when ?

[smiles345]

do anybody know that when the court considering the 4-5 yrs Permanant Residence case? is that on December 18th?

pls reply

[mansawant]

Hi,

The hearing of the case will be on 17th and 18th December.

Thnaks & Regards,
Mansawant

[Siggi]

Smiles,
Really, it no longer matters if or not the JR takes place as people have already lost money and paid for extending their visa's.
If and I repeat if the JR is sucessful, are the HO going to paid back all the money they exstorted from people who have extended their visa, I don't think so!
No we have lost and HO have won.

[SYH]

Smiles,
Really, it no longer matters if or not the JR takes place as people have already lost money and paid for extending their visa's.
If and I repeat if the JR is sucessful, are the HO going to paid back all the money they exstorted from people who have extended their visa, I don't think so!
No we have lost and HO have won.

MOOT

[Siggi]

SYH
I suppose you don't really care now that you have your ILR?
Good luck to you!

[SYH]

SYH
I suppose you don't really care now that you have your ILR?
Good luck to you!

Thanks. but it still impacts me so I care.
Because the remedy should be to put you back in the place you would have been. Where I would have been is at citizenship so if the JR goes in favor of the aggrieved applicants of 4 to 5 years, I hope the court includes those who would have applied for citizenship based on the previous accelerated schedule.

[Siggi]

I agree that what you are saying is the remedy, but you know how they work.
Effected will just have to swollow a bitter pill.

[smiles345]

many thanx for all your kind reply. do you guys think that it will be favourable to the immigrants?

[Siggi]

My best geuss is that those effected will get a apology only!

[SYH]

My best geuss is that those effected will get a apology only!

well thats why I am not holding my breath
by the time the appeals process is done I wouldhave already gotten it done on their time table (insert expletive here)

[smiles345]

i think the judiciary is always been favourable to the immigrants. HSMP and the doctors are best examples.

[goldfish]

It still matters for those of us who arrived under the 4 year rules and but have not reached 4 years yet. A favourable ruling would mean getting ILR then citizenship one year earlier. I am happy living in the UK but the days out of the country requirement makes me feel as though I am under self-imposed house arrest

Am not very hopeful re the results of the JR though, or that the BIA will actually implement changes if they are successful...

[jimquk]

My best geuss is that those effected will get a apology only!

You must be joking! How many times have the courts ruled that Home Office policies toward asylum seekers were illegal? Far from apologising, they always say that they are disappointed but will work out a way to do the same thing, but lawfully - changing the law if necessary. In practice, they may just leave the matter lie, but as far as I know they have never ever apologised for what they have done.

A prime example was denial of support to late and opportunistic asylum claimants in 2003-4. http://www.refugeecouncil.org.uk/OneSto ... 97ecf662ce When this went through Parliament, it was suggested that late claimants would be those who had been in the UK months or years before claiming. As soon as it came into law, it was applied to anyone here over 24 hours. Eventually, such a harsh policy was declared unlawful by the courts. The Home Office now applies it very sparingly, only to those who it thinks the courts will agree are "opportunists".

Ten thousand asylum claimants, legally present, not allowed to work, were forced to live on the streets for months until the courts ruled that this breached their human rights. Many went on to win their asylum claims, after the usual Home Office obsruction. If there were any justice, one might have hoped to see the Home Sec of the day up in court for human rights abuses, but of course nothing of the sort happened, and on the contrary far from apologising the Home Office declared its intention of continuing to apply the policy wherever possible.