- FAQ
- Login
- Register
- Call Workpermit.com for a paid service +44 (0)344-991-9222
ESC
Welcome to immigrationboards.com!
Moderators: Casa, archigabe, CR001, push, JAJ, ca.funke, Amber, zimba, vinny, Obie, EUsmileWEallsmile, batleykhan, meself2, geriatrix, John, ChetanOjha
Isn't this the same as they did when they ended the '14 year illegal for ILR'? It ended for all applications not granted before that date?secret.simon wrote: e) Unusually, it seems to me that Paragraph 2 of the transitory provisions states that SS applications made before 25th November (when the new provisions come into effect), but not decided by that date, will be assessed according to the new provisions. I can imagine that that is going to run into deep legal waters. I am fairly certain that this will be the first provision to be questioned and thrown out by the courts.
Obie wrote:The Home Office has decided to bring new laws from 25-11-2016.
Some of this laws like the Surinder Singh changes are designed to deliberately breach EU law.
It appears that the Court will be very busy.
The most immediate of the changes, is making it clear that Extended Family members have no appeal rights, that is from the 25-11-2016.
Surinder Singh changes also coming into place on the 25-11-2016.
New definition of marriage of convenience provision, which also violates EU law.
The court will simply have to set these provisions aside.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/1052/made
manicminer wrote:Is it likely that the removal of appeal rights will be challenged any time in the near future before it has an impact on people's applications? No, as appeal rights haven't been removed. Appeals can still be made outside of the UK.
Judicial review is hardly a good or reliable option for families and non-EU direct family members in situations where they are given no rights of appeal.
Casa wrote:manicminer wrote:Is it likely that the removal of appeal rights will be challenged any time in the near future before it has an impact on people's applications? No, as appeal rights haven't been removed. Appeals can still be made outside of the UK.
Judicial review is hardly a good or reliable option for families and non-EU direct family members in situations where they are given no rights of appeal.
As I understood Directive 2004/38/EC and SS, as long as you 'activated' your Treaty rights, they remain with you even if you don't live in an EEA country for a while? The bold part above appears to be a new barrier? Forgive me if I am totally mistaken, but do let me know if I am!(2) The conditions are that—
(a)BC—
(i)is residing in an EEA State as a worker, self-employed person, self-sufficient person or a student, or so resided immediately before returning to the United Kingdom; or
(ii)has acquired the right of permanent residence in an EEA State;
(b)F and BC resided together in the EEA State; and
(c)F and BC’s residence in the EEA State was genuine.
Black Friday.Obie wrote:The Home Office has decided to bring new laws from 25-11-2016.
...
Do you mean by way of judicial review?Obie wrote:The removal of in country appeal rights is something that is clearly open to challenge.
This topic is about legislation - not guidance notes.mkhan2525 wrote:The new separate guidance released on how Singh cases are to be assessed is very disburting and most of what is being asked or investigated is not even lawful.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/s ... -_v1_0.pdf
Alison Harvey wrote:The latest European regulations are consolidating—they are wonderful from that point of view—but we have seen provisions in them that, on their face, we simply think are unlawful. There are provisions on the abuse of rights that run directly contrary to the judgment of the Court of Justice in Akrich. We simply anticipate that the sums have been done that we will not get to the Court of Justice to challenge those provisions before we have left the EU. That is a worrying tendency and exaggerates an existing trend.
That is precisely my view.vinny wrote:Of course, if the UKVI misinterprets Directive 2004/38/EC and caselaws, then the EEA regulations and their subsequent instructions for caseworkers will be inconsistent with the courts' interpretation.
Alison Harvey wrote:The latest European regulations are consolidating—they are wonderful from that point of view—but we have seen provisions in them that, on their face, we simply think are unlawful. There are provisions on the abuse of rights that run directly contrary to the judgment of the Court of Justice in Akrich. We simply anticipate that the sums have been done that we will not get to the Court of Justice to challenge those provisions before we have left the EU. That is a worrying tendency and exaggerates an existing trend.