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

help i was overstayer

Family member & Ancestry immigration; don't post other immigration categories, please!
Marriage | Unmarried Partners | Fiancé/e | Ancestry

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

transpondia
Member
Posts: 106
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 10:17 pm
Location: London

Post by transpondia » Sun Apr 27, 2008 11:12 pm

Having read what's posted here, and now the refusal notice, what it actually boils down to is what you got served. If you got served an IS151B, then the ECO followed the rules by imposing the 10 year ban.

The only way to take advantage of the concession is if you left voluntarily or if you only got served an IS151A.

You only said IS151, but didn't say which flavor. That makes a big difference in accessing the concession.

Twin
Member of Standing
Posts: 344
Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2007 9:25 pm

Post by Twin » Mon Apr 28, 2008 12:02 am

transpondia wrote:Having read what's posted here, and now the refusal notice, what it actually boils down to is what you got served. If you got served an IS151B, then the ECO followed the rules by imposing the 10 year ban.

The only way to take advantage of the concession is if you left voluntarily or if you only got served an IS151A.

You only said IS151, but didn't say which flavor. That makes a big difference in accessing the concession.
According to Liam Byrne's letter to ILPA and the UK borders entry guidelines, it is perfectly possible for a person issued with an IS151B to leave voluntarily, therefore being able to benefit from the concession. An IS151B is a decision to remove and not a removal order.

Here is what the entry clearance guidelines say - and I quote:

Quote:
Remember that making a decision to remove a person (Form IS 151B), or issuing a notice identifying him as an immigration offender (IS 151A) does not in itself mean that the applicant has been removed from the country. It is perfectly possible for someone to leave the country voluntarily after a decision has been taken to remove him. You therefore need to be satisfied that the applicant was actually removed before
deciding that the concession does not apply to him


http://www.ukvisas.gov.uk/en/ecg/chapte ... 0seventeen

However, I agree with Marie B that because the OP was actually removed by BIA themselves, she was and will be unable to benefit from the concession.

IRYNA
Newly Registered
Posts: 20
Joined: Wed Apr 23, 2008 11:11 am
Location: rb

Post by IRYNA » Mon Apr 28, 2008 8:18 am

transpondia wrote:Having read what's posted here, and now the refusal notice, what it actually boils down to is what you got served. If you got served an IS151B, then the ECO followed the rules by imposing the 10 year ban.

The only way to take advantage of the concession is if you left voluntarily or if you only got served an IS151A.

You only said IS151, but didn't say which flavor. That makes a big difference in accessing the concession.
I'vent got the notice on my hands so we phoned tne home office in Cardif and they said i was served with notice is151a

chibage
Junior Member
Posts: 75
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 3:10 pm

i think marieb is right

Post by chibage » Mon Apr 28, 2008 9:29 am

26.17.5 Concession for applicants who were in the UK illegally on or after 17 March 2008 (the date of the announcement) and left the UK voluntarily before 1 October 2008
Ministers have announced a concession to paragraph 320(7B), with the aim of encouraging people who are in the UK illegally to leave and apply to return under the Immigration Rules. In order to qualify under the concession, the applicant must meet the following conditions:
They must have left the UK voluntarily between 17 March 2008 (this is the date the concession was announced) and 1 October 2008 inclusive They must also not have contrived in a significant way to frustrate the immigration rules (e.g. by conducting a bogus marriage). This means that if a person’s breach of our immigration laws was so serious that they would have been refused under the old paragraph 320(11) of the Immigration Rules (or would have been refused under those provisions had they overstayed or breached their conditions), then the concession should not be applied to them. The concession means that rule 320(7B) will not apply to such an applicant. However, the applicant will still have to satisfy the other requirements of the immigration rules.
Establishing voluntary departure
The concession only applies to voluntary departures. It does not apply where the applicant was removed or deported from the UK. If you are satisfied that the applicant left the UK voluntarily between 17 March and 1 October (exclusively), but think the may have “contrived to frustrate the immigration rulesâ€

IRYNA
Newly Registered
Posts: 20
Joined: Wed Apr 23, 2008 11:11 am
Location: rb

Post by IRYNA » Mon Apr 28, 2008 10:53 am

Im glad so many people apply on this topic. Thank you. But can anybody in normal human language explane whats going on and what my chances are? Thank you. :(

