Concessions made to the Immigration Rules for Ukrainian nationals in wake of Russian invasion

It will not have escaped your attention that Putin has launched an invasion into Ukraine, igniting major concerns across the globe and potentially lighting the initial spark which could lead to war in Europe, some fear.

Ukraine will be looking for aid from its allies, including the UK. Part of the UK’s support to them in this time comes in the form of new concessions for Ukrainian citizens and their families inside and outside the UK, allowing easier routes into the country and more lenient rules to abide by to extend their stay here.

This blog will focus on these new concessions.

Changes announced for Ukrainian nationals in the UK include:

Ukrainian nationals on an existing points-based system route can extend their leave in the UK.

Ukrainian nationals on an existing visitor visa can exceptionally switch into a points-based system immigration route without having to leave the UK.

Ukrainian nationals on an existing visitor visa can apply under the family route for further leave without meeting the immigration status requirement, provided they meet the requirements for leave based on exceptional circumstances.

Ukrainian nationals on an existing seasonal worker visa will have their leave in the UK extended to 31 December 2022.

Ukrainian nationals in temporary HGV/pork butcher jobs will have their leave in the UK extended to 31 December 2022 and will also be allowed to apply to the skilled worker route.

Home Secretary Priti Patel has said:

“We stand shoulder to shoulder with Ukraine amid this unprovoked and antidemocratic act of Russian aggression.

I have immediately ordered changes to our visa policy to provide certainty to our Ukrainian friends and colleagues living, working and studying in the UK.”

Who is eligible for these concessions?

To be eligible to be considered under this concession applicants must be a Ukrainian national seeking leave to remain under Appendix FM or Part 7 or 8 of the Immigration Rules and either:

in the UK

with either limited leave to enter or remain, or an overstayer and paragraph 39E of the Immigration Rules applies

have paid the appropriate fee and Immigration Health Charge (if required)

have provided a passport or other travel document which satisfactorily establishes their identity and nationality

meet the requirements in Appendix FM or Parts 7 or 8 of the Immigration Rules for the route they are applying under, including eligibility and suitability requirements, subject to the concessions contained in this guidance.

Or, in respect to document flexibility,

be outside the UK.

have made a valid application for entry clearance including providing biometrics.

have paid the appropriate fee and Immigration Health Charge (if required).

have provided a passport or other travel document which satisfactorily establishes their identity and nationality.

meet the requirements in Appendix FM or Part 8 of the Immigration Rules for the route they are applying under, including eligibility and suitability requirements, subject to the concessions contained in this guidance.

If an applicant meets these criteria, they should be granted permission to enter or stay on the route applied for and for the length of time normally allowed under the route in which they are applying and on the same conditions.

Switching made easier

The situation in Ukraine may mean that some people who are eligible to switch to different visas are unable to return to their home country in order to do so. There is a new concession intended to facilitate those who have come for a visit or on a temporary route but who meet the requirements of the family Rules to continue their stay in the UK, including on routes to settlement where those requirements are met, and where UKVI are satisfied that it would not be appropriate to require them to return to Ukraine.

It covers those who meet the general requirements above and meet the following relevant requirements:

the applicant holds valid leave as a visitor or valid leave granted for a period of 6 months or less, unless that leave is as a fiancé(e) or proposed civil partner, or was granted pending the outcome of family court or divorce proceedings, or has been granted exceptional assurance.

the applicant has confirmed in writing that they wish to be considered under this concession and has explained their reasons for applying in-country, rather than returning to Ukraine to make an entry clearance application.

Our thoughts

We are pleased to see these concessions being written into the immigration rules for the benefit of Ukrainian citizens. The situation their country is facing is horrendous and they must be supported by the UK and the rest of the world. We hope that the Home Office will be lenient towards the Ukrainian’s and that the relaxing of some of these rules can bring them some comfort during this difficult time.

Have questions? Get in touch today!

Call us on 020 7928 0276, phone calls are operating as usual and will be taking calls from 9:30am to 6:00pm.

Email us on info@lisaslaw.co.uk.

Use the Ask Lisa function on our website. Simply enter your details and leave a message, we will get right back to you: https://lisaslaw.co.uk/ask-question/

Or, download our free app! You can launch an enquiry, scan over documents, check progress on your case and much more!

lisaslaw@web

See Full Bio

Woman seeking to separate from her husband finds that he secretly divorced her decade ago! What legal lessons are on show in a surprising recent case?

We all know that some marriages are less successful than others. This is a normal part of life and divorce has become increasingly common in recent years, with less stigma being attached to it than ever before. It is far better to accept that a marriage does not work than to suffer in silence, with the couple feeling as though their life is made worse by the other person.

However, when it comes to divorce there are certain legal requirements that must be adhered to for the process to be officially recognised. One of the most important, which mostly goes without saying, is that both parties are aware the divorce is taking place. A recent case revealed some unusual circumstances in which a man had divorced his wife without her knowledge using fraudulent means.

This blog will focus on the legal outcomes of this case and the wider repercussions of acting in a deceptive way when it comes to divorce.

The case in question: (R v R (divorce: decree absolute, set aside, forgery)

The facts around RvR are not far removed from something you would expect to find in a story or television programme. The wife, who we will call W, had begun to make arrangements to divorce her husband, M, only to find that he had already divorced her without her knowledge over 10 years before.

Clearly, W was shocked and brought forward to the court that she had not been made aware of the divorce and that any signatures she was supposed to have given as part of the proceedings had in fact been forgeries.

