ESC

Click the "allow" button if you want to receive important news and updates from immigrationboards.com


Immigrationboards.com: Immigration, work visa and work permit discussion board

Welcome to immigrationboards.com!

Login Register Do not show

5 years for ILR rule implemented

General UK immigration & work permits; don't post job search or family related topics!

Please use this section of the board if there is no specific section for your query.

Moderators: Casa, archigabe, CR001, push, JAJ, ca.funke, Amber, zimba, vinny, Obie, EUsmileWEallsmile, batleykhan, meself2, geriatrix, John, ChetanOjha, Administrator

Locked
aj77
Member
Posts: 169
Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2004 1:37 pm
Contact:

Post by aj77 » Sat Apr 01, 2006 9:35 pm

I think we should
i)make a group of all of those who are against these changes as some of us are already doing.
ii)Contact Solicitors(again some of us are in touch with them).
iii)Contacts with MPs and media Members.(some members have already done so.

What we need to do is to organise ourselves properly as a team and do all these mentioned works with our maximum effort and we should build our team as much as we can,the more members we would have, stronger our group would be. and more funds would be available and more efforts can be done.

Eugene_UK
Newbie
Posts: 46
Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2006 3:35 pm

Post by Eugene_UK » Sat Apr 01, 2006 11:00 pm

Guys, it’s time to close this topic and forget about any hopes you have: it is clear - 5 years for ILR for WP holders and HSMP. It is clearly said in the application form (last page) - wherever you see 4 change for 5.
I propose we start new topic - LEGAL ACTION as soon as possible. We are just wasting our time here. There is material lawyers could use - enough material published on this web site. I am sure we all ready to contribute in terms of funds. We can send our cheques to the chosen Law firm.
tutu1005 - any news from your lawyer? I will call mine on Monday.

We should also start collecting evidence: letters, statements from HO, which will prove that they should apply new changes to new visa holders only. I am sure we can send all these materials to the law firm we have chosen.
This is our last chance. I do not believe that MPs will help. But legal action will create a lot of noise.
I am wondering why all pro-immigrant organisations keep quiet? This is the time for them to show some teeth!
PLEASE POST PRACTICAL COMMENTS ONLY, no crying, no complaints, it’s all rubbish. It’s time to do something real.

timefactor
Member of Standing
Posts: 271
Joined: Tue Mar 30, 2004 11:46 am
Location: london-UK

Post by timefactor » Sun Apr 02, 2006 8:36 am

He (tutu1005 or one of his mate) has already posted the proposed meeting wih http://www.christine-lee.co.uk/index.htm, date and venue. IIRC it is on next saturday. For those who can't attend at least send him a mail (tutuwang100 at yahoo.com) with your thoughts and concerns.

Hope this helps

Eugene_UK wrote:Guys, it’s time to close this topic and forget about any hopes you have: it is clear - 5 years for ILR for WP holders and HSMP. It is clearly said in the application form (last page) - wherever you see 4 change for 5.
I propose we start new topic - LEGAL ACTION as soon as possible. We are just wasting our time here. There is material lawyers could use - enough material published on this web site. I am sure we all ready to contribute in terms of funds. We can send our cheques to the chosen Law firm.
tutu1005 - any news from your lawyer? I will call mine on Monday.

We should also start collecting evidence: letters, statements from HO, which will prove that they should apply new changes to new visa holders only. I am sure we can send all these materials to the law firm we have chosen.
This is our last chance. I do not believe that MPs will help. But legal action will create a lot of noise.
I am wondering why all pro-immigrant organisations keep quiet? This is the time for them to show some teeth!
PLEASE POST PRACTICAL COMMENTS ONLY, no crying, no complaints, it’s all rubbish. It’s time to do something real.

sowhat
Member
Posts: 100
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 4:57 pm

Post by sowhat » Sun Apr 02, 2006 11:15 am

I am sort of sceptical of legal actions. It may take too long. I've got a daughter who is to go into University this autumn. The problem is that if I do not have ILR by September either she will have take a gap year in hope that we will have it next year or I will have to cough up full international fees for next 3 years, since it is impossible to change the satus of intenational student during the course.

