Immigrationboards.com

The High Court has quashed the Secretary of State refusal of settlement to a family on the basis of excessive absence, when the role of the primary applicant, involves regular travel, but he has a home and family in the UK.


http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Adm ... /1478.html

65. I conclude that the Claimant is right when he says that his application for indefinite leave to remain falls to be dealt with under paragraph 135G of the Immigration Rules as it was when he entered the HSMP scheme. He correctly places reliance on the decision in the second of the HSMP Forum cases which provided that "In respect of all persons admitted to the Highly Skilled Migrant Programme as at 7 November 2006, those individuals are entitled to the benefits of the scheme (including settlement) according to the terms (including as to qualifying period) which applied on the date when they joined."

Any chance for the people with 14-year continuous stay (illegally) could apply for ILR by above judgement as the rules were changed in 2012 for 20-years?

Scope of the judgment may be restricted to just HSMP / Work Permit migrants or migrants in immigration categories where "absences from UK" was not a requirement to be met under the immigration rules specified at the time.

Dependants of HSMP/PBS migrants were not and are not subject to "absence from UK" requirements. Though not every case gets posted on the forum but I have not come across any case where a dependant has been refused for "excessive absence".

sushdmehta wrote:Scope of the judgment may be restricted to just HSMP / Work Permit migrants or migrants in immigration categories where "absences from UK" was not a requirement to be met under the immigration rules specified at the time.

Dependants may benefit?

vinny wrote:

sushdmehta wrote:Scope of the judgment may be restricted to just HSMP / Work Permit migrants or migrants in immigration categories where "absences from UK" was not a requirement to be met under the immigration rules specified at the time.

Dependants may benefit?

I will say dependant do benefit, or will benefits. It goes without saying, that if primary applicant benefits, then dependants will, mutatis mutandis.

However I will agree that the scenerio that ILRhopeful provided will not succeed, unless Edgehill is engaged.

Agree with Obie

Obie wrote:

vinny wrote:

sushdmehta wrote:Scope of the judgment may be restricted to just HSMP / Work Permit migrants or migrants in immigration categories where "absences from UK" was not a requirement to be met under the immigration rules specified at the time.

Dependants may benefit?

I will say dependant do benefit, or will benefits. It goes without saying, that if primary applicant benefits, then dependants will, mutatis mutandis.

However I will agree that the scenerio that ILRhopeful provided will not succeed, unless Edgehill is engaged.

Hi Obie,

Dont you think that my case ( below link) may benefit with the scenario you have explained above ? Your suggestion will be a great help.

http://www.immigrationboards.com/indefi ... l#p1265252

waht are the next steps

psc_ilr1003 wrote:waht are the next steps

Any further attempts at posting pointless remarks in threads in order to bump your PM count will result in posts being deleted and your account suspended.