Is ILR High court decision tomoro

herts · Post by **herts** » Wed Jun 13, 2007 5:04 pm

Hi all,
Are any of our members going tomoro for ILR court decision tomoro to high court.

LondonBlonde · Post by **LondonBlonde** » Fri Jun 15, 2007 9:12 am

I heard the date was postponed at the last minute. Something about Home Office not getting all the paperwork on time.

LondonBlonde

Chess · Post by **Chess** » Fri Jun 15, 2007 1:49 pm

Any news on this?

EdgeHillMole · Post by **EdgeHillMole** » Fri Jun 15, 2007 2:39 pm

From the VBSI website:

http://vbsi.org.uk/index.php?mact=News, ... eturnid=15

They're tentatively saying it may be July now.

Can't you get proof of receipt when you mail a package via Royal Mail, including the date received and who specifically accepted the package (At the Home Office's counsel)?

Rog · Post by **Rog** » Fri Jun 15, 2007 3:15 pm

Either the Home Office sat on the documents before sending them to their solicitors to deliberately delay the case or their solicitors are lying.

avjones · Post by **avjones** » Sat Jun 16, 2007 12:41 am

Documents sent between solicitors and counsel almost certainly don't use the Royal Mail - our Chambers hardly uses post at all. We use the DX, a legal postal service, instead.

herts · Post by **herts** » Sat Jun 16, 2007 7:29 am

It looks the home office is not yet ready what to say in the case.
They are making lame excuses like school children.
anyway they are going to have a tough fight, wont be easy for them.

LondonBlonde · Post by **LondonBlonde** » Sat Jun 16, 2007 11:19 am

Yes, because of the tribunal case earlier this year, with strong words toward the Home Office quoting human rights violations. I think the HO is taking this case very seriously.

The momentum is in our favour. If things remain the way they are now, tubunal courts will fill up as thousands of HSMP holders attempt to overturn deportation orders. This is the last thing HMC want to see. They are already way too busy.

LondonBlonde

SYH · Post by **SYH** » Sat Jun 16, 2007 12:53 pm

Pretty much the delay will make the issue moot.
The people most adversely affected were the initial HSMP applicants in 2002 when the programme was introduced.
If they can push it back as far as they can into 2007 by the time its heard and the judge can make a decision, then the extra year doesn't make too much of a difference does it since you are now eligible for ILR with the 5 year rule. Then the judge doesn't have to make a decision. It is a common legal tactic.
This is not to say the later entrants from 2003-2006 aren't adversely impacted too but the court can separate different groups level of harm. And the most impacted would have been the group of 2002 who would have been eligible for ILR in 2006.
The court will ask what can the remedy be???? Changing back the ILR to 4 years is a possibility but it is too late for the 2002 entrants. It could help the 2003 and on but their harm is not as severe as the 2002.
Whoever is representing the case, I hope the remedy asked for will be that the 2002 entrants can now go straight to Naturalisation as this is where they would have been had not the rule been changed.

Rog · Post by **Rog** » Sat Jun 16, 2007 1:12 pm

The case is not just about the ILR period to be reset from 5 years to 4 years. It is also about the unjust retrospective application of points criteria which stacks the odds against older skilled migrants with families especially those at 1+3+1 stage who face a difficult situation if deported. If this issue is addressed with priorty then most people will be relieved.

LondonBlonde · Post by **LondonBlonde** » Sat Jun 16, 2007 1:13 pm

SYH wrote:Pretty much the delay will make the issue moot.
The people most adversely affected were the initial HSMP applicants in 2002 when the programme was introduced.

I don't agree. Those who were accepted into the programme only last year before the changes will feel no less betrayed if they fail to meet the points for FLR.

Also, the vast majority of HSMP holders will be at four years after fall of 2007. The rules were changed to allow to allow extra points for spouse acheivments and age four years ago this fall.

LondonBlonde

SYH · Post by **SYH** » Sat Jun 16, 2007 1:16 pm

London Blond I am talking about from a legal perpective of harm
Feelings, betrayals are personal to everyone and one is no greater than the other. In terms of success on points, you have to be strategic. If there is going to be a ruling in our favour, it isn't going to satisfy everyone affected

LondonBlonde · Post by **LondonBlonde** » Sat Jun 16, 2007 1:38 pm

SYH wrote:London Blond I am talking about from a legal perpective of harm
Feelings, betrayals are personal to everyone and one is no greater than the other. In terms of success on points, you have to be strategic. If there is going to be a ruling in our favour, it isn't going to satisfy everyone affected

Still, I am missing your point then. If an HSMP holder sold their house, moved their entire family and quite a very high paying job in their home country, then does it really matter when they were accepted as long as it was before Nov 2006. And, yes from a legal perspective.

You might even argue (yes legally), that a person accepted in 2002 who did not sell their house, bring their family etc. would have a weaker case than someone who did and was accepted much later.

Also, the Trubunal case won this year quoted the guidlines that were in place October 2006. This would be the same set of quidlines in place four years prior.