Vayu
Junior Member
Posts: 84
Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2004 1:53 pm

Post by Vayu » Sun Apr 02, 2006 1:00 pm

If you wish to protest, I say you have a case, especially given the number of responses here. The thing is, many of you are Commonwealth nationals, thus, eligible to vote in British elections.

If someone here put together an online petition against the new law, then I think you migh actually get some deserved attention.

Over to you guys.......

supertiger
Member
Posts: 160
Joined: Fri Mar 24, 2006 6:14 pm

Post by supertiger » Sun Apr 02, 2006 1:53 pm

THIs is to follow the NZ change:


COURT RULING ON
IMMIGRATION GOES AGAINST GOVERNMENT
The New Zealand High Court has ruled that some of the immigration rule changes introduced by the Government in November are invalid. New requirements, including a tougher English language test in the General Skills category, cannot now be applied retrospectively. Justice Randison decided, however, that the long term business visa is not part of immigration policy so the Government can make changes to it retrospectively.

http://www.emigratenz.org/News-Briefs-pre-Jun-2003.html


it is too brief so not sure waht the long term business visa is about...

supertiger
Member
Posts: 160
Joined: Fri Mar 24, 2006 6:14 pm

Post by supertiger » Sun Apr 02, 2006 2:54 pm

well it seems that in May 03 the NZ high court ruled the change in Nov 02 regarding the residency is UNLAWFUL:

"2.2 Together, the Amendment Acts effectively defeat a High Court
decision (which is on appeal). On 20 November the Government
tried to exclude a large segment of applicants in the residence
queue. The High Court ruled on 16 May 2003 that this was unlawful
as it contravened section 13C of the Immigration Act. "


http://www.adls.org.nz/doclibrary/publi ... ees/Ri.pdf


but an appeal was submistted soon after and above link is another submission from a law society...

UnfairRules
Newly Registered
Posts: 2
Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2006 12:46 pm

The last page of new SET(o) application form-just downloaded

Post by UnfairRules » Mon Apr 03, 2006 12:51 pm

IMPORTANT NOTICE: FORM SET(O) – CHANGE IN THE IMMIGRATION RULES
On 3 April 2006, as a result of a change in the Immigration Rules, the qualifying
period for indefinite leave to remain in the categories listed below will increase from
4 to 5 years.
• Work permit holder
• Employment not requiring a work permit
• United Kingdom ancestry
• Writer, composer or artist
• Highly skilled migrant
If you apply for indefinite leave to remain in any of these categories on or after 3
April, your application will be decided under the new rules. To qualify for indefinite
leave to remain, you will have to show that you have already completed 5 years’
continuous leave to enter or remain in the UK in the category/categories concerned,
or are within 28 days of doing so. If you cannot do that and your existing leave to
enter/remain will not cover the full five-year period, you will need to apply for an
extension of stay in the relevant category before your leave runs out, using one of
the following forms:
• Form FLR(O) for all categories listed above except work permit
holders and highly skilled migrants.
• Form FLR(IED) for work permit holders and highly skilled migrants.
For Work Permit Holders only: In addition to you applying on form FLR(IED), your
employer will have to apply separately in the usual way for an extension to your
work permit permission - by sending an application, together with the associated
payment, to the address given in the work permit application form.
Transitional Arrangements
For a limited period, anyone who applies for indefinite leave to remain in these
categories on or after 3 April 2006 having only completed 4 years’ continuous leave
will be invited to change their application to one for an extension of stay rather than
having their application refused. This will not result in any additional fee.
We will be amending Form SET(O) as soon as possible. In the meantime, for any
application made on or after 3 April 2006, any reference in the form to “four years”
in relation to the qualifying period, the provision of supporting evidence or
documentation, or any other requirements for indefinite leave to remain should be
read as meaning “five years”.

indian_in_uk
Member
Posts: 211
Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2005 2:54 pm
Location: London

Post by indian_in_uk » Mon Apr 03, 2006 12:58 pm

so it is confirmed now....
I'd rather be a could-be if I cannot be an are; because a could-be is a maybe who is reaching for a star.

