VBSI news updated for the campaign against 4-5 retrospective

[nonothing]

News update from VBSI website: www.vbsi.org.uk

19/06/2006
A new EDM started by Andrew Dismore MP calling for transitional arrangements.
http://edmi.parliament.uk/EDMi/EDMDetai ... ESSION=875

16/06/2006
"Immigrants fight 'unfair' law change" by Clare Babbidge.
Read the article at
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5087618.stm

05/06/2006

Demonstration on Friday 16/06
10.00am to 19.00pm, in fornt of the parlianment

-On the day Andrew Dismore MP will hand 1700 petitions to the parliament.
-On the day the medias will discover how unfair the retrospective changes are.
-On the day WE LET OUR VOICES HEARD BY THE COUNTRY!

Please join the action!
VBSI is asking you:

-Send email to info@vbsi.org.uk to confirm your presence.
-Tell VBSI how you could help in the demonstration.
-Send your slogans.
-Send your design of slogans and banners.
-Most importantly DO COME AND JOIN US ON 16/06.

The demonstration will be completely legal and approved by Police. You do not have to stay for the whole day, come when it is most convenient. However, the first half of the day (till about 3pm) is most important.

01/06/2006
Will you take part in a London Demonstration? A demonstration is believed to benefit both lobbying and legal action. Please help us to plan our demonstration! Please take VBSI's latest poll to show if you can join us and when you think is the suitable date.
http://www.vbsi.org.uk

VBSI will set up a poll for legal action soon.

31/05/2006
Latest updates from Christine Lee's team
Petitions and Demonstrations
http://www.vbsi.org.uk/index.php?mact=N ... eturnid=15

25/05/2006
First response to VBSI's letter from the parliamentarian
About 200 VBSI letters have been sent to the parliamentarians by Wednesday. VBSI recieved the first response from the parliamentarian today.
http://www.vbsi.org.uk/index.php?mact=N ... eturnid=15

23/05/2006
Hardship Cases Appeal
VBSI urgenly need your hardship cases as the main proof of the fact that retrospective implementation of the new immigration rules harms the working immigrants society.
http://www.vbsi.org.uk/index.php?mact=N ... eturnid=15

22/05/2006

The Target of 1000 Petiotions Reached!
Christine Lee's Team has received in excess of 1000 petitions to present to the House of Commons. Christine will present the petition formally to Andrew Dismore MP, who will then in turn, formally present it to the house for debate.
http://www.vbsi.org.uk/index.php?mact=N ... eturnid=15

Walkabout in Harrow
On Saturday 20 May 2006, volunteers from the North London Chinese Association descended on Harrow and starting from Station Road, moved in different directions to canvass employers views and support, and also to gain signatures for the petition.
http://www.vbsi.org.uk/index.php?mact=N ... eturnid=15

19/05/2006

VBSI letters to flood parliament
VBSI is sending out letters to every parliamentarians to pile further presures on the Home Office.
http://www.vbsi.org.uk/index.php?mact=N ... eturnid=15

17/05/2006

VBSI on BBC
Article "Against Unfair Retrospective Immigration Rules" by a VBSI member has been posted on the BBC website.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/actionnetwork/ ... ad=3000923

Two faces of HO
The HO shows the tame face to the illegal immigrants and shows the tough face to legal immigrants.
http://www.vbsi.org.uk/index.php?mact=N ... eturnid=15

16/05/2006

TNT Magazine introduces VBSI and the campaign.
http://www.vbsi.org.uk/index.php?page=t ... duces_vbsi

�15 Millions windfall for the HO
Financial impact estimation avaialble on VBSI website.
http://www.vbsi.org.uk/index.php?page=f ... estimation

Latest updates from Christine Lee's team. Including updates of Christine's meeting with Tony McNulty, proposed door to door campaigning in Harrow, etc.
http://www.vbsi.org.uk/index.php?page=navleft_1col

13/05/2006

Affected people estimation statistics available on VBSI website.
http://www.vbsi.org.uk/index.php?page=a ... estimation

12/05/2006

Christine Lee's team needs more petitions and they're aiming to get 1,000 signatures.
http://www.vbsi.org.uk/index.php?page=petition_appeal

