UK Home Office stands by visa and immigration changes

[olisun]

http://www.workpermit.com/news/2007_02_ ... hanges.htm

In a separate development, the Home Office has told lawyers representing the mainly-Indian HSMP Forum that it planned to contest its 06 February decision to seek a judicial review of rule changes.

[manindergill]

Most important is this :-

The Home Office said "It is important that those who pass the test at the extension stage are those who will make 'the greatest contribution to the UK economy'." It added that those in Britain under the HSMP would be entitled to a permanent settlement after completing the qualifying period, but that there was "no guarantee of this".

[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.

[lanr3e]

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

...I'm sorry but i fail to see the relevance of the above above article or am i missing something?...

[PASS]

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.

ATBPLC,

Could you please explain what it means?

You posted (cut and paste) this message at least 3 places, you look very confused. Please don't confuse others also with multiple posting of same info.

[mahin1110]

As per previous case laws I think it is a good point for the judicial review submitted by Mr. Stephen Kong for retrospective ILR rules changes from 4 to 5 years. The lawyer have to show the HO's written commitment regarding qualifying period of 4 years for HSMP applicant.

[Rog]

I think the message is quite clear. It is important for a government authority to have consistancy in what they say and do and being straightforward in their messages to the public. If they are facing problems of EU immigration being drastically higher than anticipated, it is not fair to retract letters issued to HSMP holders and changing the conditions under which they made the decisions to immigrate. At the most they can have more stringent tests to see whether or not the HSMP holder is doing a skilled job in their industry which is a condition of the original HSMP scheme.

[ATBPLC]

Thanks Rog,
I just posted the comments to support our JR. The main basis of our JR is "LEGITIMATE EXPECTATION", and I thought I could use that to boost the morale of people in the struggle and some have started calling me names.

If you go through the submission of our Solicitors, the case I quoted was mentioned and I thought I should ellucidate on that case