easylife4me
Junior Member
Posts: 79
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2006 10:09 am
Contact:

Post by easylife4me » Mon Apr 03, 2006 5:35 pm

Work Permits - Leave To Remain (formerly in-country)

03 April 2006

From today the contact details for all Leave to Remain Teams will change. The new details are:

Telephone number: 0114 207 6016
Fax number: 0114 207 6017
E-mail address: wpukltr@ind.homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk

Please continue to use current telephone numbers to contact Work Permits (UK) Business Teams and use 0114 207 4074 for general enquiries.
THANKS

Globetrotter
Newbie
Posts: 37
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2005 10:38 am

Post by Globetrotter » Mon Apr 03, 2006 9:07 pm

Good Evening Everyone,

I has indeed been quite a while since my last post, I wish that my return was under better circumstances.

Words can't describe my outrage at this implementation of change to people like ourselves WHO ARE ALREADY UNDER HSMP or equivalent. I don't understand what type of message the IND or WPUK are trying to send. As far as I can remember, on the documents I received after my extension, I would be eligible to apply for ILR after completion of my further 3 years under HSMP. Now my ILR and citizenship have potentially been pushed back yet another year.

I am going to write to my MP as I cannot in good faith vote for a party that would draft and implement such a clause (yes I am a Commonwealth Citizen). I'm sorry, but I shall shed no tears if this Labour Party goes the same way as the Liberal Party did in Canada and we see a Tory minority.

I'll be happy to support whatever fight is raised as this decision to apply the new rules RETROACTIVELY goes beyond words...

Going to need a stiff shot of Crown Royal now Ladies and Gents...

GT :evil: :roll: :twisted:

morerightsformigrants
Junior Member
Posts: 51
Joined: Mon Mar 20, 2006 11:21 pm

Post by morerightsformigrants » Tue Apr 04, 2006 2:17 am

i just got this from another forum:

Here is part of a new letter from Tony McNulty MP,
Minister for Immigration, Asylum, Nationality

"Changes in the settlement rules

You have raised a number of points in your letter, which I will deal with in turn. I understand that you raised these points with Baroness Ashton at the time of the passage through the House of Lords of the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Bill, You will understand, therefore, if I reply in similar terms,

You state that the Chinese community was not consulted over the move to the five year qualification period and that the change is retrospective, The change in the minimum qualifying period for settlement was announced by the Government in February 2005 in its paper ontrolling Our Borders: the Five Year Strategy for Asylum and Immigration? We consulted extensively on many of the new elements Contained in that paper, principally the points- based system. in the period between February 2005 and now - the time of the actual rules change - the Government has not received any views on the change in the qualifying period for settlement.

This is possibly because the change does not affect anyone right to remain and work in the UK; anyone with valid leave to remain and who is continuing in employment will qualify to remain as before and should have no difficulty in completing the fifth year. If their employment were about to cease after four years they would not qualify for settlement anyway. It is therefore difficult to accept the argument that a particular group's immigration position is being worsened or made less secure by this measure.

You also mention the effect that this change will have on Chinese nationals who are in the United Kingdom for business purposes. I am sorry to hear that you feel that this will have a hard effect on those members of the Chinese community who are here for work-related reasons. I have explained above

that this change does not affect anyone's right to stay in the UK and to follow their chosen employment or way of earning a living. The UK welcomes those people still. We do not believe that anyone is being unfairly required to change things like remaining in employment or the number of visits to relatives as a result of this. We believe that this change is also of benefit to those arriving in the UK as entrepreneurs or to set up in business. A 5-year qualifying period leads to a pattern of leave being granted of 2-years followed by 3 years. This will be of benefit to those setting up in business or entering as investors, innovators and in a self-employed capacity where a 2-year inital leave period for establishing oneself is more realistic.

I am sorry that you feel that this is a surprise change and that it will affect the plans of the Chinese people working here. I do not share this view. Nobody s being asked to change the amount of work that they do or to change how they make their living. We would not grant settlement to someone who had no likelihood of continuing to earn their living as they had before.

