Client’s who consult us find it difficult to work out the difference between an immigration appeal, administrative review and a judicial review. An immigration appeal or administrative review provides you with an immigration decision whereas the judicial review does not.
Judicial review is a type of court proceeding in which a judge reviews the lawfulness of a decision or action made by a public body. In other words, judicial reviews are a challenge to the way in which a decision has been made, rather than the rights and wrongs of the conclusion reached. It is not really concerned with the conclusions of that process and whether those were ‘right’, as long as the right procedures have been followed. The court will not substitute what it thinks is the ‘correct’ decision.
This may mean that the public body will be able to make the same decision again, so long as it does so in a lawful way. If you want to argue that a decision was incorrect, judicial review may not be best for you. There are alternative remedies, such as appealing against the decision to a higher court.
Examples of the types of decision which may fall within the range of judicial review include:
- Decisions of local authorities in the exercise of their duties to provide various welfare benefits and special education for children in need of such education;
- Certain decisions of the immigration authorities and Immigration Appellate Authority;
- Decisions of regulatory bodies;
- Decisions relating to prisoner’s rights.
If you require advice or are unsure of the advice provided to you by someone else, speak to us today on 0207 237 3388 or e-mail us on email@example.com.
A number of changes are being implemented on the July 2015 Immigration Rules. Summary of the changes are as follows:
- Amend paragraph 19A which relates to returning residents, to include the spouse, civil partner, unmarried partner or same-sex partner of a Home Office employee serving overseas.
- Make changes and clarifications to the Immigration Rules relating to administrative review.
- Make minor changes and clarifications to the Immigration Rules on family and private life.
- Increase the maintenance requirements for Tier 4 (General) and Tier 4 (Child) students.
- Expand the area in which Tier 4 students have to demonstrate a higher maintenance requirement for London to include the University of London, or institutions wholly or partly within the area comprising the City of London and the former Metropolitan Police District.
- Apply the same maintenance requirements to all Tier 4 (General) students, regardless of whether they are already living in the UK, except Doctorate Extension Scheme students.
- Make all time spent in the UK as a Tier 4 student count towards Tier 4 time limits.
- Change the conditions for those given leave to enter or remain to study at publicly-funded further education colleges, to prohibit work.
- Prevent college students from extending their stay in Tier 4 or switching into any other points-based route in-country.
- Allow university students to extend their studies at the same academic level, but only if the course is linked to the previous course and the university confirms that the course supports the student’s genuine career aspirations.
- Prevent Tier 4 (General) Students from spending longer than two years in the UK studying further education courses.
- Allow a Tier 4 visa to be issued in line with a student’s intended date of travel.
- Require that Tier 4 (Child) Students be sponsored by Independent Schools only (which does not include Academies).
- Prevent Tier 4 (Child) Students granted leave after the changes come into force, and those already here not sponsored by an HEI in receipt of public funding from specified bodies, to switch into Tier 2 and Tier 1 (Graduate Entrepreneur).
- Prohibit Tier 4 Migrants from studying at Academies or schools maintained by a local authority.
- Update the list of Tier 5 Government Authorised Exchange schemes.
- Remove Part 2 of Appendix T and refer instead to the list of approved overseas screening providers published on the GOV.UK website.
- Make minor changes and clarifications to the Immigration Rules relating to visitors.
- Enable South African diplomatic passport holders to travel visa free to the UK as a visitor for official purposes, for tourism or for the purpose of “visit in transit”.
- Align the eligibility requirements for transit passengers who are non-visa nationals with visa nationals (other than those using the Transit Without Visa Scheme) in relation to the maximum duration of stay that may be granted to them.
If you are seeking further advice on the changes and how these will impact you, you can either e-mail us on firstname.lastname@example.org or call us on 0207 237 3388.
Tier 1 Entrepreneur application’s can be extended for further leave to remain, however you need to make sure you provide the specified evidences.
You can apply to extend your visa if you have registered as a director or as self-employed no more than 6 months after the date you were given permission to stay in the UK under a Tier 1 (Entrepreneur) visa and that you can prove you’ve been self-employed or working as a director of a business 3 months before you apply. You must also provide evidences that you have created at least 2 full time jobs that have existed for at least 12 months.
