- 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
ATBPLC wrote:HOME SECRETARY RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS IN PARLIAMENT
Nicholas Clegg (Sheffield, Hallam, Liberal Democrat) | Hansard source
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether those who applied to the highly skilled migrant programme prior to September 2006 were warned of the potential for retrospectively-applied changes to the scheme.
John Reid (Home Secretary) | Hansard source
The recent changes to the highly skilled migrant programme have no effect on existing grants of leave. We are therefore not applying them retrospectively. A grant of leave in a category of the immigration rules does not create the expectation of a further grant of leave in that category.
Nicholas Clegg (Sheffield, Hallam, Liberal Democrat) | Hansard source
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment the Government has made of the effect of changes to the highly skilled migrant programme on previously successful applicants.
John Reid (Home Secretary) | Hansard source
All persons who were granted leave under the highly skilled migrant programme (HSMP) before the changes were implemented will be abl to complete that period of leave. Nicholas Clegg (Sheffield, Hallam, Liberal Democrat) | Hansard source
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the effect of age discrimination legislation on the use of an age-related points system in the highly skilled migrant programme.
John Reid (Home Secretary) | Hansard source
Age discrimination legislation is aimed at preventing employers from carrying out practices which discriminate on the basis of age. The immigration rules do not therefore fall directly within its scope as they govern the entry into and stay of people in the UK who are subject to immigration control. The points for age were introduced to avoid disadvantaging younger people who may have had less time to build up their earnings from being able to enter under the scheme.
u mean the existense of the forum or any particular news on the forum?ybyuan2001 wrote:http://www.hsmpforum.com/
Hello guys,
maybe this is a good news.Just take a look above link.
These decisions clearly means that whatever was being promised to us in the old HSMP document,should be honoured and it was promised to us in the old HSMP Policy that we can apply for ILR after completion of 4 years.At the time of his entry in Britain, Joseph said 'guidance notes' given to him created 'legitimate expectation' that his stay in Britain would be extended provided he met the criteria that was in force before the changes were announced
The promises in the 'guidance notes' read out by Joseph in the tribunal court said: "That you are willing and able to make the United Kingdom your main home. We will ask you to provide a written undertaking to that effect."
"24.10 Q: I have already applied successfully under HSMP. How does the revised HSMP affect me?
"A: Not at all. It is important to note that once you have entered under the programme you are in a category that has an avenue to settlement. Those who have already entered under HSMP will be allowed to stay and apply for settlement after four years qualifying residence regardless of these revisions to HSMP".
"26.6 Q: What will I need to do to qualify to stay after the first 12 months?
A: You will need to show that you are lawfully economically active or, if you are not, that you have taken all reasonable steps to become lawfully economically active.".
Judge Digney of the tribunal court ruled: "This case is in fact stronger than any 'legitimate expectation' cases as here the appellant changed his position to his detriment as a result of what he was told.
"There is no overriding public interest that demands here the treatment to which the appellant was subjected...I conclude that the decision of the respondent is therefore not in accordance with the law".