P.S Me and my boyfriend decided to get married in my home country (Belarus) and apply for spouse visa.

chibage
Junior Member
Posts: 75
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 3:10 pm

Post by chibage » Mon Apr 28, 2008 1:12 pm

IRYNA I think you were banned because you did not leave voluntary CHeck the red area. Because they removed you , you were not protected by the concession. I would seek legal advice to clarify, but this is what i understand it to be . Did you pay for your flight?? 26.17.5 Concession for applicants who were in the UK illegally on or after 17 March 2008 (the date of the announcement) and left the UK voluntarily before 1 October 2008
Ministers have announced a concession to paragraph 320(7B), with the aim of encouraging people who are in the UK illegally to leave and apply to return under the Immigration Rules. In order to qualify under the concession, the applicant must meet the following conditions:
They must have left the UK voluntarily between 17 March 2008 (this is the date the concession was announced) and 1 October 2008 inclusive They must also not have contrived in a significant way to frustrate the immigration rules (e.g. by conducting a bogus marriage). This means that if a person’s breach of our immigration laws was so serious that they would have been refused under the old paragraph 320(11) of the Immigration Rules (or would have been refused under those provisions had they overstayed or breached their conditions), then the concession should not be applied to them. The concession means that rule 320(7B) will not apply to such an applicant. However, the applicant will still have to satisfy the other requirements of the immigration rules.
Establishing voluntary departure
If The concession only applies to voluntary departures. It does not apply where the applicant was removed or deported from the UK. you are satisfied that the applicant left the UK voluntarily between 17 March and 1 October (exclusively), but think the may have “contrived to frustrate the immigration rulesâ€

IRYNA
Newly Registered
Posts: 20
Joined: Wed Apr 23, 2008 11:11 am
Location: rb

Post by IRYNA » Tue Apr 29, 2008 7:57 am

I dont think its right. I was removed on 2d of april i didnt know about this new immigration law. I think nobody even immigration officer who took me or people who was there or even my solicitor didnt know. Because everybody was saying dont worry you go back home and you can apply for visa straight away.
Why nobody told me about this law why nobody ask me if i want to go home voluntarily?
:x
Its wrong.
Me and boyfriend been together for 2 years in the uk we got engaged at Christmas 2008. We wanted to apply for leave to remain even went to solicitor to ask about it and started to put all documents together. But suddenly smth terrible happened his mother got ill really badly and sometime later she pass away. We drop everything and he was so upset. We left everything. And then somebody reported on me to immigrations and i was taking away. I cant explain the way we feel. its not fair to us. we just want to be together :(
Anyway we getting married in my country and try to get the spouse visa.
http://www.ukvisas.gov.uk/en/ecg/chapter26/#point%20six
Under part 26.17.4.
it says
You must not refuse an applicant under 320(7B) if: the applicant has raised human rights issues ( in particular right to family life under Article 8) which would justify issuing the entry clearance;

ricky
Junior Member
Posts: 72
Joined: Fri Apr 25, 2008 7:52 am

Post by ricky » Tue Apr 29, 2008 7:36 pm

Iryna what about you and your fiance do like me and my fiance :?
my fiancee uk citizen is going to immigrate to norway get a job and a place to live then sponsor me there because we love each other and we want to live together (human being get old????? and die everyday is precious :cry:
i am overstayer like you , and that s the only option i see to be together as people with immigration history in uk they make it difficult for them in embassies :?
these rules are applied on immigrant becauise i think whoever thought of punishing people by 10 years was thinking that immigrants live forever immortel !!!!!!

republique
BANNED
Posts: 1342
Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2008 5:58 pm