You also mention the effect that this might have on things such as Chinese people applying for a mortgage or for admission to university. I have sympathy for anyone who has difficulty in getting a mortgage and I acknowledge that it can be a stressful endeavour, but the lending policy of banks and building societies is a matter for those individual organisations. It is not something that can be directed by Government. Similarly, although local authorities have a residence policy when it comes to education there is no substantial change in the way that university places are allocated as a result of our change. Nevertheless, we are ready to listen to you about any unintended hardships that are directly instigated by this change but for most areas of life, if not all, things will simply continue as usual.

You raise the issue of whether this will be seen as a welcome or unwelcome signal to potential newcomers. I have explained that we think that this change will be of benefit to those arriving in the UK to set up in business or carry out investment activity. The UK is one of the most welcoming environments internationally for those seeking to set up in self-employment.

Finally, you point out that EU Directives do not prevent a member state granting settlement after 4 years. This is true but the Government does not feel that there are any benefits to be had by maintaining a different provision for EU nationals in the UK than applies elsewhere in the EU. There is a great deal of sense in being in line with other partners where this is possible. Once this is accepted, then the UK is left with applying the same to all nationals, EU and non-EU, or having a system with one qualifying period for EU nationals and a separate one for non-EU nationals. This would be undesirable and it is not something that we want.

The UK is committed to being an attractive destination for hard working and skilled people. Indeed, we have acknowledged frequently the great benefits that migrant groups bring to this country. These changes do not alter that view, but we are equally committed to settlement as one of the later stages in a journey towards attachment and integration into the UK."


It seems that the minisiter is expressing some degree of willingness to LISTEN. Everyone affected must gather their cases this Sat at the public meeting. Christine Lee will be meeting the Home Office officials on the 10th with the evidence.

this is the public meeting time and place please be there.

Saturday 8th April – 2pm

Oriental City

Cultural Room, 2nd Floor

299 Edgware Road

NW9 0JJ

本文章由 joseph.DJ@558.net于 3 Apr 2006, 14:09 重新编辑过


--------------------
Spectrum Radio Cantonese Programme broadcast daily between 6-7pm on 558AM and online http://558.net

morerightsformigrants
Junior Member
Posts: 51
Joined: Mon Mar 20, 2006 11:21 pm

Post by morerightsformigrants » Tue Apr 04, 2006 2:18 am

i just got this from another forum:

Here is part of a new letter from Tony McNulty MP,
Minister for Immigration, Asylum, Nationality

"Changes in the settlement rules

You have raised a number of points in your letter, which I will deal with in turn. I understand that you raised these points with Baroness Ashton at the time of the passage through the House of Lords of the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Bill, You will understand, therefore, if I reply in similar terms,

You state that the Chinese community was not consulted over the move to the five year qualification period and that the change is retrospective, The change in the minimum qualifying period for settlement was announced by the Government in February 2005 in its paper ontrolling Our Borders: the Five Year Strategy for Asylum and Immigration? We consulted extensively on many of the new elements Contained in that paper, principally the points- based system. in the period between February 2005 and now - the time of the actual rules change - the Government has not received any views on the change in the qualifying period for settlement.

This is possibly because the change does not affect anyone right to remain and work in the UK; anyone with valid leave to remain and who is continuing in employment will qualify to remain as before and should have no difficulty in completing the fifth year. If their employment were about to cease after four years they would not qualify for settlement anyway. It is therefore difficult to accept the argument that a particular group's immigration position is being worsened or made less secure by this measure.

You also mention the effect that this change will have on Chinese nationals who are in the United Kingdom for business purposes. I am sorry to hear that you feel that this will have a hard effect on those members of the Chinese community who are here for work-related reasons. I have explained above

that this change does not affect anyone's right to stay in the UK and to follow their chosen employment or way of earning a living. The UK welcomes those people still. We do not believe that anyone is being unfairly required to change things like remaining in employment or the number of visits to relatives as a result of this. We believe that this change is also of benefit to those arriving in the UK as entrepreneurs or to set up in business. A 5-year qualifying period leads to a pattern of leave being granted of 2-years followed by 3 years. This will be of benefit to those setting up in business or entering as investors, innovators and in a self-employed capacity where a 2-year inital leave period for establishing oneself is more realistic.

