Interesting HO revelations in personal file / ILR 4-->5

[RobinLondon]

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

[Siggi]

Hi Rob,

I'm not sure what your position is, other than I know that you are on a Ancestral visa ,like me.

I assume you have also spent 4 years in the UK and are effected by the 4-5 years change.

Personally if you have no other reason to obtain ILR before the 5 year mark, I think you are banging your head against a brick wall, as you now know through bitter experience both MP's and the HO make the rules up and break them as they see fit.

I beleive that Stephen Kong and his JR will be successful in June and this in turn will allow for us to aply for ILR.But send your story of woo to Stephen Kong any how as every little bit helps.

However this is little consulation as you still will forced to pay £750 as aposed to £350 but just a little early.This is over and above the £500 extention which you would have already paid.

If your situation is any different to mine, as mine is also not straight forward, please feel free to mail a private message.

[a11]

Hi Robin,

Thanks for letting us know!
I think it'd be quite useful if Stephen Kong had access to these papers - even though they refer to just your case, they might be used to expose once again the inconsistent behaviour of the HO. Which, in my view, would be quite helpful. Would you give SK permission to do this?

Thanks,
Mikhail

[VBSI Investigative Writer]

Please contact me urgently via the VBSI.
William

[olisun]

Hi Robin,

Thanks for letting us know!
I think it'd be quite useful if Stephen Kong had access to these papers - even though they refer to just your case, they might be used to expose once again the inconsistent behaviour of the HO. Which, in my view, would be quite helpful. Would you give SK permission to do this?

Thanks,
Mikhail

Is the OP allowed to share his file / information?

[a11]

it's a good think to double-check, but frankly it'd be weird if not

[RobinLondon]

I met with Stephen Kong recently to show him the contents of my file. He believes that I have a strong case based on the HO's breach of legitimate expectations. This results from a paper trail dating from February 2005 involving me, my MP and the then-HO ministers Charles Clarke and Tony McNulty.

The problem with my involvement is whether or not my information can be submitted at such a late stage. The HO solicitors may consider this to be an "ambush strategy" by Mr Kong. He will have to convince the court that he would not be introducing new evidence, but providing additional evidence to support arguments already tabled. I'll hear back from him on this issue on Tuesday.

The other issue is whether my joining the JR will really help the case, as Mr Kong's efforts seem to be largely centred around Chinese chefs on work permits. Some of the issues for his work permit cases are not germane to mine and vice versa, so there might be a dilution effect.

If my evidence can't be entered together with the other documentation, there is always the chance that I can get involved as an "amicus curiae", in which I'm not part of the case but the outcome of it will effect me. These effects would be for good or for bad, I might add.

I'm just going to have to wait until Mr Kong informs me whether my documents are admissible and whether or not it's better for me to join the group or go it alone. It seems to be a matter to consider over the next few days.

[avjones]

"If my evidence can't be entered together with the other documentation, there is always the chance that I can get involved as an "amicus curiae", in which I'm not part of the case but the outcome of it will effect me. "

That can't be right - an amicus is a friend of the court, someone who gives expert evidence to help the court make up its mind. That's not your position. Perhaps you mean "interested party"?

[RobinLondon]

I don't know much about that. I'm not a solicitor, but I asked Mr Kong if my role would be as an "amicus curiae", and he said yes. But maybe he was just being nonspecific to a non-legal person.

Wikipedia defines the term as following, although this may be a more US-influenced definition:

"[A] phrase that literally means 'friend of the court' -- someone who is not a party to the litigation, but who believes that the court's decision may affect its interest." - William H. Rehnquist, The Supreme Court, p 89

In any case, if they don't accept my documents in time, I wouldn't be a party to the action, but showing an interest in the outcome. Thanks for your comment, though.

[avjones]

Very best of luck - a lot of us are watching that case, because it will have a big impact whatever the decision is.

Legitimate expectation is a big issue in immigration law these days.