Post by republique » Tue Apr 29, 2008 8:21 pm

IRYNA wrote:I dont think its right. I was removed on 2d of april i didnt know about this new immigration law. I think nobody even immigration officer who took me or people who was there or even my solicitor didnt know. Because everybody was saying dont worry you go back home and you can apply for visa straight away.
Why nobody told me about this law why nobody ask me if i want to go home voluntarily?
:x
Its wrong.
Me and boyfriend been together for 2 years in the uk we got engaged at Christmas 2008. We wanted to apply for leave to remain even went to solicitor to ask about it and started to put all documents together. But suddenly smth terrible happened his mother got ill really badly and sometime later she pass away. We drop everything and he was so upset. We left everything. And then somebody reported on me to immigrations and i was taking away. I cant explain the way we feel. its not fair to us. we just want to be together :(
Anyway we getting married in my country and try to get the spouse visa.
http://www.ukvisas.gov.uk/en/ecg/chapter26/#point%20six
Under part 26.17.4.
it says
You must not refuse an applicant under 320(7B) if: the applicant has raised human rights issues ( in particular right to family life under Article 8) which would justify issuing the entry clearance;
Umm you go home voluntarily when you don't overstay or you are at the airport on your way out when they discover you. If someone has to come get you and ship you out, then you lose your opportunity to leave voluntarily. They don't have to ask you, after you overstayed, "would you like to leave now?" Also administrative removal is a nice way to say deportation, You were deported. Lastly, getting married is not humantarian grounds so I wouldn't get my hopes up. It is quite unfortunate since you only overstayed 6 months. So the punishment doens't fit the crime. Who ratted you out that they got immigration on you so fast?

Twin
Member of Standing
Posts: 344
Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2007 9:25 pm

Post by Twin » Wed Apr 30, 2008 5:52 pm

IRYNA wrote:I dont think its right. I was removed on 2d of april i didnt know about this new immigration law. I think nobody even immigration officer who took me or people who was there or even my solicitor didnt know. Because everybody was saying dont worry you go back home and you can apply for visa straight away.
Why nobody told me about this law why nobody ask me if i want to go home voluntarily?
:x
Its wrong.
Me and boyfriend been together for 2 years in the uk we got engaged at Christmas 2008. We wanted to apply for leave to remain even went to solicitor to ask about it and started to put all documents together. But suddenly smth terrible happened his mother got ill really badly and sometime later she pass away. We drop everything and he was so upset. We left everything. And then somebody reported on me to immigrations and i was taking away. I cant explain the way we feel. its not fair to us. we just want to be together :(
Anyway we getting married in my country and try to get the spouse visa.
http://www.ukvisas.gov.uk/en/ecg/chapter26/#point%20six
Under part 26.17.4.
it says
You must not refuse an applicant under 320(7B) if: the applicant has raised human rights issues ( in particular right to family life under Article 8) which would justify issuing the entry clearance;
IRYNA, all hope is not lost. Just because you were refused entry clearance and banned for 10 years doesn't necessarily mean it will be so. I think you should submit an appeal and prepare a very strong case to go to the AIT on article 8 and any other ECHR grounds if applicable.

I am not saying this would be easy but if you have good enough grounds, then you might succeed. Basically, all hope is not lost.

blessedlady
Newbie
Posts: 33
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 8:04 pm

Post by blessedlady » Wed Apr 30, 2008 6:12 pm

jei2

You mean entry clearance application should be lodge AFTER 01 October??? or can anybody possibly lodge application before that??(country of origin). I will go back on July 25, already bought a ticket, just waiting for my child to finish the school term.
jei2 wrote:aka189

Much obliged.

I note that Liam Byrne's letter to ILPA states:

"I can confirm that for the purposes of the consession it is the date on which the applicant leaves the UK that is relevant. Provided he or she leaves between 17 March and 1 October, it does not matter when he or she applies to come back."

So my concerns about whether immigration officials are following this guidance still stands.

But the good news here is that an individual who has overstayed could make an application for entry clearance after 1 October 2008, provided they left within the relevant period.

