Once again we are grateful to our clients, associates and friends for ensuring that we remain ranked in the Top-Tier for immigration law advice in the Legal 500.
To view the full details of this please click here
To discuss how we can help you with your business or personal immigration matters please email email@example.com or call us on 0115 9644 123
The Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants (JCWI) has conducted an independent evaluation of the Right to Rent scheme and has uncovered a number of negative impacts on tenants and landlords as a direct result of the scheme. These include:
- There is evidence that landlords are prepared to discriminate against those with complicated immigration status and those who cannot provide documentation immediately.
- Many landlords have found the checks confusing and have therefore undertaken them incorrectly.
- The ‘Code of Practice for Landlords’ and the ‘Code of Practice on Avoiding Discrimination’ are difficult for landlords and agents to understand.
Although these rules are complicated and the risks to landlords are very real, there is help available. Paragon Law’s service for landlords and tenants, known as Right2Rent, can help landlords to navigate through the myriad of Rules and Regulations which are causing such confusion and leading to fines, the risk of imprisonment and discrimination claims. To find out more about the services we can offer landlords and tenants please see the link below.
or email firstname.lastname@example.org
To see the full JCWI report please click here.
Stewart MacLachlan, Senior Caseworker at Paragon Law, analyses what the UK’s obligations are towards the Calais migrants and considers whether the UK’s immigration system is fit to deal with the crisis as part of an interview by Lexis Nexis PSL.
For more information please email email@example.com
Paragon Law lawyers, Mark Lilley-Tams and Stewart MacLachlan, have put together a fantastic article describing the impact of legislative changes on UK immigration detention.
To read this analysis on just one of the many number of national wesbites which are publishing and engaging with their opinions, please follow the link below:
To contact either of the authors please email:
Paragon Edge brings together leading British niche immigration law firm Paragon Law and Inside Edge a Nigerian based market entry and education specialist.
The partnership’s foundations are a strong, ethical and knowledgeable team comprising of:
Thalej Vasishta, MD, Paragon Law; and
Peter Stephenson, OBE, ex-First Secretary, British High Commission, Nigeria; and
Lebari Ukpong, MD, Inside Edge and ex-Trade Development Manager, British Deputy High Commission, Nigeria.
Peter Stephenson said, “Obtaining a UK visa is not easy and most Nigerian applicants fail because of poor advice and documentation”.
Paragon Law has won multiple accolades for both its legal services and business processes. The firm is ranked in the top tier by the Legal 500 and Chambers and Partners Directory to the legal profession, with the latter having described Paragon Law as an “immigration law powerhouse, best known for handling complex and high profile cases”.
Thalej Vasishta said, “Once we have given our client an assessment of the merits in making the visa application, the secret of success is then in the preparation of the supporting documents, how this evidence is presented and explained to the visa officers”.
Paragon Edge will provide advice on all areas of UK immigration law be it whether a client wants to invest, trade, set up business, study, visit or join family members in the UK.
Inside Edge offices in Lagos will be the point of contact for Nigerian based clients. The UK team will set the case strategy and will be supported by the Lagos office to prepare documents and coordinate effective communication between the client and Paragon Edge.
Lebari Ukpong said, “We are all excited about this partnership particularly as the knowledge and know-how with which we will serve our clients is unparalleled in Nigeria. This service is further enhanced by the fact that our clients will continue to be cared for once they are in the UK through Paragon Law”.
If you require further information or wish to instruct Paragon Edge please get in touch with your Paragon Edge contact in the usual way. Alternatively, email firstname.lastname@example.org.
Inside Edge Ltd
- Suite D26, Dolphin Plaza, Corporation Drive, Dolphin Estate, Ikoyi, Lagos, Nigeria
- Tel: +234 8035352685 / +234 1 4623411 ext 500
- E: email@example.com
- 7B Broad Street, Nottingham, NG1 3AJ
- 50 Jermyn Street, London, SW1Y 6LX
- Tel: +44115 9644 123
- E: firstname.lastname@example.org
Andy Jamieson will discuss the highly topical issue of the Bribery Act, Thalej Vasishta will discuss his experiences of setting up in India, China and Nigeria and will explore issues such as staffing, cultural differences and business support available. Jacky Kinsey will explore financial and tax implications when setting up overseas and will cover topics such as paying staff, repatriation of profits and tax implications.
For further information and to book on the event please click here.
15 August 2015 will be India’s Independence Day and the same day that UK and 35 other countries will be eligible for the Indian e-tourist visa (eTV).
The other countries being added to the existing list include Andorra, Argentina, Armenia, Aruba, Belgium, Bolivia, Colombia, Cuba, East Timor, Guatemala, Hungary, Ireland, Jamaica, Malaysia, Malta, Mongolia, Monaco, Mozambique, the Netherlands, Panama, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Seychelles, Slovenia, Spain, St Lucia, St Vincent & the Grenadines, Suriname, Sweden, Taiwan, Tanzania, Turks & Caicos Islands, Uruguay and Venezuela.
