Good News: concession on mandatory refusals of family

[mym]

Good News: concession on mandatory refusals of family

New concessions to the mandatory refusal rules introduced last month have been announced in a reply in the Commons by Liam Byrne, the Minister. These changes will have immediate effect as a concession.

Full relevant section of his speech is below:

I am announcing two further reforms this evening... First, we will not automatically refuse applications from people applying to join their family permanently in the UK—that is to say, those applying for visas as a spouse, civil partner or unmarried or same-sex partner under paragraphs 281 or 295A of the immigration rules; a fiancée or proposed civil partner, as set out in paragraph 290 of the rules; a parent, grandparent or other dependent relative, as set out in paragraph 317; a person exercising rights of access to a child, as set out in paragraph 246; or a spouse, civil partner or unmarried or same-sex partner of a refugee or person with humanitarian protection, as set out in paragraphs 352A, 352AA, 352FA and 352FD. Following some of the comments made by hon. Members this evening, I will of course check to see whether we have cast the scope of those exceptions correctly, but my initial analysis is that that is where the discretion should apply.

Secondly, we will not automatically refuse anyone who is under the age of 18 at the time of the breach of the immigration rules. My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North spoke powerfully on this subject, as did the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey. That case has been well made.

...As to the caveats, this does not mean that people who need to go home and reapply will automatically get in; they will still need to meet the requirements set out in the immigration rules and they may be refused if they have contrived in a significant way to frustrate those rules. Nor is it or can it be a green light for the groups I have mentioned to deliberately overstay. We need to bring forward fresh proposals to ensure that there are consequences for these actions.

Suggestions have been made to me. Obviously, the need to go home and apply for entry clearances is one sanction, and other opportunities are presented in our Green Paper “The Path to Citizenshipâ€

[IRYNA]

[quote="mym"]Good News: concession on mandatory refusals of family

New concessions to the mandatory refusal rules introduced last month have been announced in a reply in the Commons by Liam Byrne, the Minister. These changes will have immediate effect as a concession.

Full relevant section of his speech is below:

I am announcing two further reforms this evening... First, we will not automatically refuse applications from people applying to join their family permanently in the UK—that is to say, those applying for visas as a spouse, civil partner or unmarried or same-gender partner under paragraphs 281 or 295A of the immigration rules; a fiancée or proposed civil partner, as set out in paragraph 290 of the rules; a parent, grandparent or other dependent relative, as set out in paragraph 317; a person exercising rights of access to a child, as set out in paragraph 246; or a spouse, civil partner or unmarried or same-gender partner of a refugee or person with humanitarian protection, as set out in paragraphs 352A, 352AA, 352FA and 352FD. Following some of the comments made by hon. Members this evening, I will of course check to see whether we have cast the scope of those exceptions correctly, but my initial analysis is that that is where the discretion should apply.

Secondly, we will not automatically refuse anyone who is under the age of 18 at the time of the breach of the immigration rules. My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North spoke powerfully on this subject, as did the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey. That case has been well made.

...As to the caveats, this does not mean that people who need to go home and reapply will automatically get in; they will still need to meet the requirements set out in the immigration rules and they may be refused if they have contrived in a significant way to frustrate those rules. Nor is it or can it be a green light for the groups I have mentioned to deliberately overstay. We need to bring forward fresh proposals to ensure that there are consequences for these actions.

Suggestions have been made to me. Obviously, the need to go home and apply for entry clearances is one sanction, and other opportunities are presented in our Green Paper “The Path to Citizenshipâ€

[yankeegirl]

You can find it here

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/? ... ne#g1350.0

[chibage]

Iryna this is good news for you!! Good luck and hope it works for you..

[IRYNA]

that was very intresting .
Thank you very much.
I hope it wiil help.

[mym]

sorry but where did you find this?

Hansard.

Hence "announced in a reply in the Commons"

[ricky]

guys help me undetstanding this pls: is that mean ther is no automatic ban anymore!!!!

[mym]

guys help me undetstanding this pls: is that mean ther is no automatic ban anymore!!!!

No. It means what it says. The minister was very clear.

[Frontier Mole]

I would not get the flags and fireworks out just yet.
My cynical eye is reading this and reading between the lines I suggest that little touches like

they may be refused if they have contrived in a significant way to frustrate those rules

translates to:

If you do anything other than throw yourself on the plane home after X days of service of IS96 / IS151A or B you will have frustrated immigration. Failed and spurious asylum claims followed by unsucessful JR attempts are likely to be seen as frustration. Doing a disappearing act will be seen as frustration. I can see lots of frustrations - late claim of asylum might be a good one.

I think there has been at little bit of concern at the challenge that ECHR might have thrown up on the rules implemented on 29/2/08 without the tinkering now suggested by Byrne.

Watch that space.....

[IRYNA]

what you think about that
Deferred Divisions
ImmigrationAll Commons debates on 14 May 2008
« Previous debate Next debate »

That the Statement of Changes in Immigration Rules (House of Commons Paper No. 321), a copy of which was laid before this House on 6th February, be disapproved.

The House divided: Ayes 354, Noes 51.

[jei2]

Of all Departments of State, surely the Home Office—found, only this week, to have the lowest capability level of any Department—ought to understand better than most the difference between an honest mistake and a deception.

Well said Christopher Huhne!

[Lady K]

This vote to "disapprove" doesnt have anything to do with cancelling the concssion for overstayers till 1 October, does it? (Who have not contrived to frustrate the immigration rules) Or am I just being dim here?...

[mym]

This vote to "disapprove" doesnt have anything to do with cancelling the concssion for overstayers till 1 October, does it?

No. It's a formal mechanism to get the minister to make the concessions.

[jei2]

This vote to "disapprove" doesnt have anything to do with cancelling the concssion for overstayers till 1 October, does it? (Who have not contrived to frustrate the immigration rules) Or am I just being dim here?...

No it doesn't. The MPs are simply voting to show that they think 321 was poorly thought out and introduced with very little consultation of those parties who could have advised the government better.

Clearly Liam Byrne was forewarned that he was going to get a rollocking and had prepared his so called additional concessions. Now wouldn't that be an excellent way of introducing amnesty type initiatives that you fear might be unpopular with the electorate..

My belief is that he's got a couple more tricks up his sleeve but is playing his cards close to his chest for now.

[Liberal Immigrant]

This vote to "disapprove" doesnt have anything to do with cancelling the concssion for overstayers till 1 October, does it? (Who have not contrived to frustrate the immigration rules) Or am I just being dim here?...

dont worry about it, all immigration rules are subject to -ive resolution votes and these rarely occue, its a mere formality.

[mym]

what you think about that
Deferred Divisions
ImmigrationAll Commons debates on 14 May 2008
« Previous debate Next debate »

That the Statement of Changes in Immigration Rules (House of Commons Paper No. 321), a copy of which was laid before this House on 6th February, be disapproved.

The House divided: Ayes 354, Noes 51.

If you look at Hansard you will see that the motion to disapprove was lost:

Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): I now have to announce the result of a Division deferred from a previous day, on a Question relating to immigration. The Ayes were 51, the Noes were 354, so the motion was negatived.