Post
by Kayalami » Mon Feb 27, 2006 10:29 pm
my 0.02p,
1. Questioning upon entry
The primary mandate of the Immigration Officers at a Port of entry is to regulate the entry of those arriving into the UK. The IO's exercise their powers under the authority of the Secretary of State for the Home Department who in turn is mandated such powers by the British Public via way of democratic voting.
The IO has the right to enquire and verify of any person their identity, intent and purpose of seeking entry into the UK. Where the person has the Right of Abode or is not subject to immigration control then the identity issue is central - there are plenty of forged documents at arrivals. The questioning may on occassion seem intrusive but IMHO the IO's will often have it correct on balance. Put yourself in their shoes - they have about a 30-60 second window to make a major decision....could you do it and get it spot on each time whilst maintaining both diplomacy and authority.
I travel extensively in Europe and North America and anyone subject to US Border Control would appreciate the 'more gentle' Home Office handling of admissions. If I was to criticise UK controls its that the US and Canadian systems of primary inspection (straight forward admissions) and secondary inspection (further enquiries required) makes line flows through immigration faster. Note that IO's have a customs aspect to their role and their questioning may well lead to them flagging an individual up for inspection. For example you are an IO faced with a 20 year old non visa national whom upon questioning states they are unemployed in their Home Country, has never travelled anywhere outside their country before but is travelling business class on a GBP 6,000 round trip ticket paid by someone they don't really know who also happens to be funding their stay in the UK for a period of 3 weeks in a GBP 400 a night Park Lane hotel. With respect as an IO and without prejudice to the applicant's race, colour, nationality etc something just doesn't add up and this would need further reviewing. The same could be applied to British Citizens who may be on social security benefits but the same profile of 'expenditure' comes up - such can be (but not definitively) indicative of a drug mule smuggling contraband etc.
Many countries are now obtaining passenger data at the point of departure to further target their efforts at designated individuals. The use of biometrics such as US VISIT will in the end when implemented worldwide probably reduce the level of interaction with an IO for most people.
2. Loss of ILR
IIRC rogeroger's father lost ILR due to staying outside the UK for more than 2 years. The immigration rules are fairly clear on this - your ILR is deemed abandoned where you stay outside the UK for more than 2 years. Even the letter issued with your ILR/ILE stamp states this. By requiring you to apply for a returning resident's visa the Home Office effectively carry out a residency determination. A concession to the 2 year rule is availed for those who have lived for a long time in the UK - read most of your life here than anywhere else. There was case on this bb where a Japanese lady married to a BC lived in the UK for 21 years and was applying for RRV after a 7 year absence - my take on this was that she would get it. However with the change in the spousal rules the absence was moot since she got ILE by her long marriage (more than 4 yrs) to a BC and they both resided outside the UK. Likewise an exception to the 2 year rule is availed to those on Her Majesty's service and rightly so.
Where an IO deems you have lost your settled status (be it confered by IR or ILR) at a port of entry they can either deny you entry, grant you temporary admission or land you as a visitor. All these actions formalise the cancellation of your ILR/ILE and there is often an annotation to this effect on your passport and always an update of the immigration system. AFAIK there is no right to a court process/formal right of appeal etc. You are of course entitled to seek judicial review but the cost of this and the minimal/ likely non existant chances of success would probably be a distinct factor. The recurring theme is that only citizens have the absolute right of entry into any country irrespetive of absence away - permanent residence can and does get lost and many are stuck outside the *select country* through ignorance, arrogance or other circumstances.
IIRC it was pointed out by me and others that rr's father would not be able to meet the requirements of an RRV. rr IIRC your brother was faced with the same issue? Since rr is now settled then the option is there to sponsor his father in the parent/ grandparent category subject to meeting the relevant criteria in particular 'age' and 'sole responsibility'.