ILR Stats 2000-2004 available on VBSI website.
http://www.vbsi.org.uk/index.php?page=i ... _2000-2004

Commants on 4-5 change from both Christine Lee and Tony McNulty.
http://www.vbsi.org.uk/index.php?mact=N ... eturnid=15

10/05/2006

Labour MP questioned ILR change in Commons
Mr. Andrew Dismore (Labour, Hendon) quizzed Mr. Tony McNulty (the Secretary of State for the Home Department) in Parliament about the expected impact of the four-to-five year change.
http://www.vbsi.org.uk/index.php?page=d ... he_commons

Affected immigrants to challenge the HO
According to some posts on the internet, several affected immigrants are going to challenge the HO by sending their ILR application, although they will only have been on WP/HSMP for 4 years by June. VBSI hopes them all the best for their applications and will follow the situation closely.

A letter dated on 24/04/2006 from 10 Downing Street and more responses from MPs were posted on immigrationboards.com.
http://www.immigrationboards.com/viewtopic.php?t=7768

09/05/2006

one more MP (LD MP Norman Lamb from North Norfolk) signed EDM 1992. so 29 signatures so far on 2 EDMs.
http://www.vbsi.org.uk/index.php?page=navleft

updates from Christine Lee's approach were posted on VBSI's website.
http://www.vbsi.org.uk/index.php?page=navleft_1col

08/05/2006

Responses from the Conservative Party leader David Cameron's office and Conservative MP Jeremy Hunt were posted on immigrationboards.com
http://www.immigrationboards.com/viewto ... 662efbb501
http://www.vbsi.org.uk/index.php?page=r ... om_the_mps

a post by joseph.DJ on lkcn.net suggests there's an important change of stance from HO's officer. (can't be confirmed though)
http://lkcn.net/eubbs/index.php?showtopic=102162&st=465

[nonothing]

updated on 19/05/2006
updated on 17/05/2006
updated on 16/05/2006

[nonothing]

updated on 22/05/2006

[nonothing]

updated on 25/05/2006

[John]

By request I have made this topic into a sticky.

[nonothing]

john, thanks for making it a sticky.

[Shan12]

I thought there was supposed to be another meeting on the 20th of September of the Parliamentary Committee. I tried to find info on it but it seems that nothing has been published yet.

[geoffsinclair]

This update was posted on VBSI's website on 9 November 2007.

"We received the following update from Stephen Kong of Harvey, Son and Filby Solicitors: "I confirm the ILR JR is scheduled as planned i.e. the rolled up hearing will be held on the 17 and 18 of December 2007."

[geoffsinclair]

This update was posted on VBSI's website on 18 December 2007.

"Unfortunately, the decision on the ILR 4-5 Judicial Review was fully in favour of the Home Office. An appeal may however be possible. We will keep you informed of any developments and will post a copy of the official court's decision as soon as it is received."

[tensailee]

Title: *R (on the application of Ooi and others) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

Published Date: 18/12/2007

Sources: General Case Digest

Brief Summary:

Immigration - Leave to enter. The amendments made to para 134 of the Immigration Rules, which increased the period by which a work permit holder could become eligible to apply for indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom from four years to five years, and which required an applicant to pass a test in respect of 'knowledge of life in the UK' in addition to the existing requirement for a 'sufficient understanding of English', were lawful.

[geoffsinclair]

R (on the application of Ooi and others) v Secretary of State for the Home Department.

"In the instant case, none of the claimants' bases of challenge were made out. Neither of the rule changes had impaired an existing right or created a new obligation in regard to events that had already passed. As at the date of the changes, none of the claimants had had a right to be granted ILR in the light of the fact that in no single case had four years of continuous residence been achieved.

In that event, the amended rules could not be criticised for having retrospective effect. Moreover, the introduction of the knowledge requirement could not be challenged on the ground that it had been based on a purpose of effecting 'social cohension' which was not within the scope of s 3(2) of the Immigration Act 1971. Further, there had been no explicit statement to any of the claimants that they would have become eligible to apply for ILR after residing for four years in the UK.