Those who intend to travel to India for no more than 30 days for the purposes of recreation, site-seeing, visiting friends or family, medical treatment or business can apply for an eTV.
Each applicant must have their own passport (with at least 6 months validity and 2 blank pages), have a return ticket and evidence of sufficient funds for the duration of their stay in India.
The cost of the eTV is US $60 per applicant which is paid online at the time when you apply for your eTV. You are able to apply 4 days before you travel and have 30 days within which to present yourself at the port in India after the eTV has been issued. It should also be noted that you can only apply for the eTV for a maximum of 2 visits in a calendar year and that on each occasion the eTV will be valid for a single entry only.
You must present yourself with the printed eTV (and your passport) to designated airports. From 15 August 2015 there will be a choice of 16 airports to travel to under the eTV.
For further information and how to apply please go to the following link: https://indianvisaonline.gov.in/visa/tvoa.html.
For further information on business and employment visas for India please feel free to contact me at email@example.com.
Firstly, this is part of the strategy to cut net migration. By radically changing and indeed reducing appeal rights the Government hopes that it will reduce illegal immigration. The Government says that:
“The main benefits of these clauses [in the new Immigration Act] would be dealing with those who should not be here, by rooting out illegal immigrants and boosting removals and deportations”
The first measure set to root out illegal immigrants and crack down on those slipping through the ever more widely cast net is the measure to satellite track all illegal offenders subject to an outstanding deportation order or deportation proceedings. This would appear to be a draconian measure and a step up from the current use of electronic monitoring of which Home Office guidance clearly states that “tagging is not tracking”. Violations of the current monitoring system result in detention. It is likely that this would still be the case in breaches of tracking procedures. However, the most profound impact on immigration will stem from the changes of the appeal process.
As at 30th June 2015, according to James Brokenshire, Minister for Immigration, the figures at the Home Office show that more than 1,000 people have been removed under the tough new provisions since they came into force last year.
Many foreign national offenders have already felt the full force of the changes to appeal rights, following the introduction of “deport first, appeal later” measures being introduced in relation to deportation matters from July 2014, but, as part of the Queens’ Speech, Mr Cameron announced that the cuts to appeal rights would be extended to all immigrants. As such, all immigration appeals and judicial reviews will be subject to “deport first, appeal later” measures. It does not apply to asylum claims (it is stated that it will not apply where such measures will cause serious harm), but family life appeals are included and specifically targeted, with the Conservative Manifesto referring to the appeals as a “spurious legal challenge and opportunities to abscond”
Essentially, what this means is that Appellants will find that their appeal progresses through the court service whilst they are outside of the UK. Removal will take place notwithstanding an outstanding appeal. The appeal will be listed and directions given, Case Management Review Hearings will be heard and evidence compiled, all whilst Appellants remain in their country of origin.
No indications are given for how the UK will satisfy its obligations under Article 6 – the right to a fair trial. Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights states
“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law….”
The Government is of the opinion that there is no reason why Appellants need to give their evidence in person where they have already considered the claim substantively on paper before removal. Seemingly, however, deporting or removing a person who is claiming that such action breaches their human rights without giving them access to courts first for an independent review by a Judge would appear in breach of this important right.
A recent test case from 24th June 2015 saw a successful challenge in the Court of Appeal on the basis of access to justice and representation. Lord Dyson and Lord Underhill who heard the case indicated that many other challenges were pending behind the outcome of that case. They agreed that an inability to access facilities to provide evidence at a hearing from outside the UK might prove detrimental to the Appellant’s case. This leaves such challenges open to other litigants.
In EEA cases of foreign national offenders presently, it is open to an Appellant who has been deported from the UK to apply from outside the UK for permission to be temporarily admitted to the UK solely for the purpose of making submissions in person at their appeal hearing (Regulation 24AA). The reconciliation with Article 6 in EEA cases as it stands is that the risk of serious harm will already have been considered and discounted by the Secretary of State prior to removal action taking place.
It would appear that, in order to be able to justify such action, the Government will have to believe that a case is clearly unfounded or that serious harm will not be caused by the deportation action proceeding, and will certify an Appellant’s rights.
To be clearly unfounded, a claim must be so clearly without substance that it is bound to fail. Further, it is possible for a claim to be manifestly unfounded even if it takes more than a cursory look at the evidence to come to a view that there is nothing of substance in it. Certification is not normally exercised in cases involving British children but families relocating as an intact unit will face more and more difficulties in avoiding such action. In such cases involving the children, the Government will have to demonstrate that they are satisfied that serious harm will not ensue, for either the Appellant, or the British partner and children, as a result of the proposed action. Giving evidence early in the case will assist aid the Government to make the assessment.
There does, of course, remain the last resort option of Judicial Review action. It is possible to make an application to the Upper Tier of the Tribunal to judicially review the Secretary of State’s decision to certify the human rights claim that will result from the examination of whether the action will cause “serious harm”. Such applications are a long and arduous process and will leave many applicants in a state of limbo for months at a time, causing applicants uncertainty and an inevitable waste of public funds and court time. Further, the cuts to legal aid mean that most applicants go unrepresented leaving them with a sense of unease at understanding the minefield of jargon and strict legal processes involved.
