New rules for Older dependant relatives (for settlement)

[Ranjanx]

Would be good in some way if people like you supported me, but at the end of the day its my battle and I'm fighting it.

I'm an immigrant like you. I also have elderly parents. In fact, I'm spending extended leave with my mother right now overseas as she battles an aggressive, terminal cancer.

I took some hard decisions in moving to the UK. Made many sacrifices as well. But I never was under any delusion that I could simply take my parents with me to any country I went to. For me that was part of the pluses and minuses of adult life. I admit, however, that everyone's outlook and priorities are different.

I believe that what you want would be a phenomenal policy disaster for a welfare state like the UK. Totally, completely unworkable. And to be frank, I would do whatever I could--in a polite and civil manner--to prevent it from ever happening.

newperson - I dont need to get into your personal choices but if your parents were dependent on you and above 65 years of age, it was completely your choice to sponsor them or not.

All I am asking for is the option to apply and make the case for a dependent parent to be brought here, at least for people already settled in UK

[Ranjanx]

Other than that, I don't have much use for your post again as I only asked for people who supported me to get in touch, not for everyone else to do a critical analysis of my request. I do hope you get a chance to make a better use of your time on this forum by helping them.

You posted on an open forum and were bound to get dissenters - I just happen to be one.

I also think that in a roundabout way - I am helping you here. I'm hoping I'm helping you see that the letter you've put together isn't a good argument. You need to find an alternative way to make your case if it's going to win. Alternatively, I'm hoping you're realising that the majority ARE against more immigration and that the policy isn't going to change so you need to reevaluate your options.

To give some credence to the statement about the majority being against immigration - let's look at a poll for the Guardian (the most left newspaper we can get - the most immigration friendly certainly):

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/gallery/20 ... 41&index=4

We find that their result says 66% of people think immigration will damage the recovery and just 24% think it'll help.

That's how the british public see this right now.

For all its worth, the survey is for all immigrants and as stated earlier, not for EEA versus non EEA immigrants.
I wouldn't expect the rule to be put to a rerendum for the majority's opinion in any case. I am expecting it to go to a court of law where they can see the legality of this change for people who came in under a different provision. In any case, even the earlier version did not promise an automatic immigration. In effect all I am asking for is to be allowed for an adult dependent's application to be judged based on earlier rules as that's what I came here with.

[MPH80]

I am expecting it to go to a court of law where they can see the legality of this change for people who came in under a different provision.

Except there's the issue.

Your immigration and your parent's immigration are two separate applications. You and your parents had no provision for their application as they, and you, did not qualify at the time of your application to apply.

IF you had an application already underway - I'd understand. IF there was an explicit promise to you - 'don't worry - when you're settled - you can bring your parents' - I'd understand. Neither of those happened. You did make an implicit assumption though.

At the time of your application, the rules allowed financially dependent parents, over the age of 65. The rules have changed.

It's like my children. Right now - they have the right to dual citizenship, we haven't taken that opportunity up - the rules might change and if they do - that's our risk to take.

M.

[Lucapooka]

In effect all I am asking for is to be allowed for an adult dependent's application to be judged based on earlier rules as that's what I came here with.

What about me? I was born in the UK in 1962 and would like all the laws that were on the statues at that time to apply to me now! That, in effect, is what you are asking. Come on!

[Ranjanx]

In effect all I am asking for is to be allowed for an adult dependent's application to be judged based on earlier rules as that's what I came here with.

What about me? I was born in the UK in 1962 and would like all the laws that were on the statues at that time to apply to me now! That, in effect, is what you are asking. Come on!

and also for MPH80 - the difference in your examples and mine is the presence of a choice. In either of your's, you are born into a situation rather than but into a proposition. You have or had a choice of using the law to your advantage or otherwise. You also had/will have a choice of opposing or contesting a change when it happened/ happens.
In my case - I came in and looked to settle with the option of applying for my mom's dependent application without any additional constraints when the time came and making alternative arrangements in the meanwhile. I am not bringing up a law which changed long before it affected me or long after it has changed. I am looking to challenge it now when it has just changed and the change affects me being caught in the midst of transition.

[newperson]

newperson - I dont need to get into your personal choices but if your parents were dependent on you and above 65 years of age, it was completely your choice to sponsor them or not.

My mum's not dependent upon me and is getting excellent care. But even if that weren't the case, it doesn't change the policy argument:

The UK Government intends to actively limit the number of healthy (or sick) over-65s turning up at its shores. This is because during their stay in the UK, these dependent family members will individually be net detractors from the public purse. Full stop.

If you can satisfactorily prove to the policy wonks in Whitehall that this isn't the case, you'll win your argument. Seriously, that's all it takes.