I am sorry that you feel that this is a surprise change and that it will affect the plans of the Chinese people working here. I do not share this view. Nobody s being asked to change the amount of work that they do or to change how they make their living. We would not grant settlement to someone who had no likelihood of continuing to earn their living as they had before.

You also mention the effect that this might have on things such as Chinese people applying for a mortgage or for admission to university. I have sympathy for anyone who has difficulty in getting a mortgage and I acknowledge that it can be a stressful endeavour, but the lending policy of banks and building societies is a matter for those individual organisations. It is not something that can be directed by Government. Similarly, although local authorities have a residence policy when it comes to education there is no substantial change in the way that university places are allocated as a result of our change. Nevertheless, we are ready to listen to you about any unintended hardships that are directly instigated by this change but for most areas of life, if not all, things will simply continue as usual.

You raise the issue of whether this will be seen as a welcome or unwelcome signal to potential newcomers. I have explained that we think that this change will be of benefit to those arriving in the UK to set up in business or carry out investment activity. The UK is one of the most welcoming environments internationally for those seeking to set up in self-employment.

Finally, you point out that EU Directives do not prevent a member state granting settlement after 4 years. This is true but the Government does not feel that there are any benefits to be had by maintaining a different provision for EU nationals in the UK than applies elsewhere in the EU. There is a great deal of sense in being in line with other partners where this is possible. Once this is accepted, then the UK is left with applying the same to all nationals, EU and non-EU, or having a system with one qualifying period for EU nationals and a separate one for non-EU nationals. This would be undesirable and it is not something that we want.

The UK is committed to being an attractive destination for hard working and skilled people. Indeed, we have acknowledged frequently the great benefits that migrant groups bring to this country. These changes do not alter that view, but we are equally committed to settlement as one of the later stages in a journey towards attachment and integration into the UK."


It seems that the minisiter is expressing some degree of willingness to LISTEN. Everyone affected must gather their cases this Sat at the public meeting. Christine Lee will be meeting the Home Office officials on the 10th with the evidence.



Saturday 8th April – 2pm

Oriental City

Cultural Room, 2nd Floor

299 Edgware Road

NW9 0JJ

本文章由 joseph.DJ@558.net于 3 Apr 2006, 14:09 重新编辑过


--------------------
Spectrum Radio Cantonese Programme broadcast daily between 6-7pm on 558AM and online http://558.net

abcd1
Junior Member
Posts: 64
Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2005 3:08 pm

Post by abcd1 » Tue Apr 04, 2006 11:02 am

I got following response from HO regarding my question when I shall be eligible for ILR

=============================
For all employment related categories of entry to the UK, the
qualifying
period for settlement ("Indefinite Leave to Remain") will change from
four
to five years on 3rd April 2006. For applications submitted on or after
3rd
April 2006, the applicant will need to have completed the five year
qualifying period.

There is no set amount of time you can remain out of the UK, however
absences will be taken into consideration by the caseworker and an
extension maybe granted rather than settlement, to make up the 5 years.
Any short absences due to paid leave or business trips are acceptable.


The Home Office must be satisfied that the applicant has spent a
continuous period of 5 years in approved employment.

In order to apply you will need the application form: SET(O) which is
available to request by calling: 0870 241 0645, or it can be downloaded
from: www.ind.homeoffice.gov.uk.

=============================

Now I request you to note the bold lines! Previously it was offically mentioned that 3 months gap is acceptable. I know many people has got ILR with 8-9 months gap as well. But the point is that, if you have say 7 months gap, they may grant you 7 months extension to make up 60 months. So, does it mean that if somebody has gaps, he need to be in UK physically 60 months before getting ILR?

Really confusing???

timefactor
Member of Standing
Posts: 271
Joined: Tue Mar 30, 2004 11:46 am
Location: london-UK

Post by timefactor » Tue Apr 04, 2006 11:12 am

:?

This february one of my friend got ILR, though he had a contineous 5 months break due to medical reason. He mentioned this in SET (O), but case worker has given another form and advised not to mention this.

