My take: EU citizens will be “the new Windrush scandal”

Now that the “Windrush scandal”  has claimed the head of the Home Secretary, it is time to reflect on all this. I am no friend of the Tory party, but am always cautious of any Guardian-led immigration hysteria, as well. Now, the Guardian was right to raise this, and of course it is outrageous etc etc. Yet, is there not a cautionary tale within about one’s personal responsibility? An umpteenth article about the so-called “Windrush scandal” in the Guardian recently condemned  former immigration minister Damian Green for suggesting, 7 years back, that keeping evidence of one’s immigration status was that … Continue reading →

What good is winning an appeal, if the Home Office responds with sabotage?

Gone are the days when the Home Office presenting officers’ brightest ideas on fudging their appeal statistics were to deliberately misrecord the results on CID as “allowed on human rights grounds” instead of “allowed under the immigration rules”, so that it will look like Home Office was never wrong in the first place (appeals allowed on human rights grounds are not counted in their internal statistics as failures). But imagine winning in the Tribunal, but then waiting MORE THAN A YEAR with UKVI simply stonewalling requests to implement the decision – to later find out that HO had NEVER RECORDED … Continue reading →

ALL FLR(FP)s, incl. Appendix FM routes, might now be kept at (ATOS? Capita?) in Durham to process, where staff can’t tell HMPO from UKVI

The most problematic UK immigration  application form FLR(FP) is used for many applications involving so-called “private life claims”, including those under the Immigration rules (Appendix FM 10-year partner routes, 5-year and 10-year parent routes, Private life under para 276 ADE), as well as by anyone who just thinks that they might file an application – called applications “outside the rules”. The position of all of  these groups of people is quite different. Applicants under Immigration Rules, if they qualify, are technically entitled to their leave to remain.  There is no discretion, although in many cases consideration of those applications will … Continue reading →

EU residence documents: what are they good for? Apparently, not much – as ROR and Surinder Singh applicants find out the hard way

The UK government is well-known for grotesque interpretation of those few ECJ rulings that seem to go its way — just think McCarthy 1, the perverse interpretation of which by our government went on to necessitate Lounes. But no case, as I am starting to realise, has been as abused by the UK government as Dias.  Dias simply says that a residence card on its face does not, by itself, grant a right of residence. It is only evidence that conditions for that residence were met at the time the card was issued. Our government, across all its departments, now … Continue reading →

Trump immigration plan vs DACA: what will actually happen? Prediction

As you probably all know folks, US Immigration policy is in its highest pitch fever the last two weeks, that it’s been in almost three decades. Not since the reforms of the 1980s and 1990s has there been so much focus on immigration policy — which currently stands principally unchganged since the 1990s- and so much of a real chance that it will be dramatically overhauled. Something we in the UK experience every day, but the US is not used to. So, what are the proposals, will something actually get done,  and how is it likely to turn out? Trump … Continue reading →