What has happened to the JR

[Siggi]

Doe's anyone have any idea of what has happened to the JR scheduled for December 08, with regards to the un-just changes to the 4-5 years application for ILR??
or
Have we all just written this off to a bad experience?

[gainvidya]

Apparently it is scheduled on Dec 17/18 as per VBSI

http://vbsi.org.uk/index.php?mact=News, ... eturnid=15

[SYH]

Also apparently that hsmpforum was a scam for money. I keep getting emails about how all the founders have changed their addresses or phone numbers in regards to getting refunds.
Incredible. I can smell those things out straight away

[Wanderer]

Also apparently that hsmpforum was a scam for money. I keep getting emails about how all the founders have changed their addresses or phone numbers in regards to getting refunds.
Incredible. I can smell those things out straight away

I heard they are all now Directors of Northern Rock....

[SYH]

Also apparently that hsmpforum was a scam for money. I keep getting emails about how all the founders have changed their addresses or phone numbers in regards to getting refunds.
Incredible. I can smell those things out straight away

I heard they are all now Directors of Northern Rock....

Good ONE!

Here is the email I got:
"We know for fact, that some of our contributor either moved from their
previous address or changed their mobile number. If any one of has
above issue, pls write to hsmp@mohsinco.co.uk or We can forward to
relevent department."
Pretty suspicious

[Rozen]

I heard they are all now Directors of Northern Rock....

[global gypsy]

As the saying goes: a sucker is born every minute...

[Siggi]

Yes the only sucker are those of us idiots, who trusted the BIA to honour law and not to change it in a illegal manner as they did in April 06 by moving the goal posts from 4 years to 5 years, before one could apply for ILR and then force us to pay a further £500 for that privilege.

[JAJ]

Yes the only sucker are those of us idiots, who trusted the BIA to honour law and not to change it in a illegal manner as they did in April 06 by moving the goal posts from 4 years to 5 years, before one could apply for ILR and then force us to pay a further £500 for that privilege.

I still don't understand how anyone can claim that the Government does not have the right to change the Immigration Rules. Just because you don't like something, doesn't make it illegal ....

[vinny]

They do have a right to change the Immigration rules. However, retrospective changes are entirely a different matter.

[JAJ]

They do have a right to change the Immigration rules. However, 'retrospective' changes are entirely a different matter.

I don't see how one can claim the changes were retrospective because they only applied to applications for ILR made going forward.

They did not revoke the ILR of anyone who already had it under the rules.

[tobiashomer]

JAJ, respectfully I am astonished by your attitude. Many of us came here on the express understanding, trumpeted in Government publications, that we would qualify for ILR after 4 years. I have a lovely letter from 3 years ago granting my first 3-year extension (after one year), on Home Office letterhead, and advising me that after the three years were up I could apply for Indefinite Leave.

I cannot speak for others but I organised my life accordingly, bringing in my capital to buy a house, setting up in self-employment here, building a book of business, and paying a lot more tax than I wold have in my native USA. I take the changed policy--fully retrospective as it effectively changes the terms of a contract unilaterally--to be a betrayal of the State's side of the bargain. In many legislations it is illegal to do this; or else it is known as fait du prince and is a recognition of the ability of the sovereign to do whatever it wants, no matter how unfair, irrational and dishonest. A holdover from the Ancien Regime in France, more practiced in dictatorships or sham democracies than "civilised" countries.

It is too late for me just to pack up and leave (I am 60) but the extra year
has caused a lot f personal hardship. I will probably qualify in a few months, having been lucky; many others were less so and their affairs are n total disarray, including some who were refused a new extension and leading to at least one suicide. To apply the new rules to new applicants applying in full knowledge of the 5-year rule and generally less welcoming policy, would be normal. To apply them (and the new points system for renewal) to those who came in with "legitimate expectations" of ILR after 4 years is so totally un-British in its arbitrariness and callousness that it has taken the shine off the whole idea, especially as regards those whose interests and lives were seriously damaged, unlike (I assume) mine.

