Circus meets Kangaroo court: what is JR in admin court actually like

My friend and client had walked away ealier this month  from a JR application – we both lingered outside for a bit of where his oral renewal of permission hearing, which he paid for, was scheduled —  but decided not to go in. That is, when we found out that the judge assigned was an “employment law lion”, according to his biography. Permission on papers was denied by a medical law solicitor, sitting as a high court judge for unclear reasons. The government was represented by a lawyer qualified in New Zealand. Our JR was on a procedural question of EU … Continue reading →


As a birthday present to me today, the Home Office answered my latest FOI request in time, but alas it confirms our worst fears.  Following the horrifying case of two original EU passports vanishing in Durham without a trace and Home Office STILL doing NOTHING about it, compounded by my suspicions that the passports have been stolen at the Durham facility handled by an external contractor — and, further, my suspicion that HO will use the same or similar contractor to staff the entire new EU documents process,  I requested the details of WHO are the people entrusted with passports in Durham, which is supposed to, currently, constitute copying and returning of all the EU  and British passports. You can read the response in full on the attached link, as well as the job specification they sent. As you can see, the people in question are NOT civil servants,  and are not required to be UK or EEA citizens, which makes a threat to original documents very real. The HO appears to refuse to divulge the precise details and level of background checks needed.

FOI response

Job specification

New rules on continuous residence in PBS settlement: no more ILR-application-date-moving in order to fit the long absences in!

Heads up PBS migrants (Tier 1 and 2) applying for ILR!

From Thursday 11 January, new rules on calculating continuous residence come into effect, which put an end to “ILR application date shopping” in order to break long absences into separate 12-month periods. Now all absences will be assessed on a rolling basis, and you will have to not have had ANY 180+ day absences in ANY 12-month periods, not only those counted back from application date!

This will make some remaining T1G migrants permanenly ineligible for settlement and is a very worrying trend. I for one just expected them to relax the rules to help some people settle, and sense unusual hostility to remaining T1G migrants in this move.

{Rare} credit where it’s due goes to a  Freemovement blog associate who noticed this when the rest of us hadn’t.I now analyzed the text and believe now that she is right, the intention behind the change was exactly this (sadly).


Attention EU citizens: Home Office WILL LOSE your original passports, then LIE about it, then refuse to help or investigate

Been listening much about how we will be all ready for Brexit, with 1200 (presumably external contractor such as Capita) employees and new, brilliant shiny process for handling EU nationals documents? I think MPs, The Home Affairs Select Committee, EU nationals in the UK and the world need to read my complaint to day to the Home office, to see what EU nationals much like themselves are going through now. UKVI LOST TWO ORIGINAL POLISH PASSPORTS (I personally suspect theft by a rogue non-HO employee at Durham payment processing site, and have made a FOI to establish what co runs … Continue reading →

Lounes ECJ ruling finally published, post-naturalisation spouses must be granted residence “no worse than EU terms” but do not derive rights automatically from the Free Movement Directive

As often, ECJ decisions sort of hard to parce in minutes, so more later. However the gist is, the Court makes a lot of valuable points — which TBH I thought were already obvious after McCarthy2 case – to explain that those EU nationals who have exercised Treaty Rights in another member states and eventually naturalised there, CANNOT be treated just as badly as those state’s own nationals who had never left it. The Court rules that denying residence to their post-naturalisation spouses would constitute deterrent to free movement’s important aim — ultimate integration in the host state. Post-naturalisation spouses … Continue reading →