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

Status of EU citizens in the UK

The Home Office has sent a communication to interested parties following the government’s publication of a paper outlining its offer to EU citizens in the UK. The government has reiterated its position that no action need currently be taken. “The UK will remain a member of the EU until March 2019 and there will be no change to the rights and status of EU citizens living in the UK, nor UK nationals living in the EU, during this time. So, EU citizens do not need to apply for documentation confirming their status now.”

The government’s policy paper sets out that the government will be asking EU citizens to make an application to the Home Office for a residence document demonstrating their new settled status. It aims to make the process as “streamlined and user-friendly as possible for all individuals, including those who already hold a permanent residence document under current free movement rules.” It is expected the new application system will be up and running in 2018.

, ,

Status of EU citizens in the UK

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

Form EEA – permanent residence applications

Applicants use Form EEA (PR) to apply for, replace or renew a document certifying permanent residence or a permanent residence card.

On April 12, 2017, the Home Office updated its guidance notes detailing what an applicant should send with his or her application. See here for full details. The guidance notes now include a table of examples of people in different circumstances. This acts as a helpful guide for applicants thinking about the evidence they might need to provide specific to their own circumstances.

The documents and evidence sent must be originals. The Home Office makes an exception for online applicants who have their passports verified, copied and sent to the Home Office by a local authority participating in the European Passport Return Service. All documents not in English or Welsh must be accompanied by an official English translation provided by a qualified translator.

Dentons will issue further information as it becomes available.

, , ,

Form EEA – permanent residence applications

Criminal record check for Tier 2 UK migrants

uk-intracompany

From April 6, 2017, individuals applying to come to the UK to undertake certain jobs will be subject, along with any adult dependants (over the age of 18 years old) applying with the main applicant, to the requirement under the Immigration Rules to produce a criminal record certificate. The certificate must be produced from any country in which the applicant has been resident for 12 months or more, consecutively or cumulatively, in the previous 10 years.

Effective January 1, 2017, sponsors must inform prospective employees at the point they assign their Certificate of Sponsorship (CoS) that they may become subject to this requirement by the time they make their application. This will enable them to begin seeking certificates where needed at the earliest opportunity, and to lodge a complete application for entry clearance sooner.

Affected job titles are:

  • Dental practitioners
  • Education advisers and school inspectors
  • Further education teaching professionals
  • Health professionals not elsewhere classified
  • Health services and public health managers and directors
  • Medical practitioners
  • Medical radiographers
  • Midwives
  • Nurses
  • Occupational therapists
  • Ophthalmic opticians
  • Pharmacists
  • Physiotherapists
  • Podiatrists
  • Primary and nursery education teaching professionals
  • Probation officers
  • Psychologists
  • Secondary education teaching professionals
  • Senior professionals of educational establishments
  • Social services managers and directors
  • Social workers
  • Speech and language therapists
  • Teaching and other educational professionals not elsewhere classified including Special needs education teaching professionals
  • Therapy professionals not elsewhere classified
  • Welfare professionals not elsewhere classified

The requirement to produce a criminal record certificate already applies to those applying under Tier 1 (entrepreneur) or Tier 1 (investor) and any adult dependant relative of the main applicant in either of these categories.

, , , , , , , ,

Criminal record check for Tier 2 UK migrants

UK announces changes to Immigration Rules

uk-flag-and-passport

On November 3, 2016, the UK Home Office announced several changes to its visa policies. The new Immigration Rules, which go into effect on November 24, will primarily affect Tier 2 migrants and nationals of countries outside the European Economic Area (EEA).

Tier 2

The following changes will affect all certificates of sponsorship assigned by Tier 2 sponsors on or after November 24, 2016:

Increasing the Tier 2 (General) salary threshold for experienced workers to £25,000, with some exemptions

  • Increasing the Tier 2 (Intra-Company Transfer) salary threshold for short-term staff to £30,000
  • Reducing the Tier 2 (Intra-Company Transfer) graduate trainee salary threshold to £23,000, and increasing the number of places to 20 per company per year
  • Closing the Tier 2 (Intra-Company Transfer) skills transfer sub-category

The government has not yet announced a date from which intra-company transfer migrants will be liable for the immigration health surcharge.

Non-EEA partners

The government has introduced a new English-language requirement for non-EEA partners and parents. This affects those applying to extend their stay after 2.5 years in the UK on a five-year route to settlement under Appendix FM (Family Member) of the Immigration Rules (introduced in July 2012).

The new requirement will apply to partners and parents whose current leave under the family Immigration Rules is due to expire on or after May 1, 2017.

The English-language requirement applies to most immigration applications. This includes those seeking to enter the UK for employment under the points-based system, and students seeking to enter the UK under Tier 4 of the points-based system.

, , , , , ,

UK announces changes to Immigration Rules

Update on EEA applications for UK permanent residence

Due to continuing uncertainty following the Brexit vote, EEA nationals who qualify are acting now to secure their right to stay in the UK.

No doubt to help with the influx of permanent residence applications received from EEA nationals, the Home Office is making changes to its application procedures. Starting October 1, 2016, European passports filed with applications on forms EEA(QP) or EEA(PR) can take advantage of a “return service.”

This means that a local authority, such as a county council or city council, can, for a fee, photocopy the passport and forward a copy, with the checklist and application, to the Home Office. This will enable the applicant to keep his or her passport while the Home Office is processing the application. If the application is caught up in a backlog, at least the EEA national retains the original passport.

, , ,

Update on EEA applications for UK permanent residence

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. 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, 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?

Crunching the numbers for Tier 2 workers

Calculator

The recent case of Maria Tukhas and secretary of state for the Home Office has given sponsoring employers in the UK further guidance about how to calculate an employee’s annual salary in granting points under Tier 2. Click here for the decision.

As clarified in this case, a migrant worker applying for leave to remain must score points in order for a Certificate of Sponsorship to be assigned to them. Points are awarded for a prospective salary.

In this case, the Home Office awarded Ms. Tukhas 30 out of the required 50 points. She was awarded zero points in respect of the “appropriate salary” category. The Home Office argued that the minimum acceptable rate of pay for a 39-hour working week for Ms. Tukhas’ prospective employment was £22,600 a year, yet her Certificate of Sponsorship stated that her salary would be £22,600 a year for a 40-hour week. This equated to £22,035 a year for a 39-hour week, so she did not meet the necessary threshold.

Paragraph 79 of Appendix A of the Immigration Rules states that: “The points to be awarded for appropriate salary will be based on the applicant’s gross annual salary to be paid by the sponsor.”

Ms. Tukhas appealed against the Home Office’s decision. It was held that, other than cases in which an applicant has contracted weekly hours or is paid an hourly rate, the correct salary under the Immigration Rules is an applicant’s gross salary paid by the sponsoring employer (subject to the conditions set out in paragraph 79(i) to (iii), which were not relevant in this case).

There was nothing to suggest that Ms. Tukhas was contracted to work weekly hours or paid an hourly rate. As such, the correct salary was £22,600. No further pro-rating was necessary; Ms. Tukhas, therefore, did meet the necessary salary requirement.

Surely any simplification of this process, such as this case offers, will always be welcome news to employers with employees operating under a Tier 2 visa―as well as to the migrants themselves.

, , , , ,

Crunching the numbers for Tier 2 workers