Post
by RobinLondon » Thu May 24, 2007 9:04 am
Hi there,
I recently submitted a subject access request on my personal Home Office file. I specifically requested all correspondence that had taken place amongst me, my MP and the HO over the past two years on the subject of the four to five year change.
I put forward a similar request about 18 months ago, but was not then given the materials that I received this week. This time there were internal minutes/memos enclosed that showed how the HO staff debated, resolved and answered my queries.
From my original February 2005 letter, the internal memo mentioned that I should be informed that there would be no changes to UK ancestry visa holders under the proposed changes, that I should not have to complete an extra year and that I should be allowed to apply for ILR at the end of my current leave. The notes said that this was all quite clear and that it should be reflected in a letter back to me, which it all was.
From a subsequent April 2006 letter, the internal notes said that although these earlier statements had previously been made, the HO must now backtrack on them and convince me that they carried no weight. To be honest, the wording was spookily Orwellian.
At a dinner last night, I spoke with an civil service solicitor who told me that those letters in addition to the internal notes created a clear instance of legitimate expectations that would prevail in a judicial review. The only caveat she gave, however, was that such a gaffe on the HO's behalf may be specific to my case and not be applicable to others generally.
So I'm not sure how to proceed. If there are any solicitors or immigration advisors here who have some insight, I'd be curious to hear it. I'm loathe to take the HO on by my own, but I'm not sure my contribution to the larger judicial review campaign headed by Stephen Kong at Harvey, Son & Filby would be both useful and appropriate.
Thanks,
R