Immigrationboards.com

Hi All ,

I saw below post on one of the thread and not sure if this stands correct or the process around it.
Tried to find the details but cant find this anywhere...

immigration-for-family-members/flr-fp-a ... e#p2071720


""Hello, anyone seen this?

Is this a much expected game changer?

''On March 15, 2022, the Home Office published changes to immigration laws, including significant changes involving the right of abode for children. These changes will take effect on June 20, 2022.

Currently a child living in the UK continuously for 7 years can apply for a private life/human rights visa under the 10 year route. This is irrespective of whether the child was born in the UK or not.

Under the new legislation, a child who is born and lives in the UK continuously for 7 years will be able to apply directly for the Indefinite Leave to Remain, right of permanent residence in the UK.

Children who were not born in the UK but who have lived here continuously for 7 years will be able to apply for a visa under the previous legislation, but now under the 5-year route.

In both cases the children, and consequently their parents, will benefit and obtain the right of permanent residence in the UK more quickly.''

I have since 2015 onwards I have been maintaining the stay criteria. I have been under ICT TIER 2, TIER 2 dependent and TIER 2 general visa and my family are with me as dependent.

As per the new private life route changes I am just wondering will there be any chance for us or for my son to get ILR this year instead of waiting till 2025 .
My son born in uk and turned 7 recently.

Is there any chance for him to get ILR based on the new route. He has been under ICT TIER 2, TIER 2 and TIER 2 general visa dependent category for all these years.

If he can eligible for ILR now through the new route then the parents can also apply for ILR.


Can anyone clarify my above questions please?

thanks

It is not just about 7 years here. You need to prove for it would not be reasonable to expect the UK born child to leave the UK with the parents. For Tier 2/PBS/worker routes, the expectation is that the child is your dependant and they can leave with you at any time. So this will make it very difficult to get ILR for such a child while parents have limited leave to remain under Tier2/PBS/work/etc visa. Often the people granted leave under private life will be the beneficiary.

Most notably, a child who was born in the UK can apply for ILR immediately after spending the first seven years of their life here – even if they have never had any leave to remain. This change is welcome, as it avoids the need for children in this position repeatedly to reapply for extensions. However, they must still show that it would not be reasonable to expect them to leave the UK.

https://web.archive.org/web/20220317123 ... ife-rules/

Yes. I think a UK born 7-year old child may apply for ILR, subject to Appendix Private life

Child born in the UK requirements for settlement on the Private life route

PL 13.1. The applicant must have been born in the UK and must provide a full UK birth certificate.

PL 13.2. The applicant must have lived continuously in the UK since their birth and for at least 7 years at the date of application.

PL 13.3. The decision maker must be satisfied that it is not reasonable to expect the applicant to leave the UK.

Continuous Residence requirement for settlement on the Private Life route

PL 15.1. The applicant must meet the continuous residence requirements as set out in Appendix Continuous Residence for the qualifying period for settlement

But I doubt that child’s parents can also apply for ILR because of child’s ILR.

Zimba wrote: ↑

Tue Aug 16, 2022 12:22 pm

It is not just about 7 years here. You need to prove for it would not be reasonable to expect the UK born child to leave the UK with the parents. For Tier 2/PBS/worker routes, the expectation is that the child is your dependant and they can leave with you at any time. So this will make it very difficult to get ILR for such a child while parents have limited leave to remain under Tier2/PBS/work/etc visa. Often the people granted leave under private life will be the beneficiary.

Most notably, a child who was born in the UK can apply for ILR immediately after spending the first seven years of their life here – even if they have never had any leave to remain. This change is welcome, as it avoids the need for children in this position repeatedly to reapply for extensions. However, they must still show that it would not be reasonable to expect them to leave the UK.

https://web.archive.org/web/20220317123 ... ife-rules/

oh so if the parents are via private life then the uk born thingy will be more useful, else it is difficult to prove under the private life of child... but isnt both things seperate .. i mean the child spending 7 years in uk irrespective of the visa status wont be enough for the private life ?

No it is not enough. Vinny already showed you the relevant immigration rules. Dependant children of migrants are expected to accompany their parents. This has always been the case. If your employment is terminated and you are expected to leave the UK, then it is reasonably expected that your child will be with you leaving the UK.

Zimba wrote: ↑

Tue Aug 16, 2022 2:00 pm

No it is not enough. Vinny already showed you the relevant immigration rules. Dependant children of migrants are expected to accompany their parents. This has always been the case. If your employment is terminated and you are expected to leave the UK, then it is reasonably expected that your child will be with you leaving the UK.

yea makes sense for those who travelled to uk and not born here.
here the child is born in uk .. and i did read details around it as below.. so the only point PL13.3 is the one which is subjective isn it ?

Child born in the UK requirements for settlement on the Private life route
PL 13.1. The applicant must have been born in the UK and must provide a full UK birth certificate.

PL 13.2. The applicant must have lived continuously in the UK since their birth and for at least 7 years at the date of application.

PL 13.3. The decision maker must be satisfied that it is not reasonable to expect the applicant to leave the UK.

Yes.

Zimba wrote: ↑

Tue Aug 16, 2022 12:22 pm

https://web.archive.org/web/20220317123 ... ife-rules/

@Zimba’s link above explains in more detail.

kirukiru wrote: ↑

Tue Aug 16, 2022 3:14 pm

Zimba wrote: ↑

Tue Aug 16, 2022 2:00 pm

No it is not enough. Vinny already showed you the relevant immigration rules. Dependant children of migrants are expected to accompany their parents. This has always been the case. If your employment is terminated and you are expected to leave the UK, then it is reasonably expected that your child will be with you leaving the UK.

yea makes sense for those who travelled to uk and not born here.
here the child is born in uk .. and i did read details around it as below.. so the only point PL13.3 is the one which is subjective isn it ?

