UKVI right to work guidance agaist illegal working – May 2015

UKVI has introduced new right to work guidance on how to prevent illegal working and avoid a civil penalty.

The new guidance clarifies:

that the right of appeal has been removed from most immigration decisions. Instead of going through an appeal process, migrants will be given the opportunity to apply for an “Administrative Review”. Where an Administrative Review is in progress, the Employer Checking Service can be used to establish whether or not the migrant has a right to work;
Biometric Residence Permits (BRPs) are being rolled out to applicants from overseas. These must be collected in the UK within 10 days of arrival and shown to the employer before employment commences. If the migrant is unable to collect their BRP before employment commences, the employer will have to carry out an additional check. This is of the migrant’s visa (which is limited to 30 days and is required before employment commences); and then the BRP. In both cases, the BRP must be collected within the 10-day period.
residence cards (biometric format), which resemble a BRP, are being introduced for non-EEA family members of EEA nationals and a new process for issuing a Certificate of Application will apply.

New Border Control Measures To Tackle Illegal Immigration

New Border Control Measures To Tackle Illegal Immigration
Newsletter, May 2015

Controversial new measures at border control have now begun in the UK in a bid to tackle illegal immigration. The new border ‘exit check’ scheme introduced in the Immigration Act 2014, in partnership with the Home Office, will gather data on all passengers leaving the UK at ports and border crossings for air, rail and sea travel. Whilst the API system, which has been in place since 2004, provides the government with information from air travel passengers, there has previously been no measures in place for other forms of transportation out of the UK.

The government says that the new measures have been put in place to gauge whether or not those living in the UK on visas are leaving when they are supposed to under the terms of their visa. The new data will provide accurate and up to date information about those who have overstayed their visas – giving vital immigration intelligence that the government has previously not had access to.

In the initial phase, which was introduced this morning, all passport holders will have their passports scanned as usual, 25% of people will then have their identification details verified by further measures to determine whether or not the details are genuine. After a month of the scheme being rolled out at 25%, verification will then be increased to include 50% of those leaving the UK. 100% verification is scheduled to be introduced by the end of June.

Channel Tunnel operators, Eurotunnel, have stated that they will be moving to 100% verification immediately without the need for a staged rollout. In recent years, a spotlight has been cast on the Channel Tunnel as a supposed ‘easy’ target for people entering the UK illegally. Illegal immigrants have been reported to make their way through other European countries in a bid to enter the UK at some of its main border points such as Calais.

After the scheme was introduced this morning in the first stages of a gradual rollout, it was reported that no disturbance to travel had been caused, including no delays – a suspected byproduct of the checks by critics in the lead up to the scheme’s introduction.

Appeal Rights and grounds of appeal: new changes, April 2015

In last 12 months we could witness fundamental and radical changes in Immigration rules regarding appeal rights. All of them are to restrict the rights and further facilitate quick removal of immigrants whose initial visa application was refused by the Home office in the first instance.

The major changes to rights of appeal and removal powers wrought by the Immigration Act 2014 took full effect on 6 April 2015, although with some transitional provisions for existing cases. This post, based on the second edition of my Immigration Act 2014 ebook, examines and attempts to explain who has a right of appeal under the old regime and who has a right of appeal under the new regime.

The commencement of the new appeals regime and removal powers have been in three waves. In short, the waves were:

The most affected with new changes are foreign criminals and Tier 4 applications (including family members) made on or after 20 October 2014, Tier 1, 2 and 5 applications (including family members) made on or after 2 March 2015
Against any decision on or after 6 April 2015 but, other than the above exceptions, not where the application was made prior to 6 April 2015, unless the decision on or after 6 April 2015 includes an asylum or human rights decision.

At the same time as the third wave removed traditional full rights of appeal, the system of Administrative Review under the Immigration Rules was expanded. This is covered in the ebook and will the subject of another blog post later on. It is useful to note that Administrative Review was not expanded to cover short term students, visitors, partners or children of members of the Armed Forces and some Appendix Armed Forces decisions, family members under Part 8 or Appendix FM, asylum decisions under Part 11 and some others. All these types of applicant should if refused and if there are grounds to do so pursue a right of appeal under the new amended section 82 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, albeit on human rights or refugee grounds only.

Section 1 was brought into effect for some migrants from 20 October 2014 by the Immigration Act 2014 (Commencement No. 3, Transitional and Saving Provisions) Order 2014 (SI 2014/2711). The way in which Commencement Order No 3 operated was at Article 2 to commence several sections of the Act, including sections 1 and 15 on removals and rights of appeal, on 20 October 2014 but, importantly, “subject to the saving provision in articles 9, 10 and 11”.

The saving provisions were in fact very extensive, though, and in this wave of commencement there were in reality only two groups of migrants affected.

