1. Skip to navigation
  2. Skip to content
  3. Skip to sidebar

UK Queen’s speech: What might immigration look like after Brexit?

It may not have been accompanied by the usual pomp and circumstance, but the Queen’s speech on Wednesday, June 21 did provide some further clues as to what the government has planned for EU nationals post-Brexit. In the speech, the Queen confirmed that there are plans for an immigration bill that, if passed, will enable the government to end the free movement of EU nationals into the UK, but still allow the country to attract “the brightest and the best.” The bill would require EU nationals and their families to be “subject to relevant UK law,” she said.

This seems to suggest that we can expect to see a skills-based immigration system for EU workers following Brexit. Reading in between the lines, it also seems we can expect that EU nationals already working in the UK who choose to remain will be allowed to do so. However, those who do choose to remain will be subject exclusively to UK law, and will no longer enjoy the protections afforded by the European Court of Justice. Presumably this would work along the lines of Norway’s membership in the single market.

Currently EU nationals in the UK are advised to apply for permanent residency if they meet the qualifying criteria. The thinking being this may be sufficient to secure their stay in the UK after Brexit. Theresa May is in Brussels for Brexit talks today, where she is set to address EU leaders on her plans for the 3 million EU nationals currently residing in the UK, and the 1 million UK citizens currently residing in mainland Europe. We understand that full details of her plans will be published on Monday, ending the uncertainty that currently hangs over those who have exercised their right to freedom of movement, and over their employers.

, , ,

UK Queen’s speech: What might immigration look like after Brexit?

Adult dependent relatives—judicial review challenge

The Immigration Rules pertaining to visa applications ‎made by adult dependent relatives of UK citizens were changed in July 2012. According to the Rules, an “adult dependent relative” must be a close family member of the UK sponsor, i.e., a parent, grandparent. The Rules also require that:

  • The applicant must—because of age, illness or disability—require long-term personal care to perform everyday tasks.
  • The applicant must be unable—even with the practical and financial help of the UK relative—to get the required care in the country where he or she is living, either because it is not available and there is no person in that country who can reasonably provide it, or because it is not affordable.

There was concern at the time of the Rules change that the Home Office (the government department responsible for immigration, passports, counter-terrorism and crime policy), had tightened the Rules too much.

Home Office statistics have borne out the validity of that concern. Since the Home Office changed the Rules, the average number of successful applications each year decreased by at least 93 per cent!

BritCits, an advocacy group, challenged the current requirements. The organization, which campaigns for fair family immigration rules that don’t divide families or force British citizens into exile, brought a judicial review application in the High Court of Justice (BritCits vs. SSHD) challenging the legality of the Rules. It argued that the Rules defeated the purpose of the law under which they were made; that the Rules raised expectations without any real possibility of those expectations being met; and that the Rules interfered with family life.

The High Court issued a judgment dismissing the judicial review application. BritCits requested and was granted permission to appeal. This was dismissed by the Court of Appeal.

Applicants applying in this category will have to make applications with the knowledge that their chance of success is exceptionally low and that despite a recent challenge to the Immigration Rules, they will remain as promulgated. Applicants will continue to have to pull together as much evidence as they can to show that they meet the requirements. Although the Rules require scrutiny of the available care in the adult dependent relative’s home country, the Home Office will consider whether the care is “reasonable” for the applicant and “of the required level” for the applicant. This can include the psychological and emotional needs of elderly parents, for example. Taking such an approach could mean the difference between an application for an adult dependent relative being accepted or rejected.

If BritCits pursues its challenge to the Supreme Court we will of course keep you informed.

, , ,

Adult dependent relatives—judicial review challenge

EU family members’ rights

Family members ‎of EU nationals can join them in another member state if the EU national is exercising treaty rights, for example, studying or working.

The EU national may qualify for permanent residence after a qualifying period of time in the UK. Once an EU national is granted a right to permanent residence, he or she may then apply for British citizenship. One would assume that this also means that they can enjoy family life in the UK.

Until now this has not been so, but the position may be about to change. Once an EU national becomes a British citizen, he or she is no longer entitled to rely on EU law and the rights derived from it for family members.‎ However, the EU’s Advocate-General has given an opinion in Lounes (C-165/16) that non-EU family members should be able to remain in the UK with their dual EU and British family member. Ms. Ormazábal, a dual Spanish and British national, married Mr. Lounes, an Algerian national. The Advocate-General considered that the treatment of Ms. Ormazábal (the dual national) should be no less favorable than before her naturalization, or than would be granted to her if she was forced to move to another EU state to keep her family together.