IRYNA
Newly Registered
Posts: 20
Joined: Wed Apr 23, 2008 11:11 am
Location: rb

Post by IRYNA » Thu May 01, 2008 6:58 pm

Twin wrote:
IRYNA wrote:I dont think its right. I was removed on 2d of april i didnt know about this new immigration law. I think nobody even immigration officer who took me or people who was there or even my solicitor didnt know. Because everybody was saying dont worry you go back home and you can apply for visa straight away.
Why nobody told me about this law why nobody ask me if i want to go home voluntarily?
:x
Its wrong.
Me and boyfriend been together for 2 years in the uk we got engaged at Christmas 2008. We wanted to apply for leave to remain even went to solicitor to ask about it and started to put all documents together. But suddenly smth terrible happened his mother got ill really badly and sometime later she pass away. We drop everything and he was so upset. We left everything. And then somebody reported on me to immigrations and i was taking away. I cant explain the way we feel. its not fair to us. we just want to be together :(
Anyway we getting married in my country and try to get the spouse visa.
http://www.ukvisas.gov.uk/en/ecg/chapter26/#point%20six
Under part 26.17.4.
it says
You must not refuse an applicant under 320(7B) if: the applicant has raised human rights issues ( in particular right to family life under Article 8) which would justify issuing the entry clearance;
IRYNA, all hope is not lost. Just because you were refused entry clearance and banned for 10 years doesn't necessarily mean it will be so. I think you should submit an appeal and prepare a very strong case to go to the AIT on article 8 and any other ECHR grounds if applicable.

I am not saying this would be easy but if you have good enough grounds, then you might succeed. Basically, all hope is not lost.

Thank you for advise. We desided to fight. I dony know how but we will try. Thank you. :cry:

Hollie-Lee
Newly Registered
Posts: 3
Joined: Sat May 03, 2008 9:12 am

Post by Hollie-Lee » Wed May 07, 2008 7:46 am

My boyfriend is in a prison only as a detainee because there is no space in a detention centre. He has been told he is going to be removed. I want to act quickly, so he can leave voluntarily at his own expense. How do I do this? please help! I dont think I have much time left as he has already been held 11 days.

jei2
Member of Standing
Posts: 419
Joined: Thu Feb 14, 2008 12:49 pm
Location: London

Post by jei2 » Wed May 07, 2008 9:25 am

blessedlady wrote:jei2

You mean entry clearance application should be lodge AFTER 01 October??? or can anybody possibly lodge application before that??(country of origin). I will go back on July 25, already bought a ticket, just waiting for my child to finish the school term.
No You can make your application before 1 October.

But Liam Byrne is saying that the concession will benefit those who left within the relevant period even if they submit their application after 1 October.

Thanks to those who picked up on what I missed about leaving the UK within the concessionary period - the voluntary factor.

Forewarned is forearmed.. or something...
Oh, the drama...!

Ani
Newly Registered
Posts: 20
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 8:32 am

Post by Ani » Fri May 09, 2008 1:16 pm

Having read this discussion I have a query - my fiance currently has an EEA2 application under consideration (since Aug 07), he is Albanian & was a port entry - I'm wondering could it be possible that if they decide to refuse his EEA2 that he come under the 10 year ban? & if so is it possible to withdraw an application so that he can leave voluntarily & we apply to come back from Albania?

User avatar
Administrator
Diamond Member
Posts: 1171
Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2001 1:01 am
Mood:
Contact:
United Kingdom

Post by Administrator » Sat May 10, 2008 10:27 am

.

Reading through this, one detail struck me.

IRYNA - who paid for that flight that took you out of the UK?

I suspect that the "voluntary" condition of this 'amnesty' has not been met in your case.

I am not placing blame on you or your intention ... it seems that the BIA deliberately fast-tracked you out of the country on a government flight to make it (or at least give the action the appearance of) involuntary removal.

the Admin


[ EDIT :

My mistake. Sorry. I replied while still reading page one. I see now that page two of this topic covers my comment specifically.

Something else, though:

You said you were removed on 02 April 2008. That's a Wednesday. You also stated you were collected on a Friday & sent home on Monday. Something in the timeline doesn't quite add up.

Although, 17 March 2008 is the critical date. So I suppose it doesn't really matter. ]
Contact Information:
• Mobile: +44 (0)77996 22200
• Tel: +44(0)344 991 9222
• Email: sanwar.ali@workpermit.com

Follow Us On:
• LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/sanwarali/
• Twitter: https://twitter.com/workpermitcom

jamalkhan
Member
Posts: 123
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2007 3:25 pm

Post by jamalkhan » Sat May 10, 2008 7:46 pm

definatley more chance if you apply for fiance/spouse visa

petkanov
Junior Member
Posts: 78
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Bulgaria

