Tier 2: is it Brexit ready?
Tier 2 is a fortress. Everything about the UK work permit system is designed to disincentivise employers importing migrant labour from outside of the EU. Like a teacher who has lost control of her class at school and exacts revenge on her own children at home, who are occasionally fed and kept in the basement, the Tier 2 system controls what it can. For the time being, this does not include the number of workers who may enter to work from Europe. At last count, 2.24 million European Economic Area (EEA) nationals are employed in the UK without let or hindrance, with no need to obtain permission from the Home Office...12th June 2017
Tier 1 (Entrepreneur) visas: is Britain open for business?
Businesses large and small are the backbone of our economies, and enterprise is the engine of our prosperity. That is why Britain is – and will always be – open for business: open to investment in our companies, infrastructure, universities and entrepreneurs. – Theresa May, Davos, January 2017 Entrepreneurs are used to taking risks. And in applying for a Tier 1 (Entrepreneur) visa, they will certainly be taking one. While in the 3 years to December 2016 the UK issued entry clearance to 2,821 holders of entrepreneur visas, and granted in-country extensions of leave in 7,283 cases in the same category, the refusal rate for both applications has consistently...17th May 2017
Home Office ‘abuse of power’ over English Language Testing student
The President of the Immigration and Asylum Chamber of the Upper Tribunal has found that the Home Office abused its power in forcing a college to expel a student and deliberately depriving him of a statutory right of appeal. The case has now been reported as R (on the application of Mohibullah ) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (TOEIC – ETS – judicial review principles)  UKUT 561 (IAC). The most damning findings are at paragraph 73: What is the effect of this analysis? In our judgment, it adds a further, discrete dimension to the Applicant’s challenge. It invites the conclusion (to borrow the language of Elias LJ) that a reasonable public authority could...11th January 2017
Court of Appeal has finally had it with the Points Based System
The Points Based System is notoriously complex and indecipherable. Initially I believe this was simply incompetence on the part of Home Office officials unable to communicate in plain English and ill equipped to design to and then adapt to the constantly shifting requirements of Ministers. My view is that the complexity of the system is now deliberate; an opportunity has been grasped and the Points Based System is now used as a barrier to all immigration rather than as a gateway to the “right” migrants. It was even extended to family migration in the form of Appendix FM with accompanying Appendix FM-SE with accompanying policies and guidance. There is in effect...8th December 2016
Court of Appeal unhappy with Home Office position and submissions in student case
“Technical”, “deeply unattractive”, “disingenuous”, “singularly lacks merit”, “ridiculous”, “inappropriate”, “extraordinary”. All words used by Elias or Vos LLJ to describe the arguments advanced by the Home Office in the course of their judgments in the remarkable case of R (On the Application Of Ufot) v Secretary of State for the Home Department  EWCA Civ 298. Vos LJ rounds off his criticism of the arguments thus: The background was striking. In short, a Nigerian student said he had made an application to extend his leave to study a BSc in Business Management at BPP University. With the application still pending, or so he thought, he began his studies. The Home...16th May 2016
*UPDATED* Tribunal rejects Home Office fraud allegation in ETS case but fails to report determination
President McCloskey has firmly rejected the Home Office case against students alleged to have fraudulently obtained English language test certificate from ETS (“Educational Testing Services Ltd”) in the case of SM and Ihsan Qadir v Secretary of State for the Home Department IA/31380/2014. The President finds that the Home Office evidence suffered from “multiple frailties and shortcomings” and that the two witnesses produced by the Home Office were unimpressive. In short, the Home Office failed by a significant margin to prove the alleged fraud. Related13th May 2016