In addition, no direct or indirect discrimination could be said to have been caused to the claimants under any of the provisions of the Race Relations Act 1976, and there had been no violations of the claimants' Convention rights. Finally, the Secretary of State could not be criticised for not having exercised his prerogative powers, given that none of the claimants had at the time of their applications, asked for such powers to be exercised, and in any event, the fact that the powers had not been exercised could not be regarded as Wednesbury unreasonable or perverse."

They (claimant) got slammed - not so sure the Court sufficiently addressed the breach of Convention Rights under Article 8(2) ECHR, right to respect for home and private life. The Home Office was roundly lambasted by the Joint Committee on Human Rights and the Court would have had this report available. I shall await the conclusion of VBSI and their lawyers who know the case best.

[Consigliere]

R (on the application of Ooi and others) v Secretary of State for the Home Department.

"In the instant case, none of the claimants' bases of challenge were made out. Neither of the rule changes had impaired an existing right or created a new obligation in regard to events that had already passed. As at the date of the changes, none of the claimants had had a right to be granted ILR in the light of the fact that in no single case had four years of continuous residence been achieved.

In that event, the amended rules could not be criticised for having retrospective effect. Moreover, the introduction of the knowledge requirement could not be challenged on the ground that it had been based on a purpose of effecting 'social cohension' which was not within the scope of s 3(2) of the Immigration Act 1971. Further, there had been no explicit statement to any of the claimants that they would have become eligible to apply for ILR after residing for four years in the UK.

In addition, no direct or indirect discrimination could be said to have been caused to the claimants under any of the provisions of the Race Relations Act 1976, and there had been no violations of the claimants' Convention rights. Finally, the Secretary of State could not be criticised for not having exercised his prerogative powers, given that none of the claimants had at the time of their applications, asked for such powers to be exercised, and in any event, the fact that the powers had not been exercised could not be regarded as Wednesbury unreasonable or perverse."

They (claimant) got slammed - not so sure the Court sufficiently addressed the breach of Convention Rights under Article 8(2) ECHR, right to respect for home and private life. The Home Office was roundly lambasted by the Joint Committee on Human Rights and the Court would have had this report available. I shall await the conclusion of VBSI and their lawyers who know the case best.

Out of interest who was Counsel, as to me it seems like they didn't make a very good job of pleading the case. To argue the prerogative you have to have at least a QC

An interesting comment in the middle though regarding no explicit statement of eligibility for ILR as my CEO has a letter saying he can apply for ILR in May 2008, which was the route we were going to take if this case failed

[tensailee]

*R (on the application of Ooi and others) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

Citation: [2007] All ER (D) 279 (Dec)

Hearing Date: 18 December 2007

Court: Queen's Bench Division, Administrative Court

Judge: Mitting J

Representation: Ramby De Mello and Danny Bazini (instructed by Harvey Son & Filby) for the claimants. Jonathan Moffett (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) for the Secretary of State.

Abstract:
Immigration - Leave to enter. The amendments made to para 134 of the Immigration Rules, which increased the period by which a work permit holder could become eligible to apply for indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom from four years to five years, and which required an applicant to pass a test in respect of 'knowledge of life in the UK' in addition to the existing requirement for a 'sufficient understanding of English', were lawful.

Catchwords:
Immigration – Leave to enter – Non-patrial – Right of entry – Claimants applying for indefinite leave to remain – Secretary of State refusing applications given changes to immigration rules – Whether changes to rules unlawful – Correctness of Secretary of State's decisions – Immigration Act 1971, s 3(2) – Race Relations Act 1976 – Human Rights Act 1998, Sch 1, Pt 1, arts 8, 14, First Protocol, art 1 – Immigration Rules HC 395, para 134 (i), as amended.

Summary:
Section 3 of the Immigration Act 1971, so far as material, provides: '(2) The Secretary of State shall from time to time (and as soon as may be) lay before Parliament statements of the rules, or of any changes in the rules, laid down by him as to the practice to be followed in the administration of this Act for regulating the entry into and stay in the United Kingdom of persons required by this Act to have leave to enter, including any rules as to the period for which leave is to be given and the conditions to be attached in different circumstances; and section 1(4) above shall not be taken to require uniform provision to be made by the rules as regards admission of persons for a purpose or in a capacity specified in section 1(4) (and in particular, for this as well as other purposes of this Act, account may be taken of citizenship or nationality)...'