You have a very good chance but,

Post by petkanov » Mon May 12, 2008 11:08 am

OK, there is a way you can overcome this ban but it will take about 6-12 months after you marry, and will cause some inconviniences on your husband and you but it is very straighforward and easy. You have to go the EU route. What does that mean? If you apply for an EEA Family Permit and after that for Residence Card the UK immigration law is not aplicable and you wil be dealt with under the EEA Regulations. Aplications under the EEA route are free. There are a few preconditions you have to handle before that. This is my suggestion how to handle this:
Step 1: You marry outside the UK

Step2: You and your husband go to Bulgaria. He registers as a self sufficient person or self employed and in two days he will get his certificate, and you apply for the Residence Card which you should get within six months, but more likely you will have it within 90 days.

Step3: He can take you to ireland if he wants to live there and since you have the bulgarian residence card, that will count for legal residence in the EU under the illegal irish implementation of the EEA directive.

Step4: Once your husband has exercised economic treaty rights as employed or self employed he can move back to the uk with you under the EEA regulations and bans for breaching immigration rules don't apply.
You could also do that without going to ireland, by just doing step 4 in bulgaria. Hope this helps. I am also pasting the Entry Clearance Guide on these type of cases below:

21.4.8 - Non-EEA Family Members of British Nationals (Surinder Singh cases)
A British national and his/her non-EEA family members can only benefit from free movement rights if they meet the criteria established in the ECJ case of Surinder Singh. The case stated that nationals of a Member State who are exercising an economic Treaty right (i.e as a worker or self-employed person) in another Member State will, on return to their home state, be entitled to bring their non-EEA family members to join them under EC law.

Example: A British national is exercising an economic Treaty right in Germany and living with his non-EEA spouse and children. On the British national's return to the UK, his non-EEA family members can apply for an EEA family permit to join him under EC law.

The Surinder Singh judgement is incorporated into the EEA Regulations in Regulation 9. Family members of British nationals who meet the requirements of Regulation 9 are treated as family members of EEA nationals for the purposes of the EEA Regulations.

Applications for EEA family permits must meet the following criteria:

* The British citizen is residing in an EEA Member State as a worker or self-employed person or was doing so before returning to the UK.
* If the family member of the British citizen is their spouse or civil partner, they are living together in the EEA country or they entered into the marriage or civil partnership and were living together in that EEA country before returning to the UK.
* The family member is lawfully resident in the EEA country where the British citizen is working. If the family member is not lawfully resident, they will need to satisfy the requirements of the Immigration Rules for leave to enter the UK as the family member of the British national.

Because EEA nationals have an initial three month right of residence in the UK, there is no requirement for the British national to be a qualified person on arrival. Therefore, an EEA family permit can be issued to the family member of a British national even if they are only visiting the UK with the British national before returning to the Member State where they are resident.

It does not matter if the only reason the British national went to another Member State to exercise an economic Treaty right was so that he/she could come back to the UK with his/her family members under EC law.

You should seek advice from ECO Support where you are unsure about the decision to be taken in applying the Surinder Singh judgement.

21.4.9 - Delaying a decision
You can delay a decision when you have serious doubts about the application and wish to make further enquiries. For example when there are real grounds for doubting the validity of an application, when essential documentation has not been provided, or when referral to London is necessary. In general, the longer the delay, the stronger the grounds for doubt need to be.

Grounds for making further enquiries need to be carefully considered and recorded in case they are needed to formulate a defence against any charges brought against HMG by the applicant or European Commission.

21.4.10 - Charging fees
No charge should be made for any application for an EEA family permit made by a non-EEA national family member of an EEA national or by the family member of a British national, where the British national is exercising an economic Treaty right in an EEA state or Switzerland. Visa applications by non-EEA national family members of EEA nationals attract the usual fee for the category in which they are applying.

User avatar
Frontier Mole
Respected Guru
Posts: 4392
Joined: Mon May 05, 2008 11:03 pm
European Union

Post by Frontier Mole » Mon May 12, 2008 12:12 pm

The mandatory refusal will stand as you were removed at the public expense. Changing to a spouse visa will not make any difference.

Your current appeal will fail without a doubt; you are appealing against a visit visa refusal within weeks of being removed as an overstayer. I would not waste your time or money on that. New rules or old rules there is no hope of winning an appeal in those circumstances. Leave it alone as it is dead in the water.

