5 years for ILR rule implemented

Chess · Post by **Chess** » Mon Mar 13, 2006 4:53 pm

Am I dreaming or are these guyz serious????...

Applying rules retrospectively? Is this fair....

Let us have more assylum seekers, overstayers and illegals as the authorities really suck....

indian_in_uk · Post by **indian_in_uk** » Mon Mar 13, 2006 4:58 pm

This is what they want I guess.

the decision makers are bunch of jokers. my two cents....

How can they justify applying new stupid rules on people who regulalry pay their Taxes and contribute to UK economy only?

This will only result in more overstayers and illegals.

Dawie · Post by **Dawie** » Mon Mar 13, 2006 5:03 pm

By doing this I can only assume that the government wants to reduce it's annual figures for settlement visas to appease some kind of public sentiment.

I do not accept that they are applying the "5 year rule" to conform with European standards, as the UK government has quite openly states that it will stay firmly in control of its immigration policy and will not be dictated to by the EU.

However it now seems to pick and choose whatever suits them. If they are so keen to apply "European norms" then why haven't signed up to the Schengen Agreement? And why have they opted out of the main provisions of EU Directive 2003/109/EC??

It seems that this government is quite keen to follow "European norms" when it seems favourable to public perceptions (i.e. when it will make immigration numbers appear lower) but when it comes to something really useful to immigrants such as joining the Schengen Agreement, they will not be swayed.

Chess · Post by **Chess** » Mon Mar 13, 2006 5:04 pm

tvt wrote:There is no direct way to appeal against this.

The only way to challenge this would be by applying for Judicial Review on administrative law grounds like Legitimate Expectations and the like.

I am sure some law gurus out there can challenge this law - because i dont think the approach is legal...so people will have to spend more money in Fees. charles Clarke and McNulty must be off their trolleys

Chess · Post by **Chess** » Mon Mar 13, 2006 5:09 pm

Even if they made the qualifying period 20 years - immigrants are here to stay so who is fooling who?

mhunjn · Post by **mhunjn** » Mon Mar 13, 2006 5:10 pm

I do hope there is a review... do feel for people who'll be stuck for another year because of this ludicrous decision!...

indian_in_uk · Post by **indian_in_uk** » Mon Mar 13, 2006 5:16 pm

Is it possible?

I dont think so..

Chris · Post by **Chris** » Mon Mar 13, 2006 5:18 pm

I think someone should appealing against this (unfair) law.

What comes to my mind immd. is UK immigration lawyer Gherson and Company www.gherson.com as they have already won 1 case against Home Office. But there has to be some immigrant client on whose behalf Gherson can fight for.

timefactor · Post by **timefactor** » Mon Mar 13, 2006 5:28 pm

Good find! really interested

Chris wrote:I think someone should appealing against this (unfair) law.

What comes to my mind immd. is UK immigration lawyer Gherson and Company www.gherson.com as they have already won 1 case against Home Office. But there has to be some immigrant client on whose behalf Gherson can fight for.

Chess · Post by **Chess** » Mon Mar 13, 2006 5:33 pm

John,

Could you please ask your MP to raise a question the House of Commons - regarding why rules are being applied retrospectively?

Smit · Post by **Smit** » Mon Mar 13, 2006 5:38 pm

These new rules are a real slap in the face for the affected migrants, numbering in their hundreds of thousands.

The government should have followed the same route it followed when it increased the probation period for spouses from 1 to 2 years. Financial implications aside, these rules go against all legitimate expectations of the affected people. I expect a backlash or some sort of legal challenge to the retrospective application of these rules.

Chris · Post by **Chris** » Mon Mar 13, 2006 5:41 pm

It will be a shame if this law goes unchallenged.

tt · Post by tt » Mon Mar 13, 2006 6:34 pm

What will be the qualifying period for citizenship once you have the ILR (after the 5 years)?

Is that being changed from 1 year?

EU Directive 2004/38/EC will also dig in to all this, whereby EU citizens wishing to get ILR (permanent residency) in the UK will also have to reside 5 years first.

So the 5 years will also apply to EU citizens. (Even if legislation or SIs aren't passed in time, EU Cits will not be able to provide the residence permit, for one, after 30 April this year, in order to get the ILR after 4 years, because of this new Directive).

Post by **John** » Mon Mar 13, 2006 6:57 pm

Chess wrote:John,

Could you please ask your MP to raise a question the House of Commons - regarding why rules are being applied retrospectively?

Chess, as I waded through this topic this evening I was indeed already thinking about making contact with an MP about this. But we should not underestimate the difficulties in getting this overturned.

The main problem, as I see it, is that the change is being accomplished, not unexpectedly, by a change to the immigration rules. However in view of the way the immigration rules were created in the first place and then later get amended, it is really difficult for MPs (or Peers) to do anything about any changes. We are not talking about a Statutory Instrument here but, as I understand it, an Order in Council, technically made by the Queen, or in her absence, her Regent ... the Prince of Wales.

So all MPs can do is to embarrass the Government into making a further change. I am particularly concerned about whether IND can cope with lots of one-year extensions, given that some people will only have four years permission to stay in the UK and will now need five years before being able to apply for ILR.