All in case worker's hands :(
abcd1 wrote:I got following response from HO regarding my question when I shall be eligible for ILR

=============================
For all employment related categories of entry to the UK, the
qualifying
period for settlement ("Indefinite Leave to Remain") will change from
four
to five years on 3rd April 2006. For applications submitted on or after
3rd
April 2006, the applicant will need to have completed the five year
qualifying period.

There is no set amount of time you can remain out of the UK, however
absences will be taken into consideration by the caseworker and an
extension maybe granted rather than settlement, to make up the 5 years.
Any short absences due to paid leave or business trips are acceptable.


The Home Office must be satisfied that the applicant has spent a
continuous period of 5 years in approved employment.

In order to apply you will need the application form: SET(O) which is
available to request by calling: 0870 241 0645, or it can be downloaded
from: www.ind.homeoffice.gov.uk.

=============================

Now I request you to note the bold lines! Previously it was offically mentioned that 3 months gap is acceptable. I know many people has got ILR with 8-9 months gap as well. But the point is that, if you have say 7 months gap, they may grant you 7 months extension to make up 60 months. So, does it mean that if somebody has gaps, he need to be in UK physically 60 months before getting ILR?

Really confusing???

supertiger
Member
Posts: 160
Joined: Fri Mar 24, 2006 6:14 pm

Post by supertiger » Tue Apr 04, 2006 11:16 am

I think it means you need to live in UK 59 months minimum now to apply for ILR if all other requirements met, with no long gaps. If there's a gap of 7 months for example they may give you an extension of 7-8 month instead of granting ILR... - if that;s the case, it actually can mean 5.5 or 6 years to many people...

RobinLondon
Member of Standing
Posts: 323
Joined: Mon Mar 27, 2006 7:44 pm
Location: SE London

Where can I get an original copy of the McNulty letter?

Post by RobinLondon » Tue Apr 04, 2006 11:27 am

Hello,

I'm meeting with my MP Tessa Jowell on Friday to discuss this issue. As you can see from my previous postings on this matter, I have had a correspondence with her and with the Home Secretary Charles Clarke in which I was told that no changes affecting current visa holders would be made. I would like to show this letter from Mr McNulty to her to demonstrate that these promises have been contradicted.

Thanks,

Rob
UK Ancestry holder, Canadian citizen and frequent voter!

rooi_ding
Member
Posts: 135
Joined: Fri Mar 17, 2006 10:17 pm

Post by rooi_ding » Tue Apr 04, 2006 12:32 pm

Good Luck RobF

tvt
Senior Member
Posts: 526
Joined: Mon Jul 15, 2002 2:01 am
Location: London

Post by tvt » Tue Apr 04, 2006 12:45 pm

RobF,

I would also discuss with her the little discussed issue of extending the qualifying period for naturalisation.

Under British Nationality Act the qualifying period for naturalisation was 5 years (inc. one year at ILR status).

To change an Act of Parliament one needs to introduce a bill which needs to pass 3 readings and is subject to the scrutiny of both Commons and Lords.

The recent changes to the Immigration Rules have practically modified the qualifying period so from now you'll need to be resident in the UK for 6 years (inc. one year at ILR status) instead of 5.

With all due respect, it's completely unconstitutional to effect changes to major legislation by changing the Immigration Rules (which are not even considered to be secondary legislation as they are not published as a Statutory Instrument).
Last edited by tvt on Tue Apr 04, 2006 1:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-----------------------------------
<<<N. N. - G. N.>>>

RobinLondon
Member of Standing
Posts: 323
Joined: Mon Mar 27, 2006 7:44 pm
Location: SE London

How very interesting

Post by RobinLondon » Tue Apr 04, 2006 12:50 pm

I'll be sure to bring it up in the discussion. I wonder to what extent she will understand/be swayed by this constitutional argument.

aj77
Member
Posts: 169
Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2004 1:37 pm
Contact:

Post by aj77 » Tue Apr 04, 2006 3:09 pm

Really good news and great progress from another forum. One of member has met solicitor today and please find the following information.

