A number of Immigration applications are refused because applicants fail to adhere with the conditions on their visa. The Immigration Rules defines “public funds” as the following:
(a) housing under Part VI or VII of the Housing Act 1996 and under Part II of the Housing Act 1985, Part I or II of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987, Part II of the Housing (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 or Part II of the Housing (Northern Ireland) Order 1988;
(b) attendance allowance, severe disablement allowance, carer’s allowance and disability living allowance under Part III of the Social Security Contribution and Benefits Act 1992;, income support, council tax benefit and housing benefit under Part VII of that Act; a social fund payment under Part VIII of that Act; child benefit under Part IX of that Act; income based jobseeker’s allowance under the Jobseekers Act 1995, income related allowance under Part 1 of the Welfare Reform Act 2007 (employment and support allowance) state pension credit under the State Pension Credit Act 2002; or child tax credit and working tax credit under Part 1 of the Tax Credits Act 2002;
(c) attendance allowance, severe disablement allowance, carer’s allowance and disability living allowance under Part III of the Social Security Contribution and Benefits (Northern Ireland) Act 1992;, income support, council tax benefit and, housing benefit under Part VII of that Act; a social fund payment under Part VIII of that Act; child benefit under Part IX of that Act; income based jobseeker’s allowance under the Jobseekers (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 or income related allowance under Part 1 of the Welfare Reform Act (Northern Ireland) 2007;
(d) Universal Credit under Part 1 of the Welfare Reform Act 2012 or Personal Independence Payment under Part 4 of that Act;
(e) Universal Credit, Personal Independence Payment or any domestic rate relief under the Northern Ireland Welfare Reform Act 2013;
(f) a council tax reduction under a council tax reduction scheme made under section 13A of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 in relation to England or Wales or a council tax reduction pursuant to the Council Tax Reduction (Scotland) Regulations 2012 or the Council Tax Reduction (State Pension Credit) (Scotland) Regulations 2012.
Immigration Analysis: Compliance, Enforcement, and Policy
Today’s immigration environment is ever-changing and increasingly complex. Last week the campaign to end new rules on family migration took a major step forward with a debate in the House of Lords, followed by a significant judgment in the High Court.
Further changes to the Immigration Rules will continue to happen and the Home Office will make changes to their policy, which will impact both individuals and companies who sponsor migrants to work in the UK. Most notably, regulatory requirements are fluctuating and enforcement actions are aggressive. ICS Legal, with its depth of experience and broad global reach, is uniquely positioned to offer analysis, commentary, and up-to-the-minute information about the impact these changes will have.
Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration concerned by poor decision making at Dhaka and Warsaw visa sections
John Vine, Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration, today released investigation reports on the Home Office’s Dhaka and Warsaw visa sections.
The Chief Inspector found the customer service at both visa sections was good, but the quality of decision making was poor.
A press release quoted him as saying: “I was pleased to find that customer service targets were being met across most of the categories of visa applications we inspected at both visa sections, and there was a genuine commitment to improving customer service standards.”
“However, the quality of decision-making was poor in all the visa categories I inspected at both Dhaka and Warsaw. It is vitally important, if the visa application process is to be fair and transparent, that the Home Office corrects these serious failings in its decision making. Given the poor level of decision quality the Home Office should also review the target for Other Visitor applications in Warsaw to bring decision quality and ultimately customer service to an acceptable standard.”
The press release also noted that the Chief Inspector found in Dhaka:
• customer service targets were being met in the majority of the Family Visitor, Other Visitor and Tier 4 cases. However, targets for settlement visa applications were not being met;
• a number of initiatives had been implemented to improve customer service, including extended opening hours for Visa Application Centres and a shortened registration process
• staff were committed to addressing correspondence and complaints promptly and aimed to provide a full response to applicants within five working days;
• an effective working relationship between the Risk and Liaison Overseas Network (RALON) and entry clearance staff, was helping to tackle visa abuse;
• problems with half of the cases examined including; misinterpretation of evidence or failure to take account of positive evidence provided by applicants; not retaining relevant supporting documentation; not recording clear grounds for their decision; and refusing applicants for failing to provide information, the need for which they would not have been aware of at the time of making their application;
In Warsaw the Chief Inspector found:
• despite a 460% increase in application volumes since July 2012, Other Visitor applications were being processed within 12 days. This was a good performance;
• files were provided in a timely manner, indicating an efficient file storage and retrieval process and information security and data protection issues were treated seriously;
• the quality of decision making was poor. The decision to refuse the visa could not be maintained in 12% of the cases in our file sample. In a further 24% of the cases there were issues with the quality of decision making;
• the level of quality control conducted by ECMs in Warsaw was inadequate. In the 10 months to July 2013 an average of only 10% of refusal decisions were reviewed and between February and April 2013 this fell to just over 3%;
• ECOs in Warsaw had a benchmark target to process 45 Other Visitor applications per day. This equated to just 10 minutes per application;
• the RALON risk profile was not aligned with the actual refusal rates. Countries which did not feature on the profile had relatively high refusal rates whilst countries which were thought to be high risk had lower refusal rates.
