New Changes to the Immigration Rules

Global Talent Migrant
(After 31January 2020)


“Global Talent This category is for talented and promising individuals in the fields of science, engineering, medicine, humanities, digital technology and arts and culture (including film and television, fashion design and architecture) wishing to work in the UK. Applicants will be leaders in their field, or have the potential to be leaders, as determined by an endorsing body. This category may lead to settlement in the UK.”

Changes to Immigration Rules 245B - Closed
245BA to 245BE deleted



Accountants taking the blame for tax discrepancies should give evidence in person
Following another paragraph 322(5) case, where an applicant was refused indefinite leave to remain on the basis of dishonesty for disclosing different income to HMRC as opposed to the Home Office, the Upper Tribunal has issued guidance on evidence from accountants purporting to take the blame for those tax discrepancies.
The case of Abbasi (rule 43; para 322(5): accountants’ evidence) [2020] UKUT 27 (IAC) had seemed to be going well for the appellant, Mr Abbasi. Mr Abbasi was initially refused indefinite leave to remain but then won his appeal at the First-tier Tribunal. The tribunal found that Mr Abbasi had acted innocently and had relied on his accountants, who provided a letter claiming to have made a mistake with his tax returns.
The First-tier Tribunal placed significant weight on the accountants’ letter. The Home Office appealed to the Upper Tribunal, but it found in Mr Abbasi’s favour once again. That decision was promulgated in July 2019 and Mr Abbasi was granted indefinite leave to remain by the Home Office in October.
All’s well that ends well, you might say. But then comes the twist: on 16 September 2019, the Upper Tribunal received an email from the accountant who supposedly wrote the letter in support of Mr Abbasi’s claim, stating that she had never heard of Mr Abbasi or ever assisted him, and she had not written, let alone signed, the letter.
The Upper Tribunal then convened a hearing to consider whether it had the power to use rule 43 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008 to set aside the decision. It concluded that it did have the power to apply rule 43 of its own motion, where the evidence relied upon by the tribunal in an appeal was forged or otherwise bogus.
In practice, though, it could not do so in this case because the appellant had been granted indefinite leave nine days before the Upper Tribunal sent its notice of hearing. The grant of indefinite leave to remain meant that the appeal proceedings had come to an end, and therefore the Upper Tribunal no longer had any jurisdiction. But it is open to the Home Office to revoke Mr Abbasi’s indefinite leave to remain, and I would be surprised if it didn’t.
The Upper Tribunal also concluded that accountants who admit to making a mistake with an appellant’s taxes should attend the hearing to give evidence and explain their error. If they do not, the tribunal is unlikely to be able to place any material weight on letters of this kind.
This is an example of when one applicant’s fraudulent actions results in making life harder for others. From now on, accountants in these cases are likely to be expected to attend hearings in person to give evidence. Court of Appeal in R (Ahmed) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2019] EWCA Civ 1070.

Long Residence Requirement - Gaps in previous residence and overstaying (Even less than 14 days). Contradiction between the Home Office Policy Guidance and the Provisions of Paragraph/s 276

31/01/20



Review of year 2018-2019

We have had three investor clients being successful for settlement and extension of their stay under Tier 1 (Investor) Route and 2 cases of entrepreneur migrants for extension of their stay in the UK


We successfully represented several cases last year 2018 and this year 2019 (Three cases so far) before the Immigration and Asylum Chamber (IAC) Birmingham and Newport. These cases are;

A) Entry Clearance for spouses of a person present and settled in the UK (Two cases won out of court settlement)
B) Marriage of convenience
C) Appendix FM and Appendix FM SE
D) English language requirements