While this is only the Advocate-General’s opinion, and is therefore only advisory and non-binding on the Court of Justice of the European Union, it is rare for the Advocate-General’s opinion to not be followed. The 15 judges at the CJEU will consider the case in the summer.

This could have a far-reaching ‎impact on EU nationals who wish to obtain dual citizenship to be sure of their right to remain in the UK once the UK leaves the EU. Previously EU nationals have held off naturalizing as British citizens for fear that their family members would not be able to remain in the UK. We will watch the progress of this case carefully and bring you an update as soon as there is more news.

,

EU family members’ rights

Travel ban executive order – the saga continues

The US Departments of State and Homeland Security both issued statements on February 6, 2017, confirming that the government has suspended the implementation of key provisions of President Trump’s travel ban on nationals from seven Muslim-majority countries, and that visas that had been provisionally revoked are now valid for travel and may be used, once again, to come to the US, subject to the normal laws and procedures that existed prior to the President Trump’s executive order dated January 27, 2017.

This action comes as a result of a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision in State of Washington and State of Minnesota v. Trump, denying a US Department of Justice request for an immediate stay of a nationwide injunction granted by a US federal district court judge in Seattle in response to Washington State’s request for a temporary restraining order immediately halting implementation and enforcement of the immigration ban.

The EO initially barred the entry to the United States of lawful permanent residents with green cards, and imposes a 90-day suspension of admission for immigrant and nonimmigrant visa holders, and refugees and passport holders from the seven countries. Soon thereafter, the Department of State issued an urgent notice suspending visa issuance to citizens of those countries. The EO also suspended the resettlement of refugees from all countries to the US for 120 days, and bans Syrian refugees indefinitely.

Previous injunctions had been issued in federal courts in Massachusetts and New York. Those orders temporarily enjoined federal agencies from removing people with approved refugee applications, valid visas and the nationals from the seven Muslim countries. The Seattle court’s decision is the broadest and has the largest impact.

Citizens from these countries are impacted

Nationals from the following countries are detrimentally impacted:

  • Iran
  • Iraq
  • Libya
  • Somalia
  • Sudan
  • Syria
  • Yemen

The EO does not apply to citizens of other countries who merely visited the listed countries. Further, the US Customs and Border Protection Agency has stated that the EO does not apply to citizens of these seven countries, if they are dual citizens and use the passport of a non-affected country to enter the US.

Travel guidance

Nationals from the seven listed countries, including dual citizens traveling with the passport of another country and US permanent residents, may wish to delay travel to the US until the details of the implementation of the EO are more clear, even if they already hold a visa to enter the United States. If in the United States already, they may wish to defer departure as they may not be allowed to return or they may find themselves going through a more lengthy than usual secondary inspection on arrival in the US. There are also reports of airline personnel being understandably confused regarding the status of the EO, with resulting inconvenience to travelers.

Background

On February 4, President Trump tweeted the following about the Hon. James L. Robart, the district court judge who issued the nationwide order. “The opinion of this so-called judge, which essentially takes law-enforcement away from our country, is ridiculous and will be overturned!”

Criticism of the tweet and the EO was immediate and widespread. Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) said, “The President’s hostility toward the rule of law is not just embarrassing, it is dangerous. He seems intent on precipitating a constitutional crisis.” Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) said: “We fear this executive order will become a self-inflicted wound in the fight against terrorism.”

Broad media coverage of the confusion caused by the uncertainty surrounding the EO’s fate continues. Dentons continues to receive emails and calls from employers who are considering cancelling all travel for employees carrying passports from the impacted countries, including dual citizens and US lawful permanent residents. Similar concerns have been voiced by citizens of many countries that are not listed in the EO but are worried that their country might be next. Due to the reciprocal nature of diplomatic relations, it is likely that US passport holders traveling to the seven countries will experience similar difficulties upon their arrival. Iran, for its part, has said, it would stop US citizens entering the country in retaliation to Washington’s visa ban.

Dentons will issue further information as it becomes available.

, , , , , , , , , , , ,

Travel ban executive order – the saga continues

Entry to the United States barred for certain passport holders?!

US President Donald Trump issued an executive order delaying the entry to the United States of lawful permanent residents with green cards, immigrant and nonimmigrant visa holders, refugees and passport holders from seven countries. The order, dated January 27, 2017, became effective immediately. Soon thereafter, the US Department of State issued an urgent notice suspending visa issuance to citizens of those countries.