After he had falsely ‘divorced’ W, M had remarried and fathered a child with his new spouse, choosing to name the new child after his son from the previous marriage who had sadly passed away. Initially, M claimed that this son had been fathered using his late son’s gametes, a claim that was eventually dismissed.

M also denied the W’s allegations, claiming that she was fully aware and engaged in the divorce process and that the divorce was only kept secret for cultural reasons and for the benefit of their children.

The main issues of the case were as follows:

what knowledge the wife had of the divorce petition
whether the wife signed the acknowledgment of service
whether the wife’s signature was forged by the husband or on his behalf, and
depending on the above, whether the decree absolute stand or be dismissed

What did the court decide?

Several witnesses were called as this case progressed. It was deemed necessary for the court to interact with various people from the couple’s life in order to build context of the time of the divorce.

One such witness was a forensic document examiner who found, after examining the documents and signatures related to the divorce, there to be strong evidence that they were indeed forgeries. However, it was not possible to tell whether the husband had written the signature in question himself, due to his inability to provide a sufficient sample of his handwriting for the consideration of the examiner. This was met with suspicion by the court. It was concluded that the forgery may have been done by M or someone on his behalf.

Over the course of the proceedings, M was seen to become increasingly agitated and evasive when it came to answering questions. He refused to go into detail with his answers and appeared to understand that he may damage his case more if he spoke freely.

It was also decided that his new family meant he had personal interest in divorcing W, and did so without her knowledge for his own benefit.

Therefore, the decree of divorce granted in April 2010, consequent upon the divorce petition issued on 22 January 2010, was set aside.

What can this case teach us in terms of the use of forgery in divorce proceedings?

R v R confirms the notion that typically a wide range of evidence must be examined in a forgery case—apart from a forensic document examiner and the parties themselves, in this case the court required:

the children of the parties
a member of the extended family, and
independent third parties who had advised the parties previously, including a solicitor, a corporate director and a financial planning consultant.

This case shows both the potential for granted divorces based on forgery to be set aside, even where such proceedings took place many years ago, and the extent of evidence that may need to be examined, particularly in cases where much time has passed.

Our thoughts

This case is interesting due to the unusual circumstances surrounding it, it is not every day that you hear of a man divorcing his wife in secret and the fact he was able to get away with it for so long goes to show that the legal system can sometimes be taken advantage of. People can find ways to evade authority and slip through the cracks if they try hard enough, but in the end they will often be found out.

Have questions? Get in touch today!

Call us on 020 7928 0276, phone calls are operating as usual and will be taking calls from 9:30am to 6:00pm.

Email us on info@lisaslaw.co.uk.

Use the Ask Lisa function on our website. Simply enter your details and leave a message, we will get right back to you: https://lisaslaw.co.uk/ask-question/

Or, download our free app! You can launch an enquiry, scan over documents, check progress on your case and much more!

lisaslaw@web

See Full Bio

Tier 1 Investor Visa Route Closed Due to Security Concerns! What does this mean for people already in the UK under this route?

The Home Office has taken drastic action by closing the Tier 1 Investor Visa Route to all nationalities after claiming it left the UK open to security breaches and corruption. This route has come under investigation in the past but was not expected to be closed so suddenly.

The route was appealing to wealthy people, as it allowed applicants to remain in the UK if they could invest large amounts of money in active companies in the country. However, the route received criticism regarding some applicants acquiring their wealth illegitimately and were therefore abusing the system. It has been revealed that part of the reason for closing the route is to stop undesirable people entering the UK under corruptive circumstances.

What’s more, the economic benefit of the route has been assessed to be small. There will be plans put in place to open a related route with a greater focus on longer scale benefits and systematic improvements to businesses rather than completely focussing on singular injections of money.

Home Secretary Priti Patel has said:

“I have zero tolerance for abuse of our immigration system. Under my New Plan for Immigration, I want to ensure the British people have confidence in the system, including stopping corrupt elites who threaten our national security and push dirty money around our cities.

Closing this route is just the start of our renewed crackdown on fraud and illicit finance. We will be publishing a fraud action plan, while the forthcoming Economic Crime Bill will crackdown on people abusing our financial institutions and better protect the taxpayer.”

It also cannot be denied that the current political relations between Russia and the UK plays a role with this visa cancelation. Russian citizens make up a huge amount of the total of Tier 1 Investor visas given out each year, and the route has been controversial for some time in terms of illegitimate money scandals generally and how it is used by Russian citizens in particular.

What if you already have a Tier 1 (Investor) visa?

If you already have this visa (or had one in the last 12 months and it was your most recent visa), you can still apply:

to settle in the UK (indefinite leave to remain)
to extend your visa for 2 years

Requirements for settlement under Tier 1 Investor visa:

You must:

have lived in the UK for long enough – this can be from 2 to 5 years

meet the financial requirements

You must have spent no more than 180 days outside the UK in any 12 months.

If you are 18 to 64 you will need to book and pass the Life in the UK Test.

It costs £2,389 for each person applying. You can include your partner and children on the same application form, if they are eligible.

You also need to pay £19.20 per person to have your biometric information (fingerprints and a photo) taken.

You will usually get a decision within 6 months if you apply using the standard service.

Requirements to extend your Tier 1 Investor visa for 2 years:

You may be able to extend your Tier 1 (Investor) visa for 2 years.

Your family members (‘dependants’) will need to apply separately to extend their visa. They can either apply at the same time as you, or at any time before their current visa expires.

