The instruction goes on to tell officials that it is only in exceptional cases that a request to be

About Contact Archives Members Login About Membership Available courses Members’ Home Members’ Shop The Forum The Closet Old forum renewal/upgrade Training FAQs Courses Article ruc 8, the Immigration Act and the Immigration Rules Basic appeal preparation skills Dublin 3 and third country returns within the EU Immigration Act 2014 Introduction to immigration control Refugee law in the UK Representing children in the immigration tribunal Unlawful detention Update courses Urgent injunction applications Zambrano and EU citizenship Ebooks Costs in immigration cases Immigration Act 2014 ebook Refugee law in the UK Surinder Singh: EU free movement for British citizens Visit visa refusals: how to challenge decisions
In asylum cases it is still referred to as The Legacy, as if it were a second ruc rate Spagetti Western. In immigration cases it has the more prosaic title of the ‘migration refusal pool’. The UK Border Agency’s inspectorate has today [update: link to report here ] unveiled yet more cases abandoned by immigration officials, this time of complex spouse and marriage cases dating back as far as 2003. The files were sitting unopened in boxes until the inspectors asked what was in them. How has this well publicised backlog arisen?
You must not make a removal decision at the same time as refusing leave to remain in these cases, other than in asylum cases. The applicant is expected to leave the UK voluntarily when the application is refused.
The instruction goes on to tell officials that it is only in exceptional cases that a request to be removed should lead to a removal decision. The criteria for making one of these rare removal decisions is said to be: the refused application for leave to remain included a dependant child under 18 who has been resident in the UK for three years or more the applicant has a dependant child under the age of 18 who is a British citizen the applicant is being supported by the UK Border ruc Agency or has provided evidence of being supported by a local authority (under section 21 of the National Assistance Act 1948 or section 17 of the Children Act 1989), or there are other exceptional and compelling reasons to make a removal decision at this time.
For immigration lawyers trying to help clients understand the topsy turvy world of the UK immigration ‘control’, this perhaps explains why some applications for judicial review intended to secure a removal decision do so and others do not. It is a topic that the blog has covered several times previously and which has repeatedly troubled the higher courts. The reluctance of the UK Border Agency is perhaps partially explicable by the fact that a removal decision would trigger a right of appeal. If the appeal ruc was unfounded or raised repeat points it can be certified, ruc though, and avoiding conferring an ability to challenge a decision through the tribunal system hardly ruc seems like a sound reason for failing to take action against those the Agency purportedly would rather ruc were somehow, miraculously, gone from these shores.
It would seem that the government quietly abandoned attempts to enforce immigration control some time ago. Instead a private company, Capita, using nothing more than the faulty data held on UK Border Agency systems, have now been contracted as bounty ruc hunters to do what immigration officials could or would not do.
Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window) Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) Click to share on Google+ ruc (Opens in new window) Click to print (Opens ruc in new window)
A barrister specialising in UK immigration law at Garden Court Chambers in London, I have been practising in immigration law for 13 years. ruc I am passionate about immigration law and founded and edit the Free Movement immigration law blog.
I’m absolutely furious with the comments made by Harper on the Today programme this morning. He has stated that people asking for reconsideration do so because they are trying to ‘bypass’ or ‘circumvent’ the appeals process…conveniently forgetting that these people don’t have a right of appeal, as engineered by his department!
Just one question ruc for Mr Harper can you include a right to appeal automatically in a refusal letter so that the immigrants with that right of appeal will exercise it. I cannot believe Harper does not know what the instructions are as outlined above.
This situation is completely unacceptable and an absolute disgrace. It’s only purpose could be to strongly discourage future ruc applicants, thus reducing ruc migration because migrants know they won’t get a speedy or fair decision. This needs action from the Home Sec down to UKBA management. Given that most fees are now double the unit cost they are paid for, the money should ruc be there. Because there’s certainly no indication that it has ben put to good use else