On 3 April 2006, para 134 (i) of HC 395 (the Immigration Rules) was amended so that the period by which a work permit holder could become eligible to apply for indefinite leave to remain (ILR) in the United Kingdom increased from four years to five years. Then, on 2 April 2007, a new sub-paragraph to para 134 of the Immigration Rules came into effect. The new rule required, for the purposes of a successful application for ILR, an applicant to demonstrate: first, 'a sufficient understanding of English'; and secondly, 'knowledge of life in the UK' (the knowledge requirement). On various dates after those new rules had come into effect, the defendant Secretary of State refused ILR applications which had been made by five claimants, all of whom were men of chinese extraction, who had been granted permits to work as chefs for UK based employers. The claimants each applied for permission to apply for judicial review of the lawfulness of the two sets of rule changes and the decisions that the Secretary of State had made under them in their respective cases.

Their challenge was brought on six alternative bases: (i) that the rule changes were ultra vires in respect of s 3(2) of the Immigration Act 1971, as they had had a retrospective effect; (ii) that the knowledge requirement was ultra vires as it had been intended to achieve social cohesion which was not within the scope of s 3(2) of the 1971 Act; (iii) that the rule changes defeated a legitimate expectation of a substantive kind, namely, that ILR would be granted, for each of them, after four years of continuous residence in the UK; (iv) that the knowledge requirement amounted to an unlawful act of direct or indirect facial discrimination under the Race Relations Act 1976; (v) that the knowledge requirement infringed their rights under arts 8 and 14 of, and art 1 of the First Protocol to, the European Convention on Human Rights, as set out under Sch 1 of Pt 1 to the Human Rights Act 1998; and (vi) that the Secretary of State should have used his prerogative power to exempt them from the more stringent requirements of the new rules.

Permission to apply for judicial review in respect of all the claimants would be granted. Their substantive applications would be dismissed.

The amendments made to para 134 of the Immigration Rules, which increased the period by which a work permit holder could become eligible to apply for indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom from four years to five years, and which required an applicant to pass a test in respect of 'knowledge of life in the UK' in addition to the existing requirement for a 'sufficient understanding of English', were lawful.

In the instant case, none of the claimants' bases of challenge were made out. Neither of the rule changes had impaired an existing right or created a new obligation in regard to events that had already passed. As at the date of the changes, none of the claimants had had a right to be granted ILR in the light of the fact that in no single case had four years of continuous residence been achieved. In that event, the amended rules could not be criticised for having retrospective effect. Moreover, the introduction of the knowledge requirement could not be challenged on the ground that it had been based on a purpose of effecting 'social cohension' which was not within the scope of s 3(2) of the Immigration Act 1971. Further, there had been no explicit statement to any of the claimants that they would have become eligible to apply for ILR after residing for four years in the UK. In addition, no direct or indirect discrimination could be said to have been caused to the claimants under any of the provisions of the Race Relations Act 1976, and there had been no violations of the claimants' Convention rights. Finally, the Secretary of State could not be criticised for not having exercised his prerogative powers, given that none of the claimants had at the time of their applications, asked for such powers to be exercised, and in any event, the fact that the powers had not been exercised could not be regarded as Wednesbury unreasonable or perverse.

Accordingly, the Secretary of State's decision refusing ILR, in each case, would stand.

Robert Chan Barrister.

Published Date
18/12/2007

[rashidshah]

Can we do an appeal against the rule again after HSMPians won their case ? is it worth it ?

[1971]

Hi Rashi,

Plans already in place and we await the rulings.

Cheers
1971.

[snow]

hi what is that ruling .

[saurya_s]

Yeah, the ILR hearing is due soon. We need to keep tab on that. I am one of the most severely affected by this.
S

[unahb1]

any updates yet..

[itsme]

Just came across information from Times website..which shows that we nearly won the case against restrospective changes.