If you successfully applied before 6 November 2014

You can apply to extend your visa if all of the following apply:

you have had at least £2 million invested in UK government bonds, share capital or loan capital in active UK companies since 6 April 2020

you had at least £1 million under your control in the UK before 6 April 2020

you invested £750,000 in UK government bonds, share capital or loan capital in active UK companies within 3 months of your ‘investor start date’

If you successfully applied on or after 6 November 2014:

You can apply to extend your visa if all of the following apply:

you have at least £2 million under your control in the UK

you have invested those funds in share capital or loan capital in active UK companies

you invested this sum within 3 months of your ‘investor start date’

If you successfully applied before 29 March 2019, you can also apply to extend if you invested your funds in UK government bonds.

Documents you must provide

When you apply you will need to provide:

a current passport or other valid travel identification

your tuberculosis test results if you’re from a country where you have to take the test

a criminal record certificate from any country you have stayed in for a total of 12 months or more over the last 10 years

investment portfolio reports produced by a UK regulated financial institution that show you’ve met the investment eligibility requirements and maintained your investments for the full length of your visa.

Not everyone agrees with closing the Tier 1 Investor route!

Nicole Francis, Chief Executive of the Immigration Law Practitioner’s Association (ILPA) has written to the Home Secretary to object to the immediate closure of the Tier 1 (Investor) Visa route to all new applicants.

The main concern around the closure, for Francis, is that she feels it undermines democratic procedures of accountability and any sense of legal certainty, stability, and predictability. It is her opinion that it was closed too quickly without enough warning, which may negatively impact people who were planning to enter the route very soon.

In her letter she makes the following requests:

for a time-limited period of 21 days for the department to accept discretionary initial Tier 1 (Investor) applications judged on the rules prior to closure

to seek assurance that cases currently under consideration will be assessed in line with the rules at the date of application, and

that in the future there is sufficient notice to representatives and potential applicants prior to such substantive changes, stressing the constitutional importance in laying changes to the Immigration Rules at least 21 days before they take effect

Our thoughts

As a law firm with a strong interest in immigration, we do not enjoy seeing route close, especially quite as suddenly as this one has been. Although, we can understand the thought process behind the closure – we do not want people entering the UK based on illegitimate finances or corrupt business dealings.

We believe that the duty now rests on the Home Office to create a new route or alter the existing one so that it can be carried out without the risk of corruption, with appropriate vetting and checks, so that investors can come to the UK without their being concerns in the public domain of their entry.

Have questions? Get in touch today!

Call us on 020 7928 0276, phone calls are operating as usual and will be taking calls from 9:30am to 6:00pm.

Email us on info@lisaslaw.co.uk.

Use the Ask Lisa function on our website. Simply enter your details and leave a message, we will get right back to you: https://lisaslaw.co.uk/ask-question/

Or, download our free app! You can launch an enquiry, scan over documents, check progress on your case and much more!

Links to download below:

iPhone: https://apps.apple.com/us/app/lisas-law/id1503174541?ls=1

Android: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.lisaslaw

lisaslaw@web

See Full Bio

True father revealed at last! What did the courts decide in a recent parentage case and what does the result mean for the family?

It goes without saying that your family is a massively important part of your life. If you are fortunate, they are the people that will be by your side through the good times and the bad. The people in your family can play a major role in your personal development and may influence your personality, goals and behaviours. It is true that family relationships differ from person to person, but the impact that they have, for better or worse, is universal.

Where there is uncertainty as to who a person’s family is, this can set in motion a series of actions to find out the truth behind the mystery. In a recent case a woman found out that the person she grew up thinking was her father was actually not, and so she made it her aim to get the Family Court to change the record to reflect her true heritage. This case and the legal thinking behind it will be the focus of this article.

The case in question: Aylward-Davies v Chesterman and another

Back in 1959 a woman, known as B, from an Orthodox Jewish family fell pregnant with an Irish man, whom we will refer to as P. P did not wish to marry B, which put her in a difficult situation because she did not feel she could raise the baby alone, abortion in those times was illegal and she also did not want to put the child up for adoption.

Due to these factors she met and quickly married D, who agreed to fill the place of the father and raise the child. Their respective families and their friends were all under the illusion that D was the father, and this was the story that stuck for many years.

In 1960 the baby was born, a girl who we will refer to as R. The home life was not good as D was abusive towards B and R. By the time R was 15, D revealed to her that he was not her true father. B and D divorced and had nothing to do with each other in the following years. For many years R kept the secret regarding her father’s true identity, however once she entered therapy she gained the courage to find out the truth. She learned from her mother that P was her real father, and that he was running an online business in Ireland.

In 2004, R phoned P and he acknowledged her as his daughter and welcomed her into his own family. P had actually reached out some time before hoping to contact R, but he had been misled. In a happy turn of events, P’s wife considered R family as did P’s other children.

In 2008, P died. The court was told that he saw R as nothing less than his daughter.

Legal proceedings

To get into the legal side of this case, we come to the year 2008. This is when R made an application under s 55A of the Family Law Act 1986 (FLA 1986) for a declaration of parentage, specifically she sought a declaration that P was her biological father. This would mean having P officially put in place as her father instead of D on her birth certificate.

The court had to consider who would be the respondents within the application. According to the Family Procedure Rules (FPR) respondents in this case should be:

the person whose parentage was in issue except where that person was a child; and
any person who was or was alleged to be the parent of the person whose parentage was in issue, except where that person is the applicant or is a child

As for (i), the person whose parentage was in issue was R. Clearly she could not be both applicant and respondent. As regards (ii) the reference to ‘a person’ was to a person alive or dead. In this case, the mother and P were correctly made respondents.