Child born in the UK requirements for settlement on the Private life route
PL 13.1. The applicant must have been born in the UK and must provide a full UK birth certificate.

PL 13.2. The applicant must have lived continuously in the UK since their birth and for at least 7 years at the date of application.

PL 13.3. The decision maker must be satisfied that it is not reasonable to expect the applicant to leave the UK.

You are here to work as a migrant with limited leave. When there is no reason for you to remain here, you and your dependants must leave. Being born in the UK in itself, does not give you any extra rights to stay here. The exception under the private life rules is when it would be unreasonable for such child to leave. It has never been unreasonable to ask a migrant worker and their dependents to leave the UK when their visa runs out or if their job is terminated.

People under family and private life visas are treated differently than migrant workers In fact, the intention of the new rule changes was to let the children to settle here who are not expected to leave the UK (e.g people who are here under private life routes or people with leave granted outside the rules, etc) Previously such children needed 10 years of lawful residence, now they can get it after just 7 years even without any visa.

Zimba wrote: ↑

Tue Aug 16, 2022 4:58 pm

kirukiru wrote: ↑

Tue Aug 16, 2022 3:14 pm

Zimba wrote: ↑

Tue Aug 16, 2022 2:00 pm

No it is not enough. Vinny already showed you the relevant immigration rules. Dependant children of migrants are expected to accompany their parents. This has always been the case. If your employment is terminated and you are expected to leave the UK, then it is reasonably expected that your child will be with you leaving the UK.

yea makes sense for those who travelled to uk and not born here.
here the child is born in uk .. and i did read details around it as below.. so the only point PL13.3 is the one which is subjective isn it ?

Child born in the UK requirements for settlement on the Private life route
PL 13.1. The applicant must have been born in the UK and must provide a full UK birth certificate.

PL 13.2. The applicant must have lived continuously in the UK since their birth and for at least 7 years at the date of application.

PL 13.3. The decision maker must be satisfied that it is not reasonable to expect the applicant to leave the UK.

You are here to work as a migrant with limited leave. When there is no reason for you to remain here, you and your dependants must leave. Being born in the UK in itself, does not give you any extra rights to stay here. The exception under the private life rules is when it would be unreasonable for such child to leave. It has never been unreasonable to ask a migrant worker and their dependents to leave the UK when their visa runs out or if their job is terminated.

People under family and private life visas are treated differently than migrant workers In fact, the intention of the new rule changes was to let the children to settle here who are not expected to leave the UK (e.g people who are here under private life routes or people with leave granted outside the rules, etc) Previously such children needed 10 years of lawful residence, now they can get it after just 7 years even without any visa.

Agreed about the migrant part but for the child born here and spent 7 years it will be unreasonable to leave. i mean it will be considered for the childs private life and offcourse not the parents.
but again it is all on the decision maker ...

thanks for the help. it clears out lot of doubts and i would rather wait for 10 years

Just playing the devil's advocate here. Why would it be unreasonable to leave? People leave their country of birth after over 30 years and move to a different country? People move with their kids as old as 16-17 years and move to another country. Like most people relocated to the UK on this forum.

So why would it be unreasonable to move out from the UK again? Especially for a child that is just 7 years of age. I have very vague recollection of things when I was 7, so the kid would adjust back to the new life easily.

27.

For the purpose of the specific point that Lord Carnwath was making in para. 18 it was only necessary for him to establish that the fact that the parents had no leave to remain could affect the outcome, not that it normally would; and I note that "element (b)" in his reasoning is expressed in terms of it normally being reasonable for a child to be with their parents, not of it normally being reasonable for him or her to leave with them. However I do not think that it would be right to read his judgment in so limited a sense. It is important to see also how Lord Carnwath expressed his conclusion in NS and AR, which were the two cases that involved section 117B (6). At para. 51 of his judgment he says:

[The Judge] correctly directed himself as to the wording of the subsection. The parents' conduct was relevant in that it meant that they had to leave the country. As I have explained (para 18 above), it was in that context that it had to be considered whether it was reasonable for the children to leave with them. Their best interests would have been for the whole family to remain here. But in a context where the parents had to leave, the natural expectation would be that the children would go with them, and there was nothing in the evidence reviewed by the judge to suggest that that would be other than reasonable [emphasis supplied].

The italicised words show that Lord Carnwath was taking as his starting-point the "natural expectation" that a child would go with the parents, subject of course to evidence showing that it would not be reasonable for him or her to be expected to do so. His reference to the IDI (see the start of para. 18) is to broadly the same effect, since that says that "it will generally be reasonable to expect a child to leave the UK with their parent(s)".

I think, in a context where the parents have leave, the natural expectation would be that the children would remain with them, may be reasonable?

Most people incorrectly think that the new changes somehow fundamentally change the definition of 'unreasonable to leave' but it does not.

On the date of the decision, if both parents (or one parent with sole responsibility) have leave, then I think it’s reasonable to expect child to remain in the UK with them.

Else, if PL 13.3. also expects at least one settled parent, then a UK born child’s entitlement to register would make this rule redundant?

Am I underthinking? Possibly!