Regarding your Wednesbury argument, check out the link below. I think it'll be difficult to prove that the UKBA made an explicit promise to you that you'd be able to bring your parents to live with you at some undefined point in the future, but as you said, it's your battle:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wednesbury ... onableness

[Ranjanx]

newperson - I dont need to get into your personal choices but if your parents were dependent on you and above 65 years of age, it was completely your choice to sponsor them or not.

My mum's not dependent upon me and is getting excellent care. But even if that weren't the case, it doesn't change the policy argument:

The UK Government intends to actively limit the number of healthy (or sick) over-65s turning up at its shores. This is because during their stay in the UK, these dependent family members will individually be net detractors from the public purse. Full stop.

If you can satisfactorily prove to the policy wonks in Whitehall that this isn't the case, you'll win your argument. Seriously, that's all it takes.

as I said, I can't ask them to shelve the new policy. al lI'm asking is for a fair chance to apply as per the policy that existed when my decision was made. People coming in under the newer policy know that up front what they are going in for. I'm being told of the change when I'm already committed in.

[newperson]

As I said, I can't ask them to shelve the new policy. all I'm asking is for a fair chance to apply as per the policy that existed when my decision was made. People coming in under the newer policy know that up front what they are going in for. I'm being told of the change when I'm already committed in.

See my Wikipedia link in my post immediately above. I believe that was the same strategy that was taken by the HSMP JR people. However, proving the explicitness, validity and credibility of any implied promise might be the crux of your challenge.

[Ranjanx]

As I said, I can't ask them to shelve the new policy. all I'm asking is for a fair chance to apply as per the policy that existed when my decision was made. People coming in under the newer policy know that up front what they are going in for. I'm being told of the change when I'm already committed in.

See my Wikipedia link in my post immediately above. I believe that was the same strategy that was taken by the HSMP JR people. However, proving the explicitness, validity and credibility of any implied promise might be the crux of your challenge.

Thanks for that. I did try reading it and got some sense but cant say I get it completely. Will give it another shot and see if I can get a consultation from a legal expert on this.

[MPH80]

In my case - I came in and looked to settle with the option of applying for my mom's dependent application without any additional constraints when the time came and making alternative arrangements in the meanwhile. I am not bringing up a law which changed long before it affected me or long after it has changed. I am looking to challenge it now when it has just changed and the change affects me being caught in the midst of transition.

Except that you didn't settle with the option of applying for your mum's dependant later.

You settled, the law at the time allowed your mum to apply. Now it doesn't.

The rules could have changed the day after you handed in your visa application, they could have changed 2 years ago. It makes no difference - they changed.

The difference with the HSMP JR people was that the rules changed under THEM - they were on a 4 year plan, then the rules changed to 5 years. The rules didn't change under you - they changed under your mum, and she hasn't applied yet.

They've allowed for this when bringing in the new rules. Anyone on a 2 year path to settlement, remains on a 2 year path to settlement as a partner. Anyone applying after said date goes onto a 5 year path.

It would be very hard, if not impossible, to argue that a separate application for someone else would be expected to be granted under the rules operating when you applied for your visa.

If the rules operated the way you wanted them - you could also challenge someone who came over on a tier 1 who said "but I thought I'd then be able to bring my wife without having to earn over £18,600 and she'd go on a 2 year path to settlement".

I'm going to shut up now because you're clearly not going to be persuaded out of it - but I await the court challenge with baited breath.

M.

[Ranjanx]

In my case - I came in and looked to settle with the option of applying for my mom's dependent application without any additional constraints when the time came and making alternative arrangements in the meanwhile. I am not bringing up a law which changed long before it affected me or long after it has changed. I am looking to challenge it now when it has just changed and the change affects me being caught in the midst of transition.

Except that you didn't settle with the option of applying for your mum's dependant later.

You settled, the law at the time allowed your mum to apply. Now it doesn't.

The rules could have changed the day after you handed in your visa application, they could have changed 2 years ago. It makes no difference - they changed.

The difference with the HSMP JR people was that the rules changed under THEM - they were on a 4 year plan, then the rules changed to 5 years. The rules didn't change under you - they changed under your mum, and she hasn't applied yet.

They've allowed for this when bringing in the new rules. Anyone on a 2 year path to settlement, remains on a 2 year path to settlement as a partner. Anyone applying after said date goes onto a 5 year path.

It would be very hard, if not impossible, to argue that a separate application for someone else would be expected to be granted under the rules operating when you applied for your visa.

If the rules operated the way you wanted them - you could also challenge someone who came over on a tier 1 who said "but I thought I'd then be able to bring my wife without having to earn over £18,600 and she'd go on a 2 year path to settlement".

I'm going to shut up now because you're clearly not going to be persuaded out of it - but I await the court challenge with baited breath.

M.

The way I see it, the only option I have is to fight the change. So thanks for understanding that I'm not about to be dissuaded on that front. Given your knowledge of the HSMP issue, would you be able to point me in the direction of legal representation that they used ? Might save me a few google searches at the very least.