When it comes to D’s role in this, it was decided that his family’s involvement could be kept to a minimum. There was no copy of D’s will, the Court was not told anything about his family or representatives, and R had nothing to do with him for many years. Also, D was fully aware that he was not the true father of R and it was illogical to think that anyone on his behalf would argue otherwise. Therefore, the court decided that to honour R’s request would not in turn be compromising D’s procedural rights in any meaningful way.

The option of DNA testing was considered in order to be completely sure, but as P had died 13 years prior, there were doubts as to how reliable such tests would be. In any case, the court decided that the available evidence suggested beyond reasonable doubt that it was far more likely than not that P was R’s true father.

Lastly, there was no reason why it would be manifestly contrary to public policy to make the declaration sought. In fact, it would be manifestly contrary to public policy if the court were to refuse to make the declaration sought, as it could cause needless damage to R, and anyone in a similar situation going forwards.

Our thoughts

We are pleased to see R get the outcome she wanted. We are firm believers that the law is there to help people, and in this case bringing some closure to a family related issue will certainly improve R’s life. This case could be deemed even more important in the future and held as an example for other people in similar situations to R.

Have questions? Get in touch today!

Call us on 020 7928 0276, phone calls are operating as usual and will be taking calls from 9:30am to 6:00pm.

Email us on info@lisaslaw.co.uk.

Use the Ask Lisa function on our website. Simply enter your details and leave a message, we will get right back to you: https://lisaslaw.co.uk/ask-question/

Or, download our free app! You can launch an enquiry, scan over documents, check progress on your case and much more!

Links to download below:

iPhone: https://apps.apple.com/us/app/lisas-law/id1503174541?ls=1

Android: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.lisaslaw

lisaslaw@web

See Full Bio

Secretary of State ‘confused’ by Zambrano Carer status! A recent case may raise more questions than it answers.

Immigration rules in the UK can often be challenging to understand. As a law firm we are constantly being asked questions regarding rules and regulations and while we are always happy to answer questions, it is an indication that further clarity is needed to that people know where they stand in terms of their status and rights in the UK.

It could be said that confusion has hit an all-time high when the Secretary of State makes errors in understanding a key area of immigration of late, the Zambrano carer route. This route has been drawn into the spotlight since the UK left the EU, and the recent case of Akinsanya v Secretary of State for the Home Department plays a key role in clarifying exactly what those with this status are entitled to.

What is a Zambrano carer?

The premise of a Zambrano carer is quite simple. If a person, be that a child or a dependant adult, is an EU citizen, they have the right to enjoy all the rights associated with EU citizenship. One of these rights is living in an EU territory, meaning that if their primary carer, in a child’s case, is expelled from that territory and the citizen would realistically have to go with them, their rights would be violated. This means that the carer must also be granted residence in the EU state. This is what is known as a Zambrano carer. As the UK was previously a part of the EU, such people need to be protected now that the UK has left the union.

Let’s look at recent developments in Akinsanya v Secretary of State for the Home Department

This case has been the subject of some controversy in recent months, reaching the point of Administrative Court quashing a decision made by the Secretary of State refusing the Akinsanya’s application under the EU Settlement Scheme (EUSS) as a ‘person with a Zambrano right to reside’ in the UK. Undoubtedly, this is fairly embarrassing for the Secretary of State and has forced some reconsideration of the Zambrano carer scheme.

In Akinsanya v Secretary of State for Home Department (SSHD), the claimant is a 39 year old Nigerian woman who has a child who is a British national, of whom the claimant is primary carer.

Over the years, Akinsanya had made applications for derivative residency, leave to remain on the basis of the family/private life ten-year route and finally was granted 30 months’ limited leave to remain until 11 January 2022, with no condition preventing recourse to public funds, which she was previously denied as her status was a Zambrano carer.

When the EU Settlement Scheme opened, the claimant applied to it in the hopes of attaining indefinite leave to remain on the basis that she was a Zambrano carer with five years’ continuous residence in the UK. This was when the Secretary of State denied her application, arguing that she was not eligible for the EU Settlement Scheme as she had already been granted limited leave to remain on a separate application.

When the claimant appealed this, the Administrative Court found that the theory that the existence of a concurrent limited leave to remain in itself automatically extinguished a claim for Zambrano residence was unlawful. It was held that in reality a limited national leave to remain and a wider Zambrano right to remain would co-exist frequently, in many applicants cases.

Where the confusion lies

The issue that plagues this case revolves around misunderstanding the position of the Zambrano carer scheme. The Secretary of State wrongly put forward that once Akinsanya has been granted leave to remain in the UK via alternate routes, that her rights as a Zambrano carer were automatically waived. This notion is based on the incorrect theory that the Zambrano carer status exists in its own vacuum, independent from other domestic rights. In reality, the Zambrano right could always be ignited as a result of other rights being taken away, such as the right to remain in the UK. If the dependant EU citizen would be forced to move with the carer, this would trigger the Zambrano carer right.

What comes next?

The court held the Secretary of State had misunderstood domestic law. However, it was simultaneously decided that there had not been any breach of EU law. Interestingly the Home Secretary is to rewrite the Immigration Rules with regard to Zambrano carers. Only time will tell if it will be done in a way that will allow a route to settlement under the Scheme for those with existing permission to stay in the UK.

Our thoughts

The amount of people who would benefit from a generous reconsideration of the Zambrano route is difficult to pin down for certain, but it is surely vast. There is little reason to act harshly to such people, and their rights to remain in the UK deserve to be protected.

Have questions? Get in touch today!