Your callow (in my humble etc.) remark must bear witness to the fact that you are both uninformed and uninvolved; but a Moderator of this forum, where so much fully justified anger and grief and nice legal argument have been expressed over the past year and a half, nonetheless? Puzzling. as they say in Turkish, sacanlarda bastirma (you can make sausages out of mice, if you have to).

[JAJ]

JAJ, respectfully I am astonished by your attitude. Many of us came here on the express understanding, trumpeted in Government publications, that we would qualify for ILR after 4 years. I have a lovely letter from 3 years ago granting my first 3-year extension (after one year), on Home Office letterhead, and advising me that after the three years were up I could apply for Indefinite Leave.

I cannot speak for others but I organised my life accordingly, bringing in my capital to buy a house, setting up in self-employment here, building a book of business, and paying a lot more tax than I wold have in my native USA. I take the changed policy--fully retrospective as it effectively changes the terms of a contract unilaterally--to be a betrayal of the State's side of the bargain. In many legislations it is illegal to do this; or else it is known as fait du prince and is a recognition of the ability of the sovereign to do whatever it wants, no matter how unfair, irrational and dishonest. A holdover from the Ancien Regime in France, more practiced in dictatorships or sham democracies than "civilised" countries.

It is too late for me just to pack up and leave (I am 60) but the extra year
has caused a lot f personal hardship. I will probably qualify in a few months, having been lucky; many others were less so and their affairs are n total disarray, including some who were refused a new extension and leading to at least one suicide. To apply the new rules to new applicants applying in full knowledge of the 5-year rule and generally less welcoming policy, would be normal. To apply them (and the new points system for renewal) to those who came in with "legitimate expectations" of ILR after 4 years is so totally un-British in its arbitrariness and callousness that it has taken the shine off the whole idea, especially as regards those whose interests and lives were seriously damaged, unlike (I assume) mine.

Your callow (in my humble etc.) remark must bear witness to the fact that you are both uninformed and uninvolved; but a Moderator of this forum, where so much fully justified anger and grief and nice legal argument have been expressed over the past year and a half, nonetheless? Puzzling. as they say in Turkish, sacanlarda bastirma (you can make sausages out of mice, if you have to).

Firstly, the fact that I moderate the forum does not mean that I am obliged to take any particular "side" in this argument.

If one believes in parliamentary government, I cannot see how even the idea of "expectation" can be allowed to close off the Government's right to change the Immigration Rules. At the end of the day, it boils down to the question of whether temporary admission is in reality de-facto permanent admission from the outset, and I cannot see how this can be legally valid or politically acceptable.

Now morally, I think that in at least some of the categories there was a good public policy argument for "grandfathering" (although not in the case of work permits). The fact that a more finessed approach was not taken shouldn't be surprising considering the general level of competence displayed by the Labour Government, not least in the area of immigration (irresponsibly increasing the intake in the first place, then attempting to close off the tap).

There is an unhealthy trend in today's society for those who don't like a particular law to shout "illegal" or "human rights breach" which is serving no good other than to give the notions of an independent judiciary and a human rights code a bad reputation.

[global gypsy]

JAJ, have to disagree with you on this. To take a parallel example, Australia increased the number of years required for citizenship from 2 to 4 years as permanent resident. However, they did not apply this change to e.g. someone who was already in the country for a year under the old rules. That is being non-retrospective. What BIA has done is a retrospective change and is not morally (and possibly legally) defensible.
No denying that.

[gainvidya]

I don't see how one can claim the changes were retrospective because they only applied to applications for ILR made going forward.

They did not revoke the ILR of anyone who already had it under the rules.

JAJ, your defination of retrospective is totally different, global gypsy is bang on the point.
UK is claiming to follow 'Australian Stlye' policy yet it is not learning from it.