The marriage in itself does not confer additional rights under Article 8 so even allowing for the marriage to take place you will still be refused. Up to you if you want to throw good money after bad on a spouse application. The ECHR case you will have will be very poor so even if you go down the route of appealing after the spouse refusal it will not be enough to get you through.

The non EEA family member of an EEA individual exercising their treaty rights route suggested by petkanov is a good option. You do not have to choose Bulgaria, however it is cheap to live there by UK standards & if easy & quick to get residency certificate a good a place as any.

User avatar
Frontier Mole
Respected Guru
Posts: 4392
Joined: Mon May 05, 2008 11:03 pm
European Union

Post by Frontier Mole » Mon May 12, 2008 11:44 pm

Hollie-Lee wrote:My boyfriend is in a prison only as a detainee because there is no space in a detention centre. He has been told he is going to be removed. I want to act quickly, so he can leave voluntarily at his own expense. How do I do this? please help! I dont think I have much time left as he has already been held 11 days.
If he is already detained he will be returned as an administrative removal, which will get him the mandatory refusal ban. The only way to stop that happening is to legally stop the removal allowing him to be released pending some other appeal / legal recourse. Then return home before the appeal / JR is heard.

He could be detained for some time if he does not have a travel document / passport. If that is the case even if he wants to return voluntarily he would have to get the Turkish Embassy to issue an emergency travel document before he can do so. This might be the very reason why immigration has not removed him as yet.

Not good news I appreciate.

IRYNA
Newly Registered
Posts: 20
Joined: Wed Apr 23, 2008 11:11 am
Location: rb

Post by IRYNA » Wed May 14, 2008 12:06 pm


ricky
Junior Member
Posts: 72
Joined: Fri Apr 25, 2008 7:52 am

Post by ricky » Wed May 14, 2008 1:41 pm

where is this good news , i read what is in the link could someone explain pls: are they changing anything ???

thanks

User avatar
Frontier Mole
Respected Guru
Posts: 4392
Joined: Mon May 05, 2008 11:03 pm
European Union

Post by Frontier Mole » Thu May 15, 2008 9:18 am

Posted: Wed May 14, 2008 10:34 pm Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I would not get the flags and fireworks out just yet.
My cynical eye is reading this and reading between the lines I suggest that little touches like

they may be refused if they have contrived in a significant way to frustrate those rules

translates to:

If you do anything other than throw yourself on the plane home after X days of service of IS96 / IS151A or B you will have frustrated immigration. Failed and spurious asylum claims followed by unsucessful JR attempts are likely to be seen as frustration. Doing a disappearing act will be seen as frustration. I can see lots of frustrations - late claim of asylum might be a good one.

I think there has been at little bit of concern at the challenge that ECHR might have thrown up on the rules implemented on 29/2/08 without the tinkering now suggested by Byrne.

Watch that space.....

IRYNA
Newly Registered
Posts: 20
Joined: Wed Apr 23, 2008 11:11 am
Location: rb

Post by IRYNA » Thu May 15, 2008 9:47 am

what you think about that
Deferred Divisions
ImmigrationAll Commons debates on 14 May 2008
« Previous debate Next debate »

That the Statement of Changes in Immigration Rules (House of Commons Paper No. 321), a copy of which was laid before this House on 6th February, be disapproved.

The House divided: Ayes 354, Noes 51.

User avatar
Frontier Mole
Respected Guru
Posts: 4392
Joined: Mon May 05, 2008 11:03 pm
European Union

Post by Frontier Mole » Thu May 15, 2008 10:55 am

Has no real bearing other than the PM's did not like the paper. They were not voting to stop the implementation - that has already happened.

The actual political issue is not so much the contents of the paper more to do with the fact the paper was laid before the House AFTER implementation. This has got the backs up of the majority of MP's. The vote in its own right will not change anything. The vote does not cancel the rule change - it merely shows the MP's displeasure in how it was handled by Biscuits for Brains Byrne

What may change is the wording of the new rule in such a way that it is more favourable to returning family members or overstayers under 18. Even then I doubt it will be as clear cut as many of you currently affected by the new rule will hope for.

Locked