Call us on 020 7928 0276, phone calls are operating as usual and will be taking calls from 9:30am to 6:00pm.

Email us on info@lisaslaw.co.uk.

Use the Ask Lisa function on our website. Simply enter your details and leave a message, we will get right back to you: https://lisaslaw.co.uk/ask-question/

Or, download our free app! You can launch an enquiry, scan over documents, check progress on your case and much more!

Links to download below:

iPhone: https://apps.apple.com/us/app/lisas-law/id1503174541?ls=1

Android: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.lisaslaw

lisaslaw@web

See Full Bio

Offshore Well-Boat Workers wanted by the UK! What does the new concession introduce?

The UK has a habit of changing certain rules in order to fit their own needs, often bringing in new temporary concessions in order to fill roles that are required at specific points in time. You may remember recently this occurred when Heavy Goods Vehicle drivers were given leave to enter the UK to help sort out the fuel shortages.

Well, this appears to be the case again with the new concessions regarding offshore well-boat workers, who are being granted leave to enter for a period of up to 6 months at a time, should they fit the requirements. This blog will detail what the new rules are regarding such workers and what they will be entitled to.

What is a well-boat?

Just to clarify, a well-boat is a fishing vessel (ship) with a well or tank for the storage and transport of live fish. They are essential to supplying fish to the UK, and can employ a large number of workers per boat.

What are the new rules for foreign workers coming to work on well-boats?

Under the new concession, foreign national workers employed by an certain companies approved by the Home Office working within UK territorial seas on a well boat owned or operated by such a company may be considered for a grant of leave to enter for a period of up to 6 months at a time. However, leave to enter will not be granted for a period extending beyond 8 February 2023.

What do applicants require?

A person may only be considered for a grant of leave to enter under this concession if they are 18 years or over on date of entry to the UK and have produced:

- a valid passport
- a letter from their employer stating that the worker is employed by an approved well boat company (see below) and will be required to work on a well boat within the UK’s territorial seas
- an employment contract that shows the person seeking entry is paid an annual salary of £25,600 or over, or the equivalent if salary is not paid annually
- if they are a visa national and cannot produce a relevant seaman’s book (see below), a transit visa (see entry clearance section below)

What well-boat companies are approved?

The approved well boat companies for the purposes of this concession are listed below:

Migdale Transport
AquaShip
Ocean Farm Services
Solvtrans
Bakkafrost
Intership
Mowi
Froy Grupen (Froya)/DES
Rostein
Inverlussa Marine Services

Does time spent on this visa count towards settlement?

No, unfortunately time spent in the UK under this concession will not count towards settlement. Also, a person who is granted leave under this concession may not have recourse to public funds.

Our thoughts

It is always good to have alternative routes for people to come and work in the UK should they want to. The fishing industry is a massively lucrative one, so this concession will likely be very beneficial to the UK’s economy. It would be nice if the route counted towards settlement in some way, as this could attract more skilled workers to come and join the scheme. People should be rewarded for doing important work such as this. For now though, this is a fine route that we hope many people will get in on to experience work in the UK and develop their careers.

Have questions? Get in touch today!

Call us on 020 7928 0276, phone calls are operating as usual and will be taking calls from 9:30am to 6:00pm.

Email us on info@lisaslaw.co.uk.

Use the Ask Lisa function on our website. Simply enter your details and leave a message, we will get right back to you: https://lisaslaw.co.uk/ask-question/

Or, download our free app! You can launch an enquiry, scan over documents, check progress on your case and much more!

Links to download below:

iPhone: https://apps.apple.com/us/app/lisas-law/id1503174541?ls=1

Android: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.lisaslaw

lisaslaw@web

See Full Bio

Home Office to still charge high fees to children applying for British citizenship

Written by Mahfuz Ahmed.

Children applying to be registered as British citizens under the British Nationality Act 1981, need to pay the Home Office a fee of £1012.00 for the registration.

The British Nationality Act 1981 permits the Secretary of State to charge a fee for registering a British citizen. The fee has increased substantially over the years.

Many young applicants have found this fee to be expensive and unaffordable. This has caused a barrier to a lot of children, or those who have become adults, from obtaining citizenship.

A challenge has been bought to the Courts in relation to the lawfulness of charging such fees which are in excess of the actual processing costs incurred by the Secretary of State. In particular, whether by doing so, they had breached their duty under Section 55 of the Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009.

The said Act obliges the Secretary of State to have regard to the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of children who are in the UK when discharging their function in relation to Immigration, asylum or nationality.

R (on the application of O (a minor, by her litigation friend AO)) v Secretary of State for the Home Department and another case

In this case there where two claimants. O was a child who did not apply for citizenship as his mother could not afford the fees. The second claimant was a charitable organisation.

An application for Judicial Review was made on the basis that the Secretary of State by setting the fee at £1012, when the estimated true processing cost was £372, they had breached their duty under Section 55 of the Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009.

The Administrative Court sided with the Claimants and held that the Secretary of state had breached their duty under the Act. They appealed the decision and the matter was considered by the Court of Appeal.

The Court of Appeal allowed the Secretary of State’s appeal and the Claimant’s appealed to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court when considering the case had to ‘seek the meaning of the words which Parliament used’ in the British Nationality Act 1981 and in the Immigration Act 2014.

The Immigration Act 2014 authorises the Secretary of State to set the fees, however the Act does not impose any criterion of affordability. Instead, it expressly empowered the Secretary of State to set fees at levels which:

took account of benefits likely to accrue from citizenship and;
could subsidise the cost of the exercise of other functions in connection with immigration or nationality, thereby moving part at least of the financial burden of such functions from the UK taxpayer to the applicants.