[PaperPusher]

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2008/664.html

http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIAT/2008/00003.html

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2009/711.html

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2007/199.html


But read this one:

http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIAT/2007/00057.html

The Immigration Rules applicable to an immigration decision are, in the absence of transitional provisions or any contrary legitimate expectation, the rules in force at the date of the decision. Nathwani [1979-80] Imm AR 9 remains good law.

And

an individual applicant has no right to require the United Kingdom's immigration policy to be the subject of abridgement or dispensation for his benefit. As Eveleigh LJ said, he has no right to dictate to the Secretary of State which set of rules should be applied at the time of the decision in his case. Nathwani remains good law. In the absence of a transitional provision, the Immigration Rules in force at the date of the decision are those to be applied to that decision.

[ADR_Challenge]

Hi, I thought this information could be useful to some people who have been posting in this thread. I hope it is helpful and look forward to seeing you at the next meeting!

The Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants (JCWI) is currently undertaking research, funded by the Strategic Legal Fund (SLF), to investigate the impact the July 2012 family immigration rule regarding Adult Dependent Relatives is having on families in the UK, with the ultimate aim of launching a legal challenge
As a result of the rule changes, it is now near impossible for British residents and citizens to bring a non-EEA adult relative who is dependent on them for care to live with them in the UK.
From our initial contact with families we have found that, as a result of this rule, children are being denied important contact with grandparents, families are struggling to cope with the joint burden of childcare and remittances sent to elderly relatives abroad, and many families are facing tough decisions about whether to relocate in order to care for their elderly relatives, thereby uprooting their lives in the UK. For more information about the immigration rules and our research, please see our website:http://jcwi.org.uk/policy/adult-dependent-relatives
We want to hear from affected families, in order to put together a research document that highlights the plight this rule is causing. Please download a questionnaire from our website, or get in touch by emailing adr@jcwi.org.uk
We are organising public meetings across the UK (Birmingham, Edinburgh and London) in order to reach out to affected families, providing them with information about the rule changes, as well as advice and information about our research and how we aim to challenge this Immigration Rule.

The next meeting is tomorrow, 30 January 2014 at Usurp Art Gallery in Harrow, starting at 6pm email adr@jcwi.org.ukif you would like to attend.
Our follwing meetings will be held in:
Edinburgh 20th Febuary 2014, Quaker Meeting House
London, 27th February 2014, Whitechapel

[askmeplz82]

Wish you all the best but it won't change anything for sure

this is 2 yrs old thread.

[Ranjanx]

The next meeting is tomorrow, 30 January 2014 at Usurp Art Gallery in Harrow, starting at 6pm email adr@jcwi.org.ukif you would like to attend.
Our follwing meetings will be held in:
Edinburgh 20th Febuary 2014, Quaker Meeting House
London, 27th February 2014, Whitechapel

Thanks for this. I will try and be there today.

[parentsrejected]

Hi all,

My parents dependent visa was just rejected early this week. Reasons are based on ECDR 2.4 & ECDR 2.5:

- couldn't satisfy long term care requirement can be received in the home country.
- not enough evidence of illness.
- not satisfied that the medical condition prevent doing every day task

Not sure if need to spend more energy, time and money on this case. Already paid appx 3,900 free plus extra money to solicitors. Any advise what should/ could be done

A

[Casa]

Under the new Rules it is virtually impossible to succeed with an elderly dependent visa application. Unless they both need help with washing and dressing and 24 hour care with this being unaffordable or unavailable in their own country the application will be refused.

[Wanderer]

Hi all,

My parents dependent visa was just rejected early this week. Reasons are based on ECDR 2.4 & ECDR 2.5:

- couldn't satisfy long term care requirement can be received in the home country.
- not enough evidence of illness.
- not satisfied that the medical condition prevent doing every day task

Not sure if need to spend more energy, time and money on this case. Already paid appx 3,900 free plus extra money to solicitors. Any advise what should/ could be done

A

UK immigration policy has never supported chain migration I'm afraid. That's the way it is and it's a massive political hot potato so only likely to get worse.

My advice it to either forget it, move back home or try SS route before that closes as it surely will.

I have in laws that we'd like to bring her but it's never going to happen, so I'm planning to move there once we are financially independent which hopefully we aren't too far off from.

But you need to earn shitloads.....

[parentsrejected]

Decided to give a go to the appeal and attached quite a few new evidences which hopefully will cover one of the objections. However seems like SS is the way forward. Luckily my company has offices in EU so will be comparatively easy to move but not sure about taking a family with me.. Need some more info on SS route.
A

[meem]

Dear parentsrejected,

We have a similar case for our father, can you please update how your appeal went and how has the SS route progressed for you if your appeal was rejected?

Thanks