On January 28, 2017, injunctions were issued in federal courts in Massachusetts and New York. The orders enjoin federal agencies from removing people with approved refugee applications, valid visas and others from the seven countries.

How the government is reacting

In a January 29, 2017, press release, the US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) stated that it will continue to enforce all of President Trump’s executive orders. Later that same day, the US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) agency, which is part of DHS, issued a statement deeming the entry of lawful permanent residents to be in the national interest. The result is to allow lawful permanent residents to return to their homes in the US, absent significant derogatory information indicating a serious threat to public safety and welfare.

Citizens from these countries are impacted

Nationals from the following seven countries are detrimentally impacted:

  • Iran
  • Iraq
  • Libya
  • Somalia
  • Sudan
  • Syria
  • Yemen

The order does not apply to citizens of other countries who merely visited the listed countries.

Travel Guidance

Nationals from the seven listed countries, including dual citizens traveling https://www.viagrapascherfr.com/comment-se-procurer-du-viagra-en-belgique/ with the passport of another country, may wish to delay travel to the United States until the details of the implementation of the executive order is more clear even if they already hold a visa to enter the United States. If in the United States already, they may wish to defer departure.

Background

The executive order is reported to have been issued without advance consultation with the agencies charged with its implementation, including DHS and the Department of State.

President Trump stated on January 28 that the travel ban is “working out very nicely.”

That said, there is broad media coverage of the widespread confusion that resulted, not only in the general public, but also at airports, airlines, border crossings, etc. There are reports of detentions of new arrivals at airports and public protest in many American cities. I have had a number of emails and calls from client employers canceling travel for employees carrying passports from the impacted countries, including dual citizens and United States lawful permanent residents. Due to the reciprocal nature of diplomatic relations, it is likely that US passport holders traveling to these seven countries will experience similar difficulties.

The situation remains very fluid. Press Secretary Reince Priebus stated on January 29, 2017, that the executive order will no longer apply to lawful permanent residents, and the USCIS issued its confirming statement mentioned above.

Dentons will issue further information as it becomes available.

, , , , , , , , ,

Entry to the United States barred for certain passport holders?!

US green card availability to increase beginning October 1

visa-perm

Effective October 1, 2016, green cards will become more readily available for most people immigrating to the United States on employment-based (EB) immigrant visa categories.

The US State Department announced in the October 2016 edition of its Visa Bulletin that the agency is processing requests under the EB1 category for all countries of birth, effective October 1. This category includes aliens of extraordinary ability, outstanding professors and researchers, and multinational managers and executives, regardless of place of birth. During the summer, the agency reported a lengthy backlog for EB1 immigrants born in mainland China and India.

The EB2 category—for professionals with an advanced degree and aliens of exceptional ability—is also immediately available, except for individuals born in mainland China and India, for whom the category is backlogged to February 15, 2012, and January 15, 2007, respectively.

The EB3 category—for professionals and skilled workers—has limited available for all places of birth. That said, the backlog for most places is to June 1, 2016, and it is not likely to slow the process of immigration, since the Department of Labor generally takes more than four months to grant the alien employment certification application, often referred to as PERM, longer and that is a prerequisite for EB3 immigration.

The EB5 category—for investors—is currently available for all places of birth except mainland China, which continues to be where the majority of EB5 immigrants are born. EB5 is unavailable for China-born investors in projects in Regional Centers, while EB5 is available to China-born investors in non-Regional Center projects who have I-526 immigrant petition receipt dates on or before February 22, 2014.

There is an annual limited supply of immigrant visas in all EB categories that is replenished effective October 1, the first day of the new fiscal year. In categories where the annual demand tends to be greater than the limited supply, the Visa Bulletins issued for October through April often show the most movement. There is often more movement in the dates for individuals born in mainland China and India during these months. The EB1 and EB5 dates that have improved so much since the September 2016 Visa Bulletin are likely to retrogress once again later in the fiscal year, but the State Department did not release a prediction as to when or by how much.

The full text of the October 2016 Visa Bulletin can be found here.

, , , , , , , , ,

US green card availability to increase beginning October 1

Byron Burger: A cautionary tale?

UK Border Controls

Popular UK “posh” burger chain Byron Burger has been at the center of a media flurry over the past week or so, as 35 members of its staff were rounded up and arrested in a controversial immigration sting. The controversy largely relates to Byron’s involvement in the sting.

