Immigration News

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

Nasim v SSHD (Article 8) [2014] UKUT 00025 is an appeal by a group of Tier 4 migrants whose applications for Post-Study Work visa were refused for the reason that their degree certificates only became available after the route was formally closed in April 2012. In this context, the Upper Tribunal considered arguments based on the