Much earlier in this topic someone said the IND cannot even manage its own website! How true!

tt · Post by tt » Mon Mar 13, 2006 7:23 pm

That's interesting about the use of the royal prerogative here. As far as I understand it, biometric passports are also being "legislated" under Royal Prerogative (by way of Order in Council - here, not the sort made in accordance with an Act of Parlt). I'm assuming this won't open the can of worms about improper use of the prerogative that more "important" things like the Iraq war did (even though parliamentary approval was eventually sought), cos of the backing of the EU on the fundamental points here, and the fact that probably much precedent has been established here.

maxima · Post by **maxima** » Mon Mar 13, 2006 7:58 pm

Lets be honest. most of people of this country (and almost every country in the world) hates immigrants. so forget abt help from MP etc.. Only lawers can do the job (cos they are chicky enough).

bbdivo · Post by **bbdivo** » Mon Mar 13, 2006 8:13 pm

maxima wrote:Lets be honest. most of people of this country (and almost every country in the world) hates immigrants. so forget abt help from MP etc.. Only lawers can do the job (cos they are chicky enough).

Oh I don't know about that I have been here almost 5yrs now, and I havent seen this hate you talk about. Your MP is a better bet I reckon, at least he can raise a question to Charles Clarke in the House of Commons, don't forget a lot of people who are affected are more than likely voters too.

andhraguy · Post by **andhraguy** » Mon Mar 13, 2006 8:22 pm

I am due for ILR in first week of MAY 2006 . Need to wait for 13 months for the delay of 1 month.

Very much disappointed. Can't believe this ... All my plans are collapsed.

My friend completing 4 years is getting his ILR tomorrow(14th March) .. He will be able to apply for citizenship by 14th March 2006 ... Guess what ... I will still be waiting for my ILR then after 4 years 11 months of stay.. He will get his ILR & Citizenship for entering into this country 30 days before me.I don't even get my ILR by then .. How unfair ..???

andhraguy · Post by **andhraguy** » Mon Mar 13, 2006 8:34 pm

I am due for ILR in first week of MAY 2006 . Need to wait for 13 months for the delay of 1 month.

Very much disappointed. Can't believe this ... All my plans are collapsed.

My friend completing 4 years is getting his ILR tomorrow(14th March) .. He will be able to apply for citizenship by 14th March 2007 ... Guess what ... I will still be waiting for my ILR then after 4 years 11 months of stay.. He will get his ILR & Citizenship for entering into this country 30 days before me.I don't even get my ILR by then .. How unfair ..???

tvt · Post by **tvt** » Mon Mar 13, 2006 9:16 pm

I estimate there are hundreds of thousands of people affected. If everyone would give only £1 you can hire the services of the best barrister in the UK to challenge this change of rules.

tvt · Post by **tvt** » Mon Mar 13, 2006 10:29 pm

The full text of the statement of changes is now available:

http://www.official-documents.co.uk/doc ... 4/0974.pdf

From the explanatory text
"The change is not regarded as controversial"

Also there is a clear lie to parliament (statement is laid before parliament).

"..it has no impact on business" when in fact businesses will have to fork out payment for Work Permit extensions and Highly Skilled Migrants in business will have to fork out for the extension of their LTR.

tvt · Post by **tvt** » Mon Mar 13, 2006 10:36 pm

There is also a closure of a previous loophole allowing amalgamation of HSMP with any period spent under any category leading to settlement (for example dependents of WP holders) towards ILR. From now on only periods of main WP / main Innovator can be amalgamated towards ILR.

Post by **John** » Mon Mar 13, 2006 11:16 pm

"..it has no impact on business" when in fact businesses will have to fork out payment for Work Permit extensions and Highly Skilled Migrants in business will have to fork out for the extension of their LTR.

A lie? Undoubtedly it will be interpreted as that. However I suspect that it is further proof this the relevant arm of Government have not got a clue what actually happens in the real world.

Also in the accompanying notes :-

The change is not regarded as controversial.

-: the change they are referring to being the move from 4 years to 5 years.

sywahu · Post by **sywahu** » Mon Mar 13, 2006 11:24 pm

Lets not forget one very important point here, this country is STILL very "migrant-friendly" compared to others EU countries.

They could have have very well changed this law to be 6 years on work permit or something else. Its only one year so hang on all your guys out there. This is not a worst case scenario but only a DELAY. No law has changed (for most people) to prevent WP-->ILR.

Also, from my own experience, I am very grateful to the HO here!! To be frank, people I know in middle east spent all their lives there as doctors enggs and in the end, they had NO RIGHT FOR settlement there. Now thats unfair.

I was very concerned when they announced this 5-year plan and can understand how unsettling this kind of news can be...specially with family etc.

But don't worry too much if its just another 12 months. All your plans are only delayed....Not cancelled.

mariosh05 · Post by **mariosh05** » Mon Mar 13, 2006 11:45 pm

Guys,

Instead of complaining on this web site, I think all of us should do something about this unfair regulation. For example, I suggest to send an email to indpublicenquiries@ind.homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk complaining about the new rule. I've just already done. If IND receives hundreds or thousands of complaints, maybe they will reconsider their decision.

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

5 years for ILR rule implemented

very UNFAIR