Date – 18th
May 2009
To:
Jonathan
Sedgwick
Deputy Chief
Executive, UKBA
From:
Amit Kapadia
Executive Director (Chairman)
HSMP Forum
Dear Mr Sedgwick,
Sub - Response to the Policy
Document
Thank you for agreeing to my request and sharing the policy document
beforehand. It has been very helpful. I appreciate your effort in
acknowledging most of the categories and issues which I highlighted in
the letter dated 15th April 2009.
In the short span of time since receiving the policy document, I have
been able to come up with the following (see below). We reserve the
right to raise at a later date any aspects of the old rules (terms and
benefits) that may have been omitted in the policy document. I will also
be in touch with your office if there are any subsequent issues or
scenarios we may identify after the implementation of the policy.
I have identified the following issues at present, further to my letter
dated 15th April 09;
1.
The policy does not say whether applications can be made at Public
Enquiry Offices (PEO) without migrants having to incur an extra premium
service charge. The PEO facility should be provided and it will be very
important for those affected.
2.
There should not be any requirement for Life in the UK / English language
during ILR application as it won’t be in accordance with the judgment /
court order (1).
3.
Postal applications for ILR made by those affected should be expedited
automatically.
4.
Any refunds such as the second extension application fee refund should be
done automatically and in easiest manner possible rather than expecting
individuals to make separate applications for such refunds. The excess
fee charged earlier can be offered to be deducted from the applicant’s
ILR application where applicable. Principal applicants or their
dependants as applicable should be offered a choice for obtaining their
refund i.e. deduction of the excess fee from their ILR application fees
or repayment of the excess fee. It will be even in line with your
submissions during the Judicial Review. The approach in this matter
should be pro-active.
5.
The number of days migrants can be absent during the 4 years stay was 180
days according to the rules prior to 3rd April 2006. However,
to acknowledge the confusion that the ILR changes may have caused to
migrants, there should be a relaxation of this rule.
6.
In reference to Paragraph 5 (d).
Those affected should not be subjugated to further evidence requirement
of proving economic activity again for the past 4 years and should
rather be issued ILR automatically on the basis of their previous
extensions.
7.
The heading before paragraph 18 should read as follows;
Those who applied for ILR after four years, were refused, and either:
·
won an appeal against the decision and were
subsequently granted FLR
·
did not appeal or their appeal was dismissed or
were granted discretionary leave or became overstayers
·
Also those migrants and their dependants who left
the UK due to the April 2006 ILR changes should be allowed to file for
settlement from abroad. The time spent abroad by the migrants should
also be acknowledged in these issues.
8.
The following needs to be included in all the
applicable categories - Refund of separate visa fees paid by migrants
where children crossed 18 years of age due to the extension from 4 to 5
years.
9.
A confirmation is required from UKBA that
ILR for those who benefit from this judgment will not be interchanged
with Probationary Citizenship or any other immigration changes in the
future in accordance with the court order (1).
10.
The UKBA should issue a backdated ILR or letter acknowledging time spent
beyond 4 years to all those affected.
11.
Whilst UKBA is not obliged to make any changes for other categories, I
would again urge to consider applying the new policy benefits to other
skilled immigration categories as well namely work permit and Ancestral
Visa.
I will be happy to provide any clarification or further information.
_________________________________________________________________________
|