If you, your family or your client are facing problems as described here ie, the potential of being removed, it is important to receive advice and representation as soon as possible. Paragon Law have a dedicated human rights and family immigration team that can assist. Contact Karen Rimmer at firstname.lastname@example.org if you need assistance.
New Government proposals announced on the 02 August 2015 include imprisonment of Landlords for a period of up to 5 years, where they repeatedly fail to comply with the new ‘right to rent’ scheme.
Associate Solicitor, Mark Lilley-Tams, explains in greater detail the proposed changes and how Right2Rent can assist tenants, landlords and letting agents to avoid the pitfalls of these new requirements.
Please visit http://www.right2rent.co.uk/landlords-face-imprisonment-if-new-right-to-rent-rules-not-followed/ to find out more or email email@example.com
The Immigration Health Surcharge
Since 6 April 2015, most migrants seeking to enter or extend their stay in the UK must pay the Immigration Health Surcharge. The charge, which is one of a number of reforms contained in the Immigration Act 2014, is intended to be a financial contribution by migrants to the cost of their healthcare whilst in the UK. It has been set at £200 per year for those coming to work or join family members and £150 per year for students.
The surcharge must be paid by most people applying for limited leave and includes main applicants and dependents alike. Visitors and those applying for indefinite leave are not required to pay nor are EEA nationals and their family members who are exercising rights of residence in the UK.
Having paid the surcharge, those migrants living in the UK will have the same access to the NHS as permanent residents.
Why has it come about?
According to the Home Office consultation paper which ushered in the reforms, the rules regulating migrant access to the NHS were too generous, particularly when compared with wider international practice, and have acted as a draw card to health tourists.
Countries such as Australia and the USA do require student and working migrants to purchase health insurance for the duration of their stay. The government argues that the UK will not lose its competitive edge in this regard as private health insurance is much more costly than the surcharge and would also not cover pre-existing and chronic conditions.
The charge is also intended to remove some of the uncertainty over access to treatment which has been a difficult issue faced by health professionals who must decide who pays for treatment at the point of use.
Critics of the scheme claim that the government lacks figures about the actual costs that migration adds to the NHS and that working migrants who pay tax and national insurance contributions will effectively be paying twice for their access to healthcare. There is also some question as to whether health tourism will be curbed by the measures which do not apply to visitor visas.
How does it work?
The Immigration (Health Charge) Order 2015 specifies who pays the surcharge, when it is to paid, the consequences of non-payment and includes the various exemptions.
The charge must be paid at the time of applying for leave and the amount payable is based on the maximum period of time for which permission could be granted under the relevant application route. For family members applying under Appendix FM the period will commonly be 2 ½ years. A student undertaking a one year course may have to pay for 1 ½ years which reflects the maximum length of leave (17 months) that may be granted in that instance.
Users of the Visa4UK website will now find that the process of calculating and paying for the surcharge has been integrated into the main online application process. For paper-based applications, however, the surcharge must be paid separately using the Immigration Health Surcharge online portal. This will generate an IHS number which must be written on the front page of the application form. Applicants who do not pay the charge before submitting their application will receive a request for payment rather than having applications returned as invalid.
The surcharge is refunded when an application for leave is refused and in circumstances where there is an overlap of payment in consecutive periods of leave. The surcharge is not, however, refunded if leave is curtailed or if it is simply not taken up having been granted.
Exemptions and Examples
Most notable among the various exemptions contained in Schedule 2 of the 2015 Order are: Tier 2 (Intra-Company Transfer) applicants, those seeking asylum or humanitarian protection and nationals of Australia and New Zealand.
All entry clearance applications for periods of 6 months or less are exempt from the charge as are visitors applying under Appendix V of the Immigration Rules.
Some of those exempt from the charge will have full access to health care such as refugees and those from Australia and New Zealand (which have reciprocal agreements with the UK). Visitors, however, will be required to pay if they receive treatment from the NHS. It is advisable that visitors arrange private insurance for the duration of their trip.
The Intra-Company Transfer exemption makes this Tier 2 vehicle an even more attractive option for employers. A family of 4 coming to the UK under Tier 2(ICT) for 4 years will save a total of £3,200 compared to a non-ICT sponsored employee and family coming for the same period.
The surcharge adds a further financial burden to family members seeking to enter or remain in the UK. For example, a parent with two dependent children who applies for leave to remain for a period 2 ½ years will now need to pay a total of £3,447 in application and surcharge fees. For many this will be prohibitive. Where issues of human rights arise, there is scope to challenge a surcharge fee if it would prevent the effective consideration of those issues.
The additional cost burden that the Immigration Health Surcharge creates is significant and will no doubt have an impact on the full spectrum of immigration applications in the UK. It is yet to be seen whether the charge will resolve the difficult question of who should have access to the NHS and how that should be managed.
For further information contact Nigel Smith, firstname.lastname@example.org.