LondonBlonde

SYH · Post by **SYH** » Sat Jun 16, 2007 2:26 pm

You are talking about specific facts for a particular case
I am talking about classifications of groups.
The court can not consider each and every person's situation in a class action.
They are going to have to group together people in terms of how they are impacted in a meaningful and doable way.
They are unlikely to say the groups of people who sold their homes is one group and the group of people who gave up a a great career in the other.
They are more likely to group it in a way the 4 to 5 year year rule adversely impacts a person.
The criteria in judging people's renewal is another ball of wax and too complex to come up with a quick exampe as to how they might group people impacted and if the court is favorable HSMP applicants, they might tell HO to either scrap the new criteria and come up with another one. It is possible they might say reinstate the former criteria for those already in the system.
I hope you now see what I am getting at.

LondonBlonde · Post by **LondonBlonde** » Sat Jun 16, 2007 3:08 pm

SYH wrote:You are talking about specific facts for a particular case
I am talking about classifications of groups.
The court can not consider each and every person's situation in a class action.
They are going to have to group together people in terms of how they are impacted in a meaningful and doable way.
They are unlikely to say the groups of people who sold their homes is one group and the group of people who gave up a a great career in the other.
They are more likely to group it in a way the 4 to 5 year year rule adversely impacts a person.
The criteria in judging people's renewal is another ball of wax and too complex to come up with a quick exampe as to how they might group people impacted and if the court is favorable HSMP applicants, they might tell HO to either scrap the new criteria and come up with another one. It is possible they might say reinstate the former criteria for those already in the system.
I hope you now see what I am getting at.

Still don't agree that this issue will be moot soon. I think the courts will see all HSMP visas before Nov 2006 as the same. Not speaking about the 4-5 year rule.

We'll see what happens.

LondonBlonde

PASS · Post by **PASS** » Sat Jun 16, 2007 5:56 pm

LondonBlonde wrote:
Still don't agree that this issue will be moot soon. I think the courts will see all HSMP visas before Nov 2006 as the same. Not speaking about the 4-5 year rule.

LondonBlonde

I agree with you, I don't think the court will divide (pre Nov 2006 HSMP) into groups and deliver ruling differently.

Rog · Post by **Rog** » Sat Jun 16, 2007 7:25 pm

At this stage we can just hope that the case comes up without further delay. The judgement can be debated at length subsequently

EdgeHillMole · Post by **EdgeHillMole** » Sat Jun 16, 2007 10:27 pm

avjones wrote:Documents sent between solicitors and counsel almost certainly don't use the Royal Mail - our Chambers hardly uses post at all. We use the DX, a legal postal service, instead.

Cheers, I found the DX website, and found the following quotes from their website:

"99% of our outgoing mail reaches its destination the very next day"

http://www.thedx.co.uk/docu_exchange.aspx

"SecureDX enables you to track important mail from your Exchange to any business and residential address in mainland UK (including Northern Ireland), with a signature on delivery."

http://www.thedx.co.uk/securedx.aspx

So, delivery between solicitor and counsel should not have been a problem.

Edelweiss · Post by **Edelweiss** » Mon Jun 18, 2007 2:08 pm

Does anyone know how long it will take - after the JR - to get a judgement?

Edelweiss · Post by **Edelweiss** » Tue Jun 26, 2007 3:29 pm

Anyone?

avjones · Post by **avjones** » Tue Jun 26, 2007 4:17 pm

There is no answer. Sometimes judgment is given immeidately, sometimes it is given later.

ssi · Post by **ssi** » Tue Jun 26, 2007 6:03 pm

Edelweiss wrote:Does anyone know how long it will take - after the JR - to get a judgement?

http://www.richardbuxton.co.uk/about/jreview.php
"The judge may deliver judgment there and then, or shortly afterwards, or it may be "handed-down" in writing later. Handed-down judgments are more satisfactory as they are usually better thought through, and one also does not have to expend time and costs for the time it takes to attend delivery of an oral judgment. Even with oral judgments, a transcript is usually available within a week or two afterwards."

There is some more information on JR procedures here :
http://vbsi.org.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=532#532

LondonBlonde · Post by **LondonBlonde** » Tue Jun 26, 2007 9:17 pm

Does anyone know if there has been a new date set?

LondonBlonde

Edelweiss · Post by **Edelweiss** » Wed Jun 27, 2007 3:49 pm

Thank you ssi. I read throught he two references and it is much clearer now. The thing that worries me is that my current visa is valid until 2009 (I am in the 1+3+1 group). So even if the JR result is in our favour, it would still give the HO time to introduce new rules before my visa becomes due.

Rog · Post by **Rog** » Wed Jun 27, 2007 5:55 pm

If, by the grace of the almighty, the decision is in our favour, then that should stop HO from applying changes to immigration laws retrospectively on HSMP visa holders who entered under different rules. Hence you should be safe then

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

Is ILR High court decision tomoro

Is ILR High court decision tomoro