The UK Home Office confirmed that on the morning of 4 July 2016, immigration officers raided Byron branches and arrested 35 “migrant workers” of Albanian, Brazilian, Egyptian and Nepalese nationality. https://www.viagrasansordonnancefr.com/ou-acheter-du-viagra/ In the initial reports, a senior manager in one of the branches alleged that staff, some of whom had been employed by Byron for as long as four years, had been falsely duped by Byron into attending a health and safety meeting at 9:30 a.m., when immigration officials quickly arrived and started to interview people.

Byron has confirmed that it facilitated the raid at the Home Office’s request but has refused to respond to the claims that it set up the staff meetings on false pretenses. Sometimes silence speaks a thousand words, as they say.

As such, in amongst the few messages of support for Byron, the critics have shouted louder, calling for a boycott of the chain. Two London branches have already been targeted in the backlash, where activists went so far as to release cockroaches and locusts into the restaurants, forcing them to be closed to customers.

But what are the rights and wrongs of this incident? First, the Home Office has acknowledged that Byron complied with its legal obligations, in particular its obligation to carry out “right to work” checks. The Home Office has issued guidance on what checks UK employers need to carry out on new workers (https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/536953/An_Employer_s_guide_to_right_to_work_checks_-_July_16.pdf). Provided that an employer has carried out the appropriate checks, it will have a statutory excuse against liability for a civil penalty if it later comes to light that any worker has been working illegally in the UK. Employers must therefore ensure that the necessary checks are carried out, https://www.acheterviagrafr24.com/achat-viagra-en-ligne-quebec/ as the penalty for failure to do so (up to £20,000 for each illegal worker) could be substantial.

The issue with the Byron workers is that, in the course of its own investigation, the Home Office identified that those workers at the center of the alleged immigration breaches had provided false or counterfeit documentation as proof of their right to work in the UK. The Home Office then made a specific request to Byron to assist it with its investigation, which Byron did.

Perhaps, then, the PR nightmare that is the Byron story should be treated as a cautionary tale of how not to assist in a Home Office investigation. The recent trend seems to show that the Home Office is really cracking down on illegal workers and, accordingly, Home Office investigations are likely to become a live issue for a number of employers. Employers need to balance their legal obligations against their more human responsibilities to their staff.

No one is condoning illegal working or the falsification of documentation. However, arguably, if Byron had dealt with the issue more sensitively and compassionately, it could have mitigated the negative press it received. In an era when people have the world at their fingertips, consumers are calling out to see the human face of business.

, , , , , , ,

Byron Burger: A cautionary tale?

Dual nationality may be an option for Brits who live or work in the EU

EU passport GBThe German vice chancellor has called on certain EU countries (including Italy and France) to offer young British citizens who live or work in those countries the opportunity to apply for dual nationality. This follows the speculation and confusion after the UK referendum to leave the European Union. This would allow those British citizens a chance to remain EU citizens.

Some countries (EU and otherwise) permit dual nationality, sometimes under limited circumstances, while others do not. France allows naturalization without renouncing foreign citizenship, as does Italy. The UK, US and Germany, on the other hand, generally does not and only fairly recent created an exception that requires German citizens to apply for a waiver before naturalizing in another country.

Recent opinion polls showed that more than 70 percent of UK young citizens voted to remain in the EU and there is increasing concern from UK citizens about their long-term status in other EU countries. Many fear the UK’s exit from the EU will remove the existing free movement of people, or make this ability limited with excessively burdensome and restrictive procedures. Therefore, it is likely that many Britons will want to explore this alternative and hold on to the opportunity to live and work in the other 27 countries that form the EU.

Residents of Germany can apply for citizenship after eights years on the condition that they pass a German language skills test and a naturalization assessment (among other things). Further, German law requires non-EU citizens to give up their existing nationality when applying for German citizenship. However, the German ministry has suggested that it would like to allow British individuals to hold on to their UK citizenship even if they apply for naturalization after the UK subsequently leaves the EU.

For all of the positive aspects of dual nationality giving the right to live and work in an EU country, it is worth pointing out that there are obligations that may accompany taking on another country’s citizenship. Some EU countries have mandatory military service that would probably be more likely to impact the “young” Brits. And while tangential to the topic of dual citizenship, it should be noted that many EU countries have exit taxes on unrealized capital gains that might be imposed if an individual changes their residence for tax purposes or moves taxable assets from one country to another.