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/art ... 816594.cms

LONDON: Thousands of Indian and other non-European Union professionals have won a legal victory in the UK with the High Court allowing them to
challenge retrospective changes to immigration rules that affected their status here adversely.

Amit Kapadia, head of the Highly Skilled Migrants Forum (HSMP), told PTI that the legal challenge was against the Home Office forcing skilled migrants to extend their visas to five years when they were originally promised permanent settlement in Britain after four years.

Kapadia said that the delay of an extra year for permanent settlement had caused much hardship to migrants and their families.

At a hearing in the High Court, deputy high court judge Stuart Isaacs said the HSMP Forum "clearly has an arguable case". He threw out an attempt by Home secretary Jacqui Smith to stall proceedings.

A full hearing against the retrospective changes to immigration is due to begin soon. This signals another victory to Indian and other professionals who arrived in Britain under the HSMP programme, but found its criteria changed with retrospective effect.

[saurya_s]

That is true only for HSMP holder not work permit holder. However, one can make case in two ways:
1. Work permit holders are more required as the employer applies for it specifically as opposed to open HSMP.
2. One can say that they were eligible for HSMP as well but the home office assured them Work permit and HSMP holder will be treated equally for ILR, so they didn't switch but home office change their stance.

In the meanwhile, I would urge everybody to write to their MP about your case using one of the above two points. The ILR judicial review is due soon and it should reinforce our case.
Hope that helps.
S

[saurya_s]

*R (on the application of Ooi and others) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

Citation: [2007] All ER (D) 279 (Dec)

Hearing Date: 18 December 2007

Court: Queen's Bench Division, Administrative Court

Judge: Mitting J

Representation: Ramby De Mello and Danny Bazini (instructed by Harvey Son & Filby) for the claimants. Jonathan Moffett (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) for the Secretary of State.

Abstract:
Immigration - Leave to enter. The amendments made to para 134 of the Immigration Rules, which increased the period by which a work permit holder could become eligible to apply for indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom from four years to five years, and which required an applicant to pass a test in respect of 'knowledge of life in the UK' in addition to the existing requirement for a 'sufficient understanding of English', were lawful.

Catchwords:
Immigration – Leave to enter – Non-patrial – Right of entry – Claimants applying for indefinite leave to remain – Secretary of State refusing applications given changes to immigration rules – Whether changes to rules unlawful – Correctness of Secretary of State's decisions – Immigration Act 1971, s 3(2) – Race Relations Act 1976 – Human Rights Act 1998, Sch 1, Pt 1, arts 8, 14, First Protocol, art 1 – Immigration Rules HC 395, para 134 (i), as amended.

Summary:
Section 3 of the Immigration Act 1971, so far as material, provides: '(2) The Secretary of State shall from time to time (and as soon as may be) lay before Parliament statements of the rules, or of any changes in the rules, laid down by him as to the practice to be followed in the administration of this Act for regulating the entry into and stay in the United Kingdom of persons required by this Act to have leave to enter, including any rules as to the period for which leave is to be given and the conditions to be attached in different circumstances; and section 1(4) above shall not be taken to require uniform provision to be made by the rules as regards admission of persons for a purpose or in a capacity specified in section 1(4) (and in particular, for this as well as other purposes of this Act, account may be taken of citizenship or nationality)...'

On 3 April 2006, para 134 (i) of HC 395 (the Immigration Rules) was amended so that the period by which a work permit holder could become eligible to apply for indefinite leave to remain (ILR) in the United Kingdom increased from four years to five years. Then, on 2 April 2007, a new sub-paragraph to para 134 of the Immigration Rules came into effect. The new rule required, for the purposes of a successful application for ILR, an applicant to demonstrate: first, 'a sufficient understanding of English'; and secondly, 'knowledge of life in the UK' (the knowledge requirement). On various dates after those new rules had come into effect, the defendant Secretary of State refused ILR applications which had been made by five claimants, all of whom were men of chinese extraction, who had been granted permits to work as chefs for UK based employers. The claimants each applied for permission to apply for judicial review of the lawfulness of the two sets of rule changes and the decisions that the Secretary of State had made under them in their respective cases.