Time: 12:00~13:00 Tue, 28 Mar. 06
Attendee: Louis, G******y
Topic: Legal Advising about extending ILR qualifying years from 4 to 5

Minutes:
1. Mr G******y H*****g is the senior immigration caseworker of Barnet Law Centre. Before working for law centre, he was a charted barrister. Barnet Law Centre is part of community legal service sponsored by Barnet council.
2. By English law, any new policy/law must be reviewed and consulted by public. As far as the adviser knew, many immigration organizations expressed serious concerns about the changes but Home Office still decided to push the 4->5 regardless any critics. “The home office consulted us because they had to do so by law, but they never listen actually”. There is no way to make them change minds in fact.
3. Home Office has to sustain themselves by income from passport application fees and visa application fees, so they intend to enlarge qualifying period to make more money from that. Many unexposed reasons/trade-offs make immigrants harder.
4. Immigration law is particularly unfair part in whole English law, because only affected persons are immigrants…
5. The deadline of suing is within 3 months after refused decision made from Home Office.
6. If any person wins in Court, this case can be directly applied to others with similar situation. (One wins, all wins)
7. Non-retrospective is a major principle in English law. If the barrister can prove the change is retrospective, he/she will definitely win in the court. But Home Office can argue that the application for ILR is a different application for work permit/HSMP, so the 4 to 5 years change to current WP/HSMP holders is not retrospective at all. Only judge can make the final decision.
8. Louis got an immigrant-specific solicitor’s phone number and would try to have a talk with them t
Non-retrospective is a major principle in English law

I wouldl be thankful if anybody could reply these questions in detail

1.Can anybody define word" retrospective" as most of us need clear understanding of this word?

2.What was the main idea of launching the programme of HSMP?Were they looking some workers for short term?

3.Who was responsible for making that policy?

4.Is ILR part of HSMP programme or ILR is different issue altogether?

5.if ILR was not the part of HSMP, on whom behalf HSMP Team invited to apply for ILR after 4 years to HSMP applicants and why it has been included in HSMP Guidance policy

6.Considering the email replies sent to HSMP applicants by HSMP Team not by any individual,does it have any legal value?
or they have full descretion to say anything or interpret their wordings by their own way or they are bound to reply responsibly?

7.these changes are retrospective or not?

I am asking all this related to HSMP because it looks like this can become stronger case and can make the ways for others too.Surely they did some other violationts too but we should be clear by ourselves first that these changes are retrospective or not?

timefactor
Member of Standing
Posts: 271
Joined: Tue Mar 30, 2004 11:46 am
Location: london-UK

Post by timefactor » Tue Apr 04, 2006 8:33 pm

I've received a letter from Home office, forwarded by MP. Covering letter from HO says, they need further information of myself to locate the correct file and on receipt of this, they will answer to MP's letter.

Anything wrong in giving my home office reference number?

supertiger
Member
Posts: 160
Joined: Fri Mar 24, 2006 6:14 pm

Post by supertiger » Tue Apr 04, 2006 8:49 pm

I think should be ok as we are all genuinely seeking some support nothing wrong with that. If you have any concerns can just reply to HO and copy to MP, show the "copy to" on the letter send to HO. But they normally reply generally, did you raise any points to make them dig into yr file?

timefactor
Member of Standing
Posts: 271
Joined: Tue Mar 30, 2004 11:46 am
Location: london-UK

Post by timefactor » Tue Apr 04, 2006 8:58 pm

No points raisen, than we discussed here. Also my file is clean.
supertiger wrote:I think should be ok as we are all genuinely seeking some support nothing wrong with that. If you have any concerns can just reply to HO and copy to MP, show the "copy to" on the letter send to HO. But they normally reply generally, did you raise any points to make them dig into yr file?

supertiger
Member
Posts: 160
Joined: Fri Mar 24, 2006 6:14 pm

Post by supertiger » Tue Apr 04, 2006 9:17 pm

Does it indicate HO start to consider some level of compromise? as their previous reply only says " all 4s are now substitutes with 5s" or etc. How long did you get the reply after you first wrote to MP? I haven;t got reply from MP yet.

Locked