The first were foreign criminals who became foreign criminals within the definition of the amended section 117D(2) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 on or after 20 October 2014. This definition is examined below in relation to section 19 of the Immigration Act 2014. The power also applied to their family members who are liable to deportation.
The second group were students who made a Tier 4 application to extend leave to remain on or after 20 October 2014. It also applied to their dependent partners and children who had also made an application to extend leave to remain on or after 20 October 2014.
However, unless the student makes an international protection or human rights claim, students who having made a Tier 4 application on or after 20 October 2014 but then make a different sort of application, whether from inside the UK or outside, become exempt from the new section 10 of the 1999 Act again and the old version applies once more.

The Immigration Act 2014 (Commencement No. 4, Transitional and Saving Provisions and Amendment) Order 2015 (SI 2015/371) sets out the commencement of waves two and three.

Wave two began on 2 March 2015. Article 7 of the order amends Commencement Order No. 3 to add into the groups affected those who make an application on or after as a Tier 1, Tier 2 or Tier 5 migrant and their partners and children; Tier 4 migrants remain “commenced” so this brings all Points Based System migrants within the new regime where an application is made on or after 2 March 2015 (and for applications on or after 20 October 2014 for Tier 4 migrants).

The same “hokey cokey” in-out provisions of Commencement Order No. 3 applied during the limited CURRENCY of wave two, i.e. the regime would be disapplied if a different sort of application was later made. This is unlikely, though, given that wave three began shortly afterwards and had general effect.

Article 8 of Commencement Order No. 4 took effect on 6 April 2015. This again amends Commencement Order No. 3, amending even the amendments wrought as of 2 March 2015.

The saving provisions that limited commencement only to Tier 4 for applications on or after 20 October 2014 then also Tiers 1, 2 and 5 for applications on or after 2 March 2015 are completely replaced by new much more time limited saving provisions for pre-existing applications. Essentially, the new appeals regime is commenced for decisions made on all applications on or after 6 April 2015 and for some applications made before that, in line with the previous versions of the Commencement Orders:

1 Where an application for Tier 4 leave to remain application (including family members) has already been made before 20 October 2014 and a refusal decision is made on or after 6 April 2015 which leaves the person with no leave, the old regime is preserved (amended Article 9(a) of the No. 3 Order, wrought by Article 8 of the No. 4 Order)
Example
Arnold arrived in the UK in 2012 as a Tier 4 student. Just before his leave is due to expire, he applies to extend his leave as a Tier 4 student on 19 October 2014. There is a delay in making a decision on his application but a decision is finally made on 7 April 2015. Unfortunately, the decision is a refusal to extend leave. Arnold can appeal under the old regime on any of the grounds of appeal in the old section 84 NIAA 2002, including that the decision was not in accordance with the law and was not in accordance with immigration rules.

This is because his application was made before 20 October 2014. Had it been made on or after 20 October 2014, the new regime would apply.
2 Where an application for Tier 1, 2 or 5 leave to remain (including family members) has already been made before 2 March 2015 and a refusal decision is made on or after 6 April 2015 which leaves the person with no leave the old regime is preserved (amended Article 9(b) of the No. 3 Order, wrought by Article 8 of the No. 4 Order)
Example
Claude applied for further leave as a Tier 1 Entrepreneur on 19 October 2014. There is a delay in making a decision while a ‘genuineness’ assessment is carried out. A refusal is finally issued on 7 April 2015.

Claude can appeal under the old regime. This is because the new regime was only applied to Tier 1 applications on or after 2 March 2015, so the date of decision does not matter in his case.
3 Where an application was made before 6 April 2015 and a decision is made on or after 6 April 2015 to refuse leave to enter, entry clearance, a certificate of entitlement or to refuse to vary leave which leaves the person with no leave, the old regime is preserved. However, there is an exception to this, which is where the decision is also a refusal of an asylum, protection or human rights claim, in which case the new regime applies (amended Article 9(c) of the No. 3 Order, wrought by Article 8 of the No. 4 Order);
Example
Ernesto applies on human rights grounds for permission to remain in the UK on 1 March 2015. A decision refusing his human rights claim is made on 7 April 2015. The new appeal regime applies to him and he can only appeal on human rights grounds: if he believes that in fact he does meet the terms of the Immigration Rules (e.g. paragraph 276ADE of the rules) then this will need to be argued in the context of human rights grounds, applying Mostafa.

Had the decision in his case been made on 5 April 2015, the old regime would have applied to him. If a removal decision had been made he would have had a right of appeal but without a removal decision he would not have had a right of appeal. This is likely to be a common scenario (applications refused before 6 April 2015 and applicant left in limbo with no removal decision and no right of appeal) and in these cases applicants will need to make a new human rights application, which should generate a right of appeal. They will be liable to pay the NHS surcharge. In the recent case of R (on the application of Waqar) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (statutory appeals/paragraph 353) IJR [2015] UKUT 169 (IAC), the Upper Tribunal takes the arguably dubious view that any such claim will need to