The Supreme Court concluded that the Secretary of State where acting lawfully in charging fees for citizenship applications. They stated that that ‘The appropriateness of imposing the fee on children who applied for British citizenship under BNA 1981 s 1(4) was a question of policy which was for political determination. It was not a matter for judges for whom the question was the much narrower one of whether Parliament had authorised the Secretary of State to set the impugned fee at the level which it had been set’.

Accordingly, the Claimant’s appeal was dismissed.

Our Comments

It appears that for the foreseeable future, the Secretary of State will continue to ignore affordability in relation to fees that children are charged for their application for citizenship.

When considering that the true cost of processing such applications amount to £372, we hope that the Secretary of State review their policy on their own accord so that children are not prevented from becoming British Citizens due to affordability.

Have questions? Get in touch today!

Call us on 020 7928 0276, phone calls are operating as usual and will be taking calls from 9:30am to 6:00pm.

Email us on info@lisaslaw.co.uk.

Use the Ask Lisa function on our website. Simply enter your details and leave a message, we will get right back to you: https://lisaslaw.co.uk/ask-question/

Or, download our free app! You can launch an enquiry, scan over documents, check progress on your case and much more!

Links to download below:

iPhone: https://apps.apple.com/us/app/lisas-law/id1503174541?ls=1

Android: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.lisaslaw

lisaslaw@web

See Full Bio

Buying an ‘off-plan’ property can be a slippery slope! What can we learn from a recent case in which multiple people lost large deposits?

The reality of purchasing property is plenty of hard-work, time, energy and money. There is a lot at stake, and many hurdles to overcome. There are various avenues that can lead one to being a homeowner, and some people choose alternative routes to others. One such alternative route is to buy a property ‘off-plan’. Like any choice we make in life, there are pros and cons to do so.

In this blog we will look at a case in which buying a property ‘off-plan’ was not successful for a group of people, who resulted to legal action against the stakeholder in their plans. We are able to learn some lessons from their misfortune.

What does buying ‘off-plan’ mean?

Buying off-plan is where someone purchases a home before the developer has finished building it. In some cases the buyer may make a financial commitment to the property even before any kind of construction has begun.

This may sound completely wild, but it is more common than you might think and does have its benefits. For example, the property will obviously be brand new, the property’s value may increase by the time the buyer moves in, there can be discounts to take advantage of and the property will come with an advantageous new-build warranty.

Although, of course there are risks. There is no guarantee that the final product will be to the buyers liking, the developer could possibly sue you if the purchase cannot be completed, and most mortgage lenders will not offer mortgages on off-plan properties.

There are many steps you should take in terms of legal security before proceeding with an off-plan property purchase. We will go into these later, but first let’s take a look into a recent case where it all went wrong for the buyers.

Various North Point Pall Mall Purchasers v 174 Law Solicitors Ltd

This case can act as a cautionary tale for anyone who is thinking about buying off-plan property. It is not to say we are against off-plan property, but this case magnifies the importance of correct arrangements when doing so.

The claimants in this case are 8 people who arranged with a developer to purchase 6 units within an off-plan development. The claimants paid hefty deposits to the developer’s solicitor who held the deposits as stakeholder to the order of a buyer company, which had been established to protect the buyers’ interests. These deposits were to be used to aid the development of the properties.

To protect the buyer’s deposits, it was agreed that a first legal charge would be entered against the land under the name of the buyer company.

The deal also contained a pre-agreement whereby the developer’s solicitor could not release the buyer’s deposits without the express authority of the buyer company.

Unbeknownst to the buyers, although a ‘legal charge’ in favour of the buyer company was registered, it was ranked as a second legal charge. In other words, it was subject to someone else’s charge. Attempting to rectify this defect, the buyer company and the buyers’ solicitors claimed to have done some walk-around work. Eventually, the buyer company agreed to permit the release of the buyers’ deposits.

The development site, eventually, was sold without the units being finished, meaning the buyers lost their deposits. The claimants brought claims against the developer’s solicitor, alleging that they had released their deposits to the developer in breach of the stakeholder contract, since no first legal charge was ever registered in favour of the buyer company.

The judgement

The appellant’s claims were dismissed. It was ruled that the developer’s solicitor was not to be held accountable for the release of the buyer’s funds, as it had the buyer company’s express authority to do it and that it was under no obligations to procure the first legal charge being registered. In fact, it was the buyers own solicitors who had authority to determine whether sufficient evidence of a first legal charge in favour of the buyer company had been produced. It was only then that the deposits could be released.

Our thoughts on the case

As you can see, all the buyers lost their deposits completely. In such circumstances, buyers should always be warned clearly in writing about any progress made within off-plan developments, or legal steps that are taken within any deal. What is more, this case also demonstrates how dangerous it can be for buyers’ solicitors as well, for failing to advise their clients properly. There is no doubt that such a failure will leave a mark on any solicitor’s reputation.

What should you bear in mind when buying property off plan?

Here are some tips that will be helpful to think about when buying property off-plan:

Check the developer’s reputation. Do research into previous projects, check their customer reviews and see what third parties have been saying about them

Check the planning consent with a solicitor.

It is worth negotiating. Housebuilders may be more willing to come down in price when you are buying off-plan. This may come in the shape of them covering your stamp duty or reducing the eventual purchase price.

Ensure you are protected. Devise a contract with your solicitor to make sure your money is safeguarded, and double check the developer has insurance in case they run out of money or are unable to complete the project.

