- 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
I feel this is a ridiculous stance. How long "until we are sure that the lobbying approach is ineffective"? Until it is TOO late to take legal action? Of course MPs have an interest in putting off a legal action - especially if whilst supporting the issue don't want to see their own government embarressed.... Opposition MPs have practically no power in this situation.a11 wrote:As you have probably already learnt from the VBSI website, our today's meeting with Liam Byrne was postponed at last minute. Nevertheless, we still hope to see him this Thursday at 11am and today we had a chance to discuss the situation with several supporting MPs. They strongly suggest that the court case should not go ahead until we are sure that the lobbying approach is ineffective. Because there have been several instances when the HO pulled out of negotiations straight after they learnt that they are being sued - and then just waited till the court made a decision.
chibuya wrote:It is not a piont to figure out which law firm to do the job-
What it is important that is to get the legal action started
- Steve Kong did not demestate his skills as a JR expert
So we need to find a better law firm unless he could show us that he could do the job.
alien wrote:Has the VBSI actually taken proper legal advice? As the purported "voice" of immigrants can it at least say to those immigrants that it has or hasn't?
chibuya wrote: I think we need to find a right lwayer - to get some real legal advice and this could be lead by VBSI
chibuya, please, join the VBSI and you will be responsible for obtaining independent (of CL and SK) legal advice. Mona, a11 never said that SK was a bad guy. It is gratifying to see that the VBSI has been elevated to the NGO status in your opition, alien. But our resourses are limited, and we cannot pay for top quality legal advice right now. The advice we've got from CL and some MPs was repeatedly posted here. When, and if, lobbying fails, one or more law firms will take legal action on behalf of their clients (not all WP/HSMP holders). It is expected that it will take a very long time for the action to come to a conclusion and the outcome is uncertain. By that time many of us will get ILR according to the 5-year rule. But, as a matter of principle, I think, we should persist with the legal action once started.chibuya wrote:I think we need to find a right lwayer - to get some real legal advice and this could be lead by VBSI
chibuya wrote:I am not sure what is the next now and just thought if I put my thought here could provide some ideas for anyone , or VBSI to think about..
A while back a friend asked me about this rule change and I looked at this forum, the website as well as HO stuff. By coincidence I was studying judicial review as part of a law course at the time so I looked into this as a potential remedy - partly out of my own interest as a legal exercise and partly for her. What I have posted is basically a recycled version of what I told her.RobinLondon wrote:Alien,
I do not intend to be rude, nor do I wish you to take this in the wrong way, but I am a bit curious as to what your interest is in this case. You seem to be quite giving with both your time and your well-considered opinions on this matter. Now I don't want to dissuade you from your efforts in any way, but I believe that it might be interesting to know where your stake in this lies. If it's altruism that's leading you to help, that's jolly good. It'd be nice if the Home Office and the UK public at large were as interested.
Regards,
RobinLondon
We appreciate CL's team efforts in this respect but one thing which is clear that uptill now since last four months CL's team as well as VBSI team done their best efforts but unfortunately we did not got the positive result, it is mainly due to attitude of home office. Now is it possible that we can start JR any time we like or there is some time limitation for it, as we heard earlier that time period for JR is three months. If this is the case than we woulds have lost the legal battle before start, if SK would have not already applied for the JR. This very important point was ignored/overlooked by CL's team which was a legal point. Second thing about time, that out of one year four months allready passed and there is no chance that we can win the legal battle in these eight months, as it has been discussed number of time that it is not only extension of one year it is something else for which home office took one year, actual thing will come before end of the year and than might be very late. Legal battle is to resist any further changes beside getting any dicision against this illegal change.ssi wrote:A detailed stance of CL's team regarding the JR route has been posted on the VBSI website:
http://www.vbsi.org.uk/index.php?page=navleft_1col
hvac2006 wrote:Now is it possible that we can start JR any time we like or there is some time limitation for it, as we heard earlier that time period for JR is three months.
http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/cms/4319.htm "any claim form in an application for judicial review must be filed promptly and in any event not later than 3 months after the grounds to make the claim first arose."LW/CL wrote:That's the other thing about JR. You can't bring a general JR so only the particular claimants will get the benefit of any judgment immediately. Other people may be able to claim precedent (that is all subsequent decisions should conform to the judgment of the high court) but they will have to wait until their decision is refused and appeal (still need to go to court individually).
We cannot resist any further changes until they are actually implemented. But in the particular ILR45 case, there are people who are prepared to see the court action through no matter what. This will definitely send a message to the authorities that changes should be introduced very carefully and competently.hvac2006 wrote:Second thing about time, that out of one year four months allready passed and there is no chance that we can win the legal battle in these eight months, as it has been discussed number of time that it is not only extension of one year it is something else for which home office took one year, actual thing will come before end of the year and than might be very late. Legal battle is to resist any further changes beside getting any dicision against this illegal change.