Immigration News

From 6 November 2014, applications for Tier 1 investor visa for new entrants into this category will be subject to a higher investment threshold and restriction on the use of leveraged funds. New provisions have been put in place to control on the origin of funds and to refuse applications where the money had been acquired

From 20 October 2014 Immigration tribunals have the power to make an award of costs against either party in immigration appeals proceedings. The new powers derive from rule 9(2) of the Tribunal Procedure (First Tier Tribunals) (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Rules 2014 enacted under s. 29 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007. Proceedings in

Tier 4 students will be the first to lose the right of appeal as judicial control over the Home Office decisions is being lifted. Other changes will affect Tier 1 investors who will be subject to double investment requirement from 6 November 2014. New powers are vested on caseworkers dealing with Tier 1 and Tier 2 applications as more discretion is granted outside the points scoring requirements

Immigration Act 2014 has amended Nationality Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 introducing a new section “Article 8 ECHR: Public Interest Considerations”. This part of the Act applies where a court or tribunal dealing with an immigration appeal is required to determine whether the decision of the immigration authorities breaches the individual’s right to respect for private and family life under Article 8 ECHR.

Now that landlords and estate agents face potential fines of £3000 per illegal migrant harboured in residential premises, it might be time for them to team up with immigration solicitors and shift the liability on the sturdier shoulders of those with legal training and feisty character. In a written ministerial statement published on 3 September 2014,

Three judgements of the Upper Tribunal address the complicated requirements of the immigration rules in relation to Tier 1 Entrepreneurs. The three cases were heard by the President of the Upper Tribunal, McCloskey J, and the appellants were represented by Ian MacDonald QC. The judgements highlight extreme complexity of the current rules and the need for minute attention to detail when preparing the applications.

The Upper Tribunal rules that Exception EX-1 in the spouse visa rules – the Human rights cushion for those who do not meet the requirements of Appendix FM but cannot enjoy their family life outside Britain – does not extend to holders of UK visitor’s visa.

The Home Office has published a new guidance on the amended EEA Regulations addressing the changes affecting family members of British citizens who had engaged their EU rights by working in another member state of the European Union. The Regulations were amended with effect from 1 January 2014 making it more difficult for family members of UK citizens

The proposed schedule of Home Office fees from April 2014 The Home Office intends to introduce further optional premium packages: a 3 – 5 day priority visa service costing £100; priority settlement applications for £300; super priority visa service for £600 Most fees will increase by 4%. Joint naturalisation applications will increase by 12.9% to

The appeal in the case of Rodriguez, initially decided by the Upper tribunal in Rodriguez v SSHD [2013] UKUT 00042 (IAC) and then on appeal by the Secretary of State by the Court of Appeal, SSHD v Rodriguez [2014] EWCA Civ 2, concerned the effect of the so called “Evidential Flexibility Policy” in the applications for leave to remain under