Due to these new changes we who have made innumerable sacrifices in making UK our country of habitual residence would be forced to wind up our establishments, careers, schooling of our children, and investments and will be asked to leave the UK. This has caused lot of mental, social and economical suffering to us and our families."

They added, "Our legitimate expectation is we who are invited in UK on HSMP visas should be treated according to the promises UK Home Office made to us when we first entered on the program. New rules are meant for new applicants and shouldn't be enforced on existing migrants."

Conservative front-bencher Green told this paper he could not help but agree the Labour government had been unfair to Indians and other non-European nationals allowed into Britain under the HSMP scheme and now left to suffer. Promising to carry on the fight for justice for the Indians and others by means of parliamentary questions and scrutiny, Green said, "It's just not cricket and it's not fairplay and it's not the image of Britain we want to present to the world".

Added Parekh, "I think the government is guilty of behaving dishonourably towards Indians and others".
He said the British government appeared to have misjudged its labour force requirements and had consequently allowed thousands of Indians and other non-Europeans into the country through the HSMP. "But they found they had east European highly-skilled workers coming in and their own (British) universities were churning out the workers they needed. So they applied the HSMP rules to Indians with retrospective effect. That's wrong and unfair."

The Indians are just days away from a protest rally near the British Parliament, which is expected to be attended by several thousands of those affected by the unfair new HSMP rules, organizer Amit Kapadia told TOI on Friday.

Indians are the largest national group affected by Britain's new HSMP rules, which came into force on December 5 and apply with retrospective effect to render them unfit for the highly-skilled migrant category. The new rules disenfranchise potential non-European migrants over 28 years old and earning UK salaries less than £ 35,000. The Indians insist that their temporary visas make it impossible to get high-earning jobs and the changed rules make it impossible for them to stay on in Britain as previously promised by the government.

Parekh, a long-time and acute observer of Britain's convulsive view of hot-button issues such as immigration and integration, warned that the new HSMP rules and the ejection of Indian doctors in mid-2006 was just one of a series of hardline measures contemplated by the government.

He warned that government studies were currently being prepared to assess a change in naturalisation rules, often used by wealthy Indians, who qualify for British nationality after investing £ 1 million here and creating UK jobs.

[Miami]

Unfortunately court cases against the Home Office are usually only won where it can be shown that the Home Office has incorrectly applied an existing law or rule.

This is a massive disappointment. Are the ILR 4to5 and HSMP judicial reviews still going ahead?

[Mini]

Correct me if I am wrong, but I have'nt seen much of the immigration rule change in the media even after the suicide of Dr Imran Yousaf. I am wondering if this is/can be deliberate ?

[ssi]

Are the ILR 4to5 and HSMP judicial reviews still going ahead?

Yes, if permissions are granted.
" I do not think the judgment in the BAPIO case will affect our JR application in a significant way. This is because the grounds on which BAPIO sought judicial review are different from ours albeit the source of the rules challenged - HC 1016 - is the same."
http://www.vbsi.org.uk/index.php?page=stephen_kong

I have'nt seen much of the immigration rule change in the media

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jh ... ors109.xml
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/150 ... 586875.cms
http://www.dailyindia.com/show/112802.p ... eturn-home
http://www.telegraphindia.com/1070211/a ... 378250.asp
http://www.vbsi.org.uk/index.php?page=p ... ease#Feb12

[Miami]

Are the ILR 4to5 and HSMP judicial reviews still going ahead?

Yes, if permissions are granted.
" I do not think the judgment in the BAPIO case will affect our JR application in a significant way. This is because the grounds on which BAPIO sought judicial review are different from ours albeit the source of the rules challenged - HC 1016 - is the same."



When will we know the judge's decision on the ILR 4to5 Judicial review?
(within 7 days of the BAPIO verdict) Is it this week?

[Mini]

Sorry, I should've mentioned the 'British media'.

I am aware that the Indian and other countries' media is covering extensively. I got calls from India regarding the BAPIO judgement from friends back home almost as soon as we got to know of it here on the 9th morning. Apparently the news paper coverage was done that morning itself.

I have only ever seen 2 instances of coverage by the british media (including the telegraph link above).

[Miami]

What happened to the VBSI website? Where is it being moved to?

[ATBPLC]

God on our side, we shall win. We have a good case for LEGITIMATE EXPECTATION.

See what the law says

In general terms, it is desirable for public authorities to do what they have declared they will do. That assists citizens to plan their affairs and fosters trust and confidence in the administrative authorities. It can generally be said to be a feature of good administration that public bodies “deal straightforwardly and consistently with the public” (see Abdi and Nadarajah v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2005] EWCA Civ 1363, per Laws LJ at [68], where he describes it as a “requirement”)
IN R. v. North and East Devon HA ex p. Coughlan the Court of Appeal significantly clarified the doctrine of substantive legitimate expectations. The facts of the case are familiar. The applicant had been very severely disabled in a road traffic accident in 1971 and was subsequently placed in the care of a local area health authority. In 1993 she and seven other seriously disabled patients were moved by the health authority with their consent to a new facility at Mardon House after receiving an assurance that they could live there “for as long as they chose”. Following a public consultation in 1998, the health authority decided to close Mardon House and transfer the applicant to a local authority home.

[ssi]

Sorry, I should've mentioned the 'British media'.

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/this_b ... 283980.ece

What happened to the VBSI website? Where is it being moved to?

To another server. Should up and running within a day or two, with the same URL.

[Miami]

[/quote] To another server. Should up and running within a day or two, with the same URL.[/quote]


Has permission been granted for the ILR 4-to-5 judicial review? A decision was expected within 7 days of the BAPIO verdict??