You must have invested into 1 or more UK businesses either:
- £200,000 in cash; or
- £50,000 in cash if your initial application was based on having funds from an approved funding source
You must be in the UK to extend your visa. You should include any dependants who are on your current visa on your application to extend – including children who have turned 18 during your stay.
SI 2015 No. 694. These Regulations amend the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006 (including bringing the legal framework within which appeals may be brought against a decision taken under the 2006 Regulations into line with the regime established by the Immigration Act 2014). Coming into force 6th April 2015.
The 2006 Regulations set out the appellate regime in respect of decisions which are made under those Regulations (‘EEA decisions’) and they apply certain parts of Part 5 of the 2002 Act to appeals against EEA decisions. The 2014 Act substantially
amended the appellate regime in the 2002 Act. The 2014 Act restructured the rights of appeal in the 2002 Act, with the effect that is now only possible to appeal under that Act against the refusal of a human rights claim, a protection claim (humanitarian
protection and asylum) and revocation of a refugee or humanitarian protection status (‘the tripartite grounds’). In particular the concept of an appeal against an ‘immigration decision’, upon which appeals against EEA decisions were previously based by the 2006 Regulations, no longer exists.
A new report by Doctors of the World – Médecins du monde (MdM) has found that even migrants who have permission to be in the UK are avoiding seeking vital medical treatment for fear of being arrested, thePress Association (PA) reported yesterday.
The report, Access to healthcare for people facing multiple health vulnerabilities, can be read here.
The MdM report is based on data collected in 2014 in face-to-face medical and social consultations with 23,040 people in 25 programmes/cities in Belgium, France, Germany, Greece, the Netherlands, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom and Turkey.
MdM runs healthcare clinics for vulnerable people, including one in Bethnal Green, East London.
The majority of patients seen across Europe by MdM (91.3%) were living below the poverty line. Most (93.6%) were foreign nationals who had on average been living in Europe for more than six years.
Migrants seen by MdM in the UK cited fear of being arrested, administrative and legal barriers, lack of knowledge or understanding of the healthcare system and their rights, along with language barriers as reasons for not pursuing conventional healthcare routes, the PA said.
The MdM report notes: “In London, almost all patients (82.7%) had no access to the NHS at all when they came to the MdM clinic: they had not been able to register yet with a GP, the entry point to the healthcare system. This was in a political context where the government was (and still is) increasingly questioning access to healthcare for immigrants. Only 9.0% already had free access to a GP.”
According to the PA, more than half (57.5%) of the people attending the centre were foreign nationals who did not have permission to reside in the UK.
MdM says its report clearly deconstructs the myth of migration for health reasons, so often used by governments to restrict access to care: “The migrants encountered in 2014 had been living in the ‘host country’ for 6.5 years on average before consulting MdM. Only 3% quoted health as one of the reasons for migration.”
Doctors of the World UK says the report found that a “dangerous cocktail of austerity policies and hostility towards migrants” means over half of pregnant women seen at MdM clinics have been unable to access antenatal care and two-thirds of children seen are going unvaccinated.
Leigh Daynes, executive director of Doctors of the World UK, said: “The failure to ensure equitable access to healthcare across Europe is this century’s hidden public health time bomb.”
MdM states in its report: “EU Member States and institutions must offer universal public health systems built on solidarity, equality and equity (and not on profit rationale), open to everyone living in the EU. MdM urges Member States and EU institutions to ensure immediately that all children residing in the EU have full access to national immunisation programmes and to paediatric care. Similarly, all pregnant women must have access to termination of pregnancy, antenatal and postnatal care and safe delivery. In order to respect the ban on the death penalty, seriously ill migrants should never be expelled to a country where effective access to adequate healthcare cannot be guaranteed. They must be protected in Europe and have access to the care they need.”
Get Legal Advice
Contact our team on 0207 237 3388 or e-mail us on email@example.com
Rommell "Got my settlement in the UK with ICS Legal. Service when face to face was excellent"