HO embarks on new driving license revocation drive

HO’s previous “driving license revocation” efforts mainly had to do with Capita sending junk mail to people in the infamous “migrant refusal pool”, of whom half had already become British, and another have never had a driving license. Now they seem to be trying to step up and promise manual CID checks.

This is all of course in pursuit of a myth – in reality, there are VERY FEW legal migrants who have once held such a status that license would have been issued to them, that would have allowed themselves to end up fully without it. This virtually never happens. So a pool of intended legitimate targets of this action is around zero.

Then there are two categories which are vast — first, long-term genuine illegal entrants or overstayers living for years underground, of whom none ever held any driving licenses in this country. And second and most alarming, is people whose “leave has lapsed” as HO may think, but in fact they have at one point married and EEA citizen and have an EU right to reside. These people will have not been in the UK illegally for a single day in their lives. NOWHERE in this guidance does it even MENTION that such situation may exist, or that EEA residence rights are inherent and not granted. Read more

Qadir and SM judgement is out

Hi folks,

I have finally just now had a chance to read all of Qadir/SM judgement.

Fascinating read, worthy of a legal textbook.

The judgement gives me (who is not in any way connected to the case and has no clients who are) great satisfaction, as I believe it is EXACTLY what I predicted on this blog some 2 months ago after attending the first 2 days of hearings in a post shared by someone on immi boards.

The court, essentially, ruled, just like I predicted it would, that the whole TOEIC problem is not out, BUT the SSHD evidence is only sufficient to open the door to allegation of deception. Meanwhile, it is still necessary to examine EACH individual case on its merits and facts (para 102) to establish whether each Appelant had motive, opportunity or propensity to cheat.

I also feel entirely vindicated in my humble subsequent assertion that SM was a rubbish witness, to which fact all of para 86 (I think) is dedicated. Read more

Surinder Singh – pushing HO to fully acknowledge O and B v Netherlands

I have completed the first stage of a project today, contemplated for exactly a year — an application under Surinder Singh route, relying on para 49 and 50 of the O and B v Netherlands judgement, e.g relying on self-sufficiency as basis for prior exercise of Treaty rights. I think this, on the eve of possible Brexit, is a big unanswered question in British terrifyingly poor interpretation of EU law.

The decision has been out for 2 years, we all know what it says, and yet Home Office pretends it doesn’t exist. Even August 2015 modernised guidance on EEA case law, even though it mentions the decision, mentions only the restrictive portions of it (HO appears to think that it somehow vindicates the “center of life” provisions, which is bizarre but beside the point).

So I have two theories — either they are quietly granting the applications under this argument, hoping that this will not be publicized, or my clients may go on to become a test case on this in the UK.

I have hand-picked this case because the client is a perfect test case in all other respects. The marriage has existed for years, the couple have children together, who are British, they have all lived overseas for years, for a number of years in Spain and then for a number of years in a 3rd country (Russia), as well as for some time equally between the two.

Residence in Spain lasted for years and is well established, the family own property there and the applicant holds a permanent residence card there under Free Movement as a family member of an EU citizen. The applicant has no UK immigration history whatsoever, except frequent travel here as a visitor, always short visits. But the basis of residence in Spain was always self-sufficiency only (the source of wealth was in Russia).

The couple are well to do and self-sufficiency is well established without a doubt. So this case is absolutely ideal as a test case on this, because there is absolutely nothing wrong with it, except this single question of law — UK govt recognising that Singh should be, like ECJ says, extended to self-sufficiency.

The applicant, naturally, qualifies for leave under an array of categories under the Immigration Rules, including under appendix FM, and would have no difficulty getting leave — but as someone who did in fact live in the EU under the Directive for years, he understands his EU rights and wishes to assert them.

I would never advise him to go through with this if I did not think he has 100% chance to prevail eventually — but the timing of this eventuality is, of course, a question. I am so psyched about this, I simply cannot keep this to myself. So, if anyone has thoughts or knows of other cases, please share )))