Their challenge was brought on six alternative bases: (i) that the rule changes were ultra vires in respect of s 3(2) of the Immigration Act 1971, as they had had a retrospective effect; (ii) that the knowledge requirement was ultra vires as it had been intended to achieve social cohesion which was not within the scope of s 3(2) of the 1971 Act; (iii) that the rule changes defeated a legitimate expectation of a substantive kind, namely, that ILR would be granted, for each of them, after four years of continuous residence in the UK; (iv) that the knowledge requirement amounted to an unlawful act of direct or indirect facial discrimination under the Race Relations Act 1976; (v) that the knowledge requirement infringed their rights under arts 8 and 14 of, and art 1 of the First Protocol to, the European Convention on Human Rights, as set out under Sch 1 of Pt 1 to the Human Rights Act 1998; and (vi) that the Secretary of State should have used his prerogative power to exempt them from the more stringent requirements of the new rules.

Permission to apply for judicial review in respect of all the claimants would be granted. Their substantive applications would be dismissed.

The amendments made to para 134 of the Immigration Rules, which increased the period by which a work permit holder could become eligible to apply for indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom from four years to five years, and which required an applicant to pass a test in respect of 'knowledge of life in the UK' in addition to the existing requirement for a 'sufficient understanding of English', were lawful.

In the instant case, none of the claimants' bases of challenge were made out. Neither of the rule changes had impaired an existing right or created a new obligation in regard to events that had already passed. As at the date of the changes, none of the claimants had had a right to be granted ILR in the light of the fact that in no single case had four years of continuous residence been achieved. In that event, the amended rules could not be criticised for having retrospective effect. Moreover, the introduction of the knowledge requirement could not be challenged on the ground that it had been based on a purpose of effecting 'social cohension' which was not within the scope of s 3(2) of the Immigration Act 1971. Further, there had been no explicit statement to any of the claimants that they would have become eligible to apply for ILR after residing for four years in the UK. In addition, no direct or indirect discrimination could be said to have been caused to the claimants under any of the provisions of the Race Relations Act 1976, and there had been no violations of the claimants' Convention rights. Finally, the Secretary of State could not be criticised for not having exercised his prerogative powers, given that none of the claimants had at the time of their applications, asked for such powers to be exercised, and in any event, the fact that the powers had not been exercised could not be regarded as Wednesbury unreasonable or perverse.

Accordingly, the Secretary of State's decision refusing ILR, in each case, would stand.

Robert Chan Barrister.

Published Date
18/12/2007

'no single case had four years of continuous residence been achieved' is not true. I did complete 4 years and when I phoned home office I was told that I will have to complete 5 years.

[itsme]

just heard few cases that some guys with help of solicitors fought in high court and won ILR after 4 years of stay.. will this work out ??

[mcclaine]

Hello everyone,

Just woke up to the fact that I've been here 4 years on a work-permit (came in March 2005) and, if it were not for the retrospective application of the ILR 4-5 year rule, I would be eligible for my ILR very shortly.

I was not really opposed to waiting the extra year for the ILR but I now understand that the goal-posts may be moved (again!) and that ILR as a stepping stone to citizenship may be done away with completely later this year or early 2010 under the proposed new citizenship and immigration bill (I'm afraid the posters on other threads who think the new changes will be implemented only from Dec. 2010 are mistaken - as would be evident from the new prefatory text introduced by the Home Office in the forms for citizenship).

I understand the HSMP forum judicial review on the retrospective increase in the ILR qualifying period is only for the HSMP guys. This is, allegedly, because the HSMP scheme was a route to migration, under the scheme people needed to make the UK their main home etc., all of which distinguish the HSMP scheme from the work-permit scheme.

However, I find this type of reasoning a bit disingenuous and misleading for the following reasons:

(a) a person who comes here to work, whether under the work permit scheme or the HSMP scheme, is evidently leaving behind their previous home and job opportunities in their home country - there is no difference in this regard between people who apply under the HSMP scheme and work permit scheme.