Ask for an estimation on when the property will be finished. This way, it is easier to keep expectations reasonable.

Avoid paying disproportionately high level of deposit. The higher it is, the riskier the transaction can be, as buyers will inevitably suffer losses if the development goes wrong (it can happen in numerous ways!).

Have questions? Get in touch today!

Call us on 020 7928 0276, phone calls are operating as usual and will be taking calls from 9:30am to 6:00pm.

Email us on info@lisaslaw.co.uk.

Use the Ask Lisa function on our website. Simply enter your details and leave a message, we will get right back to you: https://lisaslaw.co.uk/ask-question/

Or, download our free app! You can launch an enquiry, scan over documents, check progress on your case and much more!

Links to download below:

iPhone: https://apps.apple.com/us/app/lisas-law/id1503174541?ls=1

Android: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.lisaslaw

lisaslaw@web

See Full Bio

Applicant is granted asylum due to becoming ‘westernised’ in the UK

Written by Mahfuz Ahmed.

Asylum seekers can come to the United Kingdom, and their cultural, traditional and religious ideals and principles may have changed after spending a duration of time in the UK or in Europe.

Those asylum seekers may believe that they have been ‘westernised’ and therefore this may cause danger for those asylum seekers to return to their home country, where the social, cultural, economic and political ideas may be significantly different.

The definition of Westernised is given as the ‘The spread of cultural *values associated with Western Europe and their impact on other cultures’ (Oxford reference). This broad definition generally makes it difficult for an asylum seeker to succeed on such a basis without a clearer definition.

However, in a recent case the Upper Tribunal granted an Iraqi family asylum due to them becoming ‘westernised’ here in the UK.

YMKA and Ors (‘westernisation’) Iraq [2022] UKUT 16 (IAC)

This new reported case relates to a family, consisting of mother, father, and 3 children all from Iraq. They all left their home, Baghdad in 2006, and after spending a number of years in Jordan and UAE, they came to the UK. The whole family were residing in the UK by 2014.

The Appellants’ claimed asylum on the basis that they were all ‘westernised’ individuals who hold views opposing to those prevailing in Iraqi society, and due to this, they would face a real risk of serious harm and/or these views would present very significant obstacles to their integration upon return to Iraq.

The Appellants’ appeal was initially dismissed by the First-tier tribunal, and following a successful application for permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal, they Upper Tribunal set aside the First-tier Tribunal’s decision and the case was reheard.

The Tribunal’s findings

The Tribunal considered whether being ‘westernised’ is a protected right under the Refugee Convention. The term ‘westernised’ has featured in a number of country guidance cases but the term ‘Westernised individuals’ has not been explained. The Tribunal stated that it was striking that a term that is used so frequently in our society has never been more closely defined.

The Tribunal held that the Refugee Convention does not offer protection to enjoy a socially liberal lifestyle however the convention may be engaged where:

(a) a ‘westernised’ lifestyle reflects a protected characteristic such as political opinion or religious belief; or

(b) where there is a real risk that the individual concerned would be unable to mask his westernisation, and where actors of persecution would therefore impute such protected characteristics to him.

The Appellants showed that their westernised lifestyle reflects their political opinions and religious beliefs which could not be replicated in Iraq, and if done so, would place them in danger.

Accordingly, there appeals were granted.

Our comments

This is a much welcomed decision from the Upper Tribunal. The Appellants’ case reminds all of us that those social freedoms, which many of us take for granted, are particularly valued by those who face the prospect of having those freedoms taken away.

Should you have claimed asylum as you fear return to your home country, then we can certainly help in ensuring that you case is represented in the best possible way.

Have questions? Get in touch today!

Call us on 020 7928 0276, phone calls are operating as usual and will be taking calls from 9:30am to 6:00pm.

Email us on info@lisaslaw.co.uk.

Use the Ask Lisa function on our website. Simply enter your details and leave a message, we will get right back to you: https://lisaslaw.co.uk/ask-question/

Or, download our free app! You can launch an enquiry, scan over documents, check progress on your case and much more!

Links to download below:

iPhone: https://apps.apple.com/us/app/lisas-law/id1503174541?ls=1

Android: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.lisaslaw

lisaslaw@web

See Full Bio

Government Authorised Exchange route (‘GAE route’) – What is it and how does it work?

There are many routes into the UK and these routes can allow applicants to remain in the country for various amounts of time. Where the applicant only plans to stay in the UK temporarily, they usually have to go through slightly different processes to those who are looking for a more permanent settlement.

The Government Authorised Exchange route (GAE) is for people looking to come to the UK for a temporary period for work experience, job shadowing or training, to take part in an Overseas Government Language Programme, or undertake research or a fellowship through an approved exchange scheme. GAE workers can stay in the UK for a maximum of 12 months or two years, depending on the scheme under which they are sponsored.

This blog will explore the requirements for sponsors to successfully welcome applicants under the GAE route, as well as giving general information about this route.

What was the GAE route previously known as?

This route was known as the ‘T5 (Temporary Worker) Government Authorised Exchange Worker’ route before 11 October 2021.

What is offered within the GAE route?

As we highlighted above, the GAE route is a temporary route into the UK for those who want to share knowledge, train or undertake research. This route is usually relevant where the applicant will be involved in any of the following:

Work Experience Programmes: These schemes offer work experience, including volunteering, job- shadowing and internships. Work exchange programmes between the UK and other countries are also included in this scheme. The aim is for participants to gain experience of work in the UK.

