The Forgotten Claimants: Of Zimbabwean HIV medical condition claims, drug shortages and Paposhvilli

It was in 2005, when a Zimbabwean claimant came to the office clutching two determinations   promulgated by different Immigration Judges. Please help me, he said in a panic, I won my appeal on the basis of my medical condition, but now that decision has just been overturned   by a Senior Judge. His own legal representative had informed him that day that there were was nothing further that could be done to assist him.

 

Continue reading

How to meet the minimum income financial requirement through a re-structured Appendix FM

The Statement of Changes in Immigration Rules HC 290, which came into effect on 10 August 2017, restructured Appendix FM such that it is now considered by the Secretary of State to provide a complete framework for  Article 8 decision-making in cases decided under it.

Continue reading

Meeting the 5year route to settlement as a Partner or Parent: Your frequently asked questions answered

(1)What are the two routes to settlement as a Partner or a Parent?

 

Appendix FM provides two routes to settlement on the basis of family life as a partner or parent. These are a 5-year route and a 10-year route where:

 

  • the 5-year route as a partner or parent is for those who meet all of the relevant suitability and eligibility requirements of the Immigration Rules at every stage.

  • the 10-year route as a partner or parent applies: in respect of applications for leave to remain, to those who meet all of the suitability requirements, but only certain of the eligibility requirements as a partner or parent where paragraph EX.1. of Appendix FM applies and is met. Paragraph EX.1. is not an exception to the Rules as a whole, but to certain eligibility requirements for leave to remain under the 5-year partner and parent routes under Appendix FM; or where entry clearance or leave to remain is granted following consideration under paragraph GEN.3.1. or GEN.3.2. of Appendix FM and in light of the exceptional circumstances to which that paragraph refers.

Continue reading

EEA deport first, appeal later Guidance: Regulation 33 not undermined by Supreme Court decision in Kiarie & Byndloss

The Home Offices’ current position is that the  recent Supreme Court judgment in Kiarie and Byndloss, R (on the applications of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2017] UKSC 42 does not undermine the application of regulation 33 of the 2016 EEA Regulations.

 

The Home Office Policy Guidance Regulations 33 and 41 of the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2016 was amended on 3 August 2017 in the following regards:

 

  • Changes to reflect the Supreme Court judgment in Kiaire and Byndloss

  • Changes to reflect the Court of Appeal judgment in OO (Nigeria)

Continue reading

New 2016 EEA Regulations: Failure to submit a valid national passport invalidates residence card application

Although to be applauded for the determined efforts in  seeking a construction of the EEA Regulations  that  favour the  Claimant, the  arguments,  considerations and reasoning in  Ullah, R (On the Application Of) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department [2017] EWHC 1999 (Admin) (31 July 2017) appear unnecessarily  complicated,   with accompanying repetitious  reasons given in order to justify the decision.

 

Continue reading