For now, while leaders negotiate the exit strategy, the UK remains part of the EU and British citizens still have full rights to work or study in other EU countries. Only time will tell whether they will continue to have this opportunity in the post-Brexit world.

, ,

Dual nationality may be an option for Brits who live or work in the EU

Brexit, a global perspective in the immediate aftermath…

Brexit Immigration

Following the UK’s EU referendum, the UK has a clear mandate for exit from the European Union. There is doubt, however, about what the future may look like for the UK and its relationship with Europe or the rest of the world. It is likely that there will now be a prolonged transition period, with the next UK government needing time to plan, prepare and negotiate the UK’s future.

Some key thoughts in the meantime:

  • For UK nationals living elsewhere in the EU, and EU nationals living in the UK, there will be no immediate change. Protection of citizens already established in those states is likely to form part of negotiations between the UK and the EU.
  • Free movement of EU citizens is expected to be negotiated as a condition of any trade deal between the UK and the EU. However, if ultimately the UK decides to no longer share in the EU’s right to free movement of labor, then citizens of other member states will not enjoy an automatic right to work, travel and live in the UK. Similarly, UK citizens will not enjoy EU citizenship rights. Prior to the referendum, the UK had already made it more difficult for EU citizens to gain permanent residence in the UK. However, the UK government will be aware that imposing fundamental limits on the free movement of labor at this time could make the UK a much less attractive destination for international businesses and skilled and educated migrants.
  • Nationals of other countries working in the UK, such as from the US, should see no imminent changes. The UK government is saying that the UK is open for business on a global scale. This is an opportunity to grow and strengthen relationships across the globe. At present the UK is not seeing any large-scale recruitment freezes or job losses.
  • Trade and investment are good for the UK’s employment growth and stability. The UK government will want to keep a level playing field with the UK’s European counterparts, and look for opportunities across the globe, at this crucial time. One key area where it will want to display its good practice is data protection. Realistically, a trade deal between the UK and the EU may also mean the UK continuing to be subject to key EU legislation.
  • The UK has a body of homegrown legislation protecting UK employment law rights. The fundamental right that exists in the UK to claim unfair dismissal will not be affected by its withdrawal from Europe. The UK also had discrimination laws in place before its ascension to the EU; EU aims and legislation are so established in UK good employment practice that they are likely to remain fundamentally the same for now. While moving to a US-style system, where employees receive lower overall protection, is possible, it is unlikely in the short term, given the broader cultural change needed to accept the US norms.
  • Subject to the above, EU rights, or improvements in those rights, in the UK may eventually be diminished or lost. However, it seems likely that grand proposals will eventually be reduced to a few smaller, less significant changes. If the UK is not required to keep EU legislation in these areas as part of a broader deal, the government may review and make changes to the current position in a number of areas, such as: (i) harmonization of terms following a TUPE transfer, (ii) limits on bankers’ bonuses, (iii) working time controls, (iv) collective redundancy consultation, (v) agency workers’ rights and (vi) the absence of a cap on discrimination awards.
  • If the UK is no longer subject to the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice, UK case law may develop in a slightly different direction. This may mean a gradual parting of ways between the UK and EU states.

On balance, it is most likely that the next government will want to preserve the status quo, at least in the short term, and wait for the dust to settle before looking for opportunities to make more fundamental and valuable changes. Dentons will keep you posted as the picture evolves.

, , , , , , ,

Brexit, a global perspective in the immediate aftermath…

Free movement a thing of the past?

passport home office 2

The “Brexit” debate will be on the minds of EEA nationals who have moved to the UK for work. Those who have been here for some time will be concerned that they could lose their right to remain in the UK. A change in the regulations governing the rights of European nationals is fueling this concern. In November 2015, European nationals lost the automatic acquisition of permanent cialis how does it work residence after five years exercising treaty rights in the http://www.cialisgeneriquefr24.com/cialis-generique-ou-acheter/ UK.

Now a European national must make an application for confirmation of permanent residence if he or she wishes 12 months later to apply for naturalization as a British citizen. This means the national will have to make two applications and wait 12 months between each application.

Although this extra burden could be unfavourable to any Europeans wanting a British passport, the likelihood is that protecting the Europeans who are in the UK will form part of the negotiations of any Brexit. Similarly, thought will need to be given during negotiations to those British nationals who are living in other European countries.

Since there is some ambiguity, we recommend that European nationals act now to secure confirmation of their status.

, ,

Free movement a thing of the past?