The Court of Justice of the European Union has today released its judgment in Bundesrepublik Deutschland v Kaveh Puid, Case C-4/11.
Where a Member State may not transfer an asylum seeker to the State competent to examine his application because of a risk of infringement of his fundamental rights in the latter, the Member State is required to identify another Member State as responsible for the examination
Conversely, it is not, in principle, required itself to examine the application
The ‘Dublin II’ Regulation  sets out the criteria for determining the Member State competent to examine an application for asylum lodged in the EU – a single Member State being, in principle, competent. Where an asylum seeker has lodged his application in a Member State which is not the one the Regulation indicates is competent, the Regulation provides for a procedure for the transfer of the asylum seeker to the competent Member State. However, in such a situation, the Member State to which the application was made may decide not to transfer the applicant to the competent State and itself to examine the application.
Mr Puid, an Iranian national, arrived in Germany irregularly by transiting through Greece. His application for asylum lodged in Germany was declared inadmissible on the ground that, under the Regulation, Greece was the Member State competent to examine that application. Mr Puid was therefore transferred to Greece. However, he brought an action for annulment of the decision rejecting his application, which was upheld by the Verwaltungsgericht Frankfurt am Main (Administrative Court, Frankfurt am Main, Germany). That court considered that, in the light of the conditions in Greece in relation to the reception of asylum seekers and processing of asylum applications, Germany was required to examine the application. Mr Puid was subsequently recognised as a refugee by the German authorities.
In that context, the Hessischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Higher Administrative Court, Land of Hesse, Germany), before which an appeal against the decision of the Verwaltungsgericht Frankfurt am Main has been brought, has asked the Court of Justice for clarification as to the designation of the State which must examine an application for asylum. The German court is seeking to ascertain whether the Regulation confers on an asylum seeker the right to require a Member State to examine his application if that State cannot transfer him, because of a risk of infringement of his fundamental rights, to the Member State initially identified as competent.
In today’s judgment, the Court recalls, first of all, that a Member State is required not to transfer an asylum seeker to the Member State initially identified as responsible where systemic deficiencies in the asylum procedure and in the conditions for the reception of asylum seekers in the Member State initially identified as responsible provide substantial grounds for believing that the applicant would face a real risk of being subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment .
In this connection, the Court points out that, faced with such a situation, a Member State may decide, in accordance with the Regulation, itself to examine the application. However, the Court makes clear that if that State does not wish to avail itself of that right, it is not, in principle, required to examine the application. In those circumstances, it is to identify the Member State responsible for the examination of the asylum application by continuing to examine the criteria set out in the Regulation. If it does not succeed in so doing, the first Member State with which the application was lodged is to be responsible for examining it.
Lastly, the Court states that the Member State in which the asylum seeker is located must ensure that it does not worsen a situation where the fundamental rights of that applicant have been infringed by using a procedure for determining the Member State responsible which takes an unreasonable length of time. Accordingly, if necessary, it must itself examine the application.
NOTE: A reference for a preliminary ruling allows the courts and tribunals of the Member States, in disputes which have been brought before them, to refer questions to the Court of Justice about the interpretation of European Union law or the validity of a European Union act. The Court of Justice does not decide the dispute itself. It is for the national court or tribunal to dispose of the case in accordance with the Court’s decision, which is similarly binding on other national courts or tribunals before which a similar issue is raised.
Unofficial document for media use, not binding on the Court of Justice.
From 28 October 2013 if you are applying by post for extension of stay, indefinite leave to remain or British citizenship on the following forms, you no longer need to provide an original passport from the British or settled person supporting your application – a photocopy of their passport or travel document can be provided instead.
Applying for extension of stay or indefinite leave to remain
Forms FLR(M), SET(M) and SET(F)
- fiancé(e) of a British citizen or settled person;
- civil partner or proposed civil partner of a British citizen or settled person;
- spouse of a British citizen or settled person;
- unmarried partner of a British citizen or settled person;
- same sex partner of a British citizen or settled person; or
- child or other dependant relative of a British citizen or settled person.
Applying for British citizenship
Forms AN and MN1
- spouse of a British citizen;
- civil partner of a British citizen;
- child of a British citizen parent.
The photocopy must include all pages of the passport, including any blank pages, and we will verify it with other government departments in accordance with the Data Protection Act 1998. We may request the original document at any time during the application process, and the application will be refused if you do not comply.
You must still submit your own original passport or travel document as part of your application. If you would like to get legal advice on how to meet the published requirements, send your inquiry to email@example.com or contact us on 0207 237 3388.
Get Legal Advice
Contact our team on 0207 237 3388 or e-mail us on firstname.lastname@example.org
Rommell "Got my settlement in the UK with ICS Legal. Service when face to face was excellent"