(b) Insofar as the intention to make UK their main home is concerned, plenty of work permit holders file tax forms when they first begin their job where they elect that the UK is their domicile (i.e their place of residence for the foreseeable future) on the basis of which they will pay tax on worldwide capital gains to UK tax authorities;

(c) Generally, most non-EU work permit holders are in income earning jobs and have qualifications which would have entitled them to apply for the HSMP anyway. Indeed, unlike HSMP holders, work permit holders need to find a job before they can obtain their work permit. Thus, there should be no argument that the quality of the pool of work permit holders, compared to HSMP holders, is in any sense inferior or otherwise provides a public policy justification to apply retrospectivity rulings differently;

(d) Given that most work permit holders would have also been eligible for HSMP whn they originally applied, they would have based (as I did) their decision on not to apply for an HSMP and instead come on a work permit on the information supplied by the UK government at the time - which was that irrespective of whether you were an HSMP holder or a work permit holder, the path to making an ILR application was 4 years. Accordingly, retrospectively applying different ILR qualification periods to work permit holders and HSMP holders unfairly discriminates against work permit holders, who, like HSMP holders, also placed reliance on government published information that the journey to ILR would be 4 years and would have chosen anoher route had they been informed otherwise at the time.

(e) The human rights position of work permit holders is worse than HSMP holders inasmuch as work permit holders, if they lose their jobs, need to find a new sponsor within 28 days or else they are required to leave the country. HSMP holders on the other hand can stay in the UK even if they lose their job, for so long as their HSMP visa stays valid. Given this, consider the case of a work permit holder who has stayed in the UK for 4 years (hoping to get ILR at the end of such period) and finds himself or herself unemployed at the end of 4.5 years. Ordinarily, they would have been eligible for, and would have received, their ILR after 4 years and the job loss would not have affected them. However, because of the retrospective change to the ILR qualifying period, they will now likely need to leave the country which they have called their home for the last 4 years, where they have established a social and career network and have probably taken a mortgage and bought a house - all at a time when they could instead have originally come on the HSMP had they been informed at the time that different ILR qualifying periods could (or would) apply to HSMP and work permit holders.

Given all of the above, and I am sure other reasons that people will legitimately have, I think it is absolutey essential for work-permit holders to regroup and fight the retrospectivity of the ILR qualifying period should the HSMP guys win their case.

The problem is one of timing - I understand that the HSMP case hearing is scheduled for 13 March but is is not clear when the decision will be announced. If we begin preparing only after the HSMP decision, it may be that our own JR is heard (if at all) several months later - by which time the new citizenship and immigration bill will likely be in force, thus complicating things even more for us. However, this is a risk I think we are going to have to live with.

On the issue of lawyers, I don't think we should re-approach the guys who lost the last work permit JR case. We should instead approach the lawyers on the HSMP case, since they have had more ready success on this front and will likely be able to leverage on their experience in the HSMP case to our advantage.

These are just a few thoughts and I would, of course, be glad to help with and contribute (as long as it is not a very large amount!) to an appeal on retrspectivity by work permit holders.

1971, you mentioned that plans are already being made for such a courseof action - I would be grateful if you could share details with us on this board since we might have helpful suggestions or, at the very least, moral and financial support to offer. We need to be well organised, both administratively and financially, so that we can begin our legal challenge as soon as the HSMP decision is out (and assuming it is favourable).

Best of luck to us all!

[ankurarora]

mcclaine

I think you have made the point very clear. I completely agree with all that you have to say.

I seem to be in a similar situation. Having got my Work Permit in Oct 2004, I decided to switch to HSMP in August 2006 to make it easier for me to switch jobs and try and take the free lancing/contracting route. Had I been on HSMP before April 2006, a positive result for HSMP forum hearing would have benefitted me. However, as you have put it correctly, because I decided to take the Work Permit route earlier, irrespective of the result of hearing, I will have to wait for another year to qualify to apply for ILR. Normally I would'nt have had any problem waiting another year, but looking at the current situation, where regulations would be chaning again before the end of the year, it is scary to sit and wait.

I would be all up for people in similar situation to get together and follow the HSMP forum people.

[londoner1947]

I think all the WP holders should stand up and ask for their rights