[tobiashomer]

JAJ, by saying that Labour "irresponsibly increased the intake" I am afraid you make it all too clear which side of this (and perhaps other) issues you stand on. What a nice tidy country this would be without all those foreigners!

[goldfish]

I agree with global gypsy as well. Making changes is completely acceptable (and expected). Applying changes retrospectively is not.

Many people, including myself, have made significant life changes based on expectations set by the Home Office. Knowing that (a) five years was required for ILR rather than four and (b) that the HO would make retrospective changes at will, would I have still decided to move here? Possibly not, mostly due to (b) and the uncertainty this creates. I would like to buy a house, but knowing that the rules for ILR (my next step) may change without notice - like HSMP Extensions last year - this may not be sensible.

To use another parallel: What if the speed limit on a street was reduced and all motorists who had driven on it before the change were fined for breaking the new rule? Shows how silly - and unusual - retrospective changes are...

Anyway, enough complaining for today

[Siggi]

JAJ the point of me saying that what the BIA did in April 06 was is illegal, was correct!

I enter a contract with the BIA by paying them xxx for my visa on the understanding that after 4 years I would be able to apply for ILR.
This new law then was retrospectively applied which effected many of us including myself still not been able to qualify for a mortgage and that I beleive is a breach of contract.
You are of course right in saying that the BIA can change the law as and when they see fit, however not to apply then retrospectively.

[vinny]

John made a relevant point on another forum:

They have not always made retrospective changes. Until 31.03.03 spouse visas were issued for 1 year, and from 01.04.03 they were issued for 2 years! So during the last 9 months of 2003 and the first quarter of 2004 there were people nearing the end of their 1-year spouse visa. Could they still apply for their ILR? Or did they need to apply for a 1-year extension in the UK before being able to apply for their ILR? In fact the former .... ILR applications by holders of 1-year spouse visas were still permitted, and the change in legislation thus only affected those issued with a 2-year spouse visa as from 01.04.03.

That is how it should be done .... and indeed could have been done when the move from 4 years to 5 years was made last year regarding those having WP, HSMP or ancestry visas. But no, a retrospective change was made, forcing people to apply for 1-year extensions .... if they qualified.

See also John's comments and additional comments.

[avjones]

I think seeing it as a contract with BIA isn't the right legal way forward - legitimate expectation is a better avenue.

[Siggi]

Amanda, my understanding of legal contract's might be a little thin, but I was always lead to believe, that if you paid for a product or a service or even a visa, you where automatically entering into a contact .
So does this not apply when it comes to the BIA?

[avjones]

Bearing in mind that I am not a common law expert, this is just my musing, I don't think it's a helpful way forward.

A contract demands three things - offer and acceptance, consideration, and an intention to create legal relations.

The terms of the contract would also need to be examined. It has always been the case that the government is entitled to change the Immigration Rules, so I would imagine that this would be part of any contract.

But I don't think contract is the right way to look at this, I really think legitimate expectation is the better way.

[Siggi]

Amanda,
OK your comments are appreciated and I suppose one way or another the people effected by this change have already lost, dispite any positive out come of the JR in December.
I'm sure that, if the out come is in favour of the effected, the BIA wont pay back the money they so unfairly fleeced off us in the form of a one year extention fee.

[goldfish]

I suppose one way or another the people effected by this change have already lost, dispite any positive out come of the JR in December.

The benefit will be for the 1+4s who can now apply after 4 years instead of 5 and for those who can apply earlier than 5 years (even if they had to pay an extra fee). Personally, I would be happy to pay lots of £££ to be free from having to count my days out of the UK

[JAJ]

JAJ, your defination of retrospective is totally different, global gypsy is bang on the point.
UK is claiming to follow 'Australian Stlye' policy yet it is not learning from it.

I don't see why the U.K. should be even trying to follow an "Australian style" policy. Australia is at the moment trying to increase its population by 1-1.5m per decade by taking in a relatively high number of immigrants.

Does a small, overcrowded country like the U.K. really want to do that?