Research Programmes: These schemes allow participants to undertake research programmes and fellowships on a scientific, academic, medical, or government research project at a UK Higher Education Provider or another research institution operating under the approval of a relevant government department. The relevant government department may also offer financial sponsorship for the institution.

Overseas Government Language Programmes: These schemes are professional language training programmes that are wholly or partly funded by an overseas government, or by an organisation affiliated to an overseas government.

Training Programmes: These are approved schemes that offer participants either formal, practical training in the fields of science and/or medicine, or training delivered by HM Armed Forces or UK emergency services.

It is important to note that this route is not a route to settlement in the UK. GAE workers can stay in the UK for a maximum of 12 months if coming for the Work Experience Programmes, or 2 years in all other cases.

However, GAE Workers are entitled to bring their family members (dependent partner and dependent children) to the UK, if they meet the relevant immigration requirements for dependants.

If the applicant is applying for entry clearance from outside the UK, or has been in the UK for less than one year at the date of application, they must show they have enough funds to support themselves and any family members in the UK.

Parental consent requirement

There is no minimum age requirement for this route but if the worker looking for sponsorship is aged under 18 on the date of application, they must have written consent from:

both of their parents

one of their parents, if that parent has sole legal responsibility for the applicant

their legal guardian

The written consent must confirm support for:

the application for entry clearance or permission to enter or stay

the applicant’s living and care arrangements in the UK

if the application is for entry clearance, the applicant’s travel to, and reception arrangements in, the UK

Who needs to be sponsored on the GAE route?

Sponsoring parties will need to sponsor any overseas national they wish to employ if they are not a ‘settled worker’ or do not otherwise have immigration permission to work in the UK. This includes most EU, EEA and Swiss nationals who arrived in the UK after 31 December 2020.

If an employer wishes to sponsor a GAE worker, they must hold a valid Temporary Worker sponsor licence for the GAE route. If they do not already hold such a licence, they must apply for one by completing the online application form, paying the £244 GAE application fee, and submitting the supporting evidence specified within the forms.

People in the following categories do not need to be sponsored in this route:

Irish citizens (with very limited exceptions)

EU, EEA and Swiss citizens (and their eligible family members) who have been granted status under the EU Settlement Scheme

people with indefinite leave to enter or remain in the UK (also known as ‘settlement’)

What are the sponsorship requirements for the GAE route?

If you wish to sponsor a GAE worker, you must:

hold a valid Temporary Worker sponsor licence for the GAE route
understand the general requirements for sponsoring workers (we can assist you with this if you need advice)
satisfy yourself any worker you sponsor on this route can meet the immigration requirements
assign a valid Certificate of Sponsorship (CoS) to the worker pay any relevant CoS fee
have eligible ‘key personnel’ in place to manage your licence and assign CoS – see Part 1: Apply for a licence for guidance on key personnel
keep records for each worker you sponsor
understand and comply with all of your sponsor duties

More specific requirements for a GAE licence:

The GAE route is for individuals coming to the UK through approved schemes. The underlying principles of these schemes are that they:

must be endorsed by a government department; and

will be administered by an overarching sponsor and not an individual employer

To stop potential abuse of this route and the creation of small, isolated schemes, individual employers and organisations are not allowed to sponsor workers on this route, even if they are licensed as a sponsor on other routes. The only exceptions to this are where the sponsors are:

a Higher Education Institution (HEI), UK Research and Innovation (UKRI), or an organisation endorsed by UKRI in their Science, Research and Academia programme, and are recruiting a:
- sponsored researcher
- visiting academic who will give lectures, act as an examiner or work on a supernumerary research collaboration

a government department or one of its executive agencies

Apart from the above exceptions, the sponsor for a GAE scheme must be an overarching body which administers the exchange scheme and acts as the licensed sponsor for any workers.

‘Switching’

Individuals in the UK on another immigration route are not generally permitted to ‘switch’ (change route) to the GAE route from within the UK. If you wish to sponsor a worker on the GAE route but they are in the UK on another immigration route, they must normally leave the UK and apply for entry clearance.

The only exception to this is where the individual was last granted permission as a Student (formerly Tier 4), they have completed a recognised bachelor’s or postgraduate degree and are being sponsored to undertake either:

a period of postgraduate professional training or work experience necessary to obtain a professional qualification or professional registration in the same professional field as that qualification

an internship for up to 12 months which directly relates to the qualification

This is true provided, in both cases, they will not be filling a permanent vacancy and their employer does not intend to employ the worker in the UK once the training or work experience has ended.

Our thoughts

We feel that the GAE route is a positive route for many people who want to come to the UK to work or train, while also getting a feel for the country. It allows applicants to commit slightly less in terms of time, and can act as a great gateway into the UK on a more permanent basis. We understand that there is quite a lot of information to wade through when it comes to this route, and we are more than happy to answer any questions that you may have if you would like to reach out to us.

Have questions? Get in touch today!

Call us on 020 7928 0276, phone calls are operating as usual and will be taking calls from 9:30am to 6:00pm.

Email us on info@lisaslaw.co.uk.

Use the Ask Lisa function on our website. Simply enter your details and leave a message, we will get right back to you: https://lisaslaw.co.uk/ask-question/

Or, download our free app! You can launch an enquiry, scan over documents, check progress on your case and much more!

Links to download below:

iPhone: https://apps.apple.com/us/app/lisas-law/id1503174541?ls=1

Android: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.lisaslaw

lisaslaw@web

See Full Bio

Have a question? Our friendly and experienced team are here to help.

Subscribe to our newsletter

We post weekly articles covering a variety of topics, including immigration, property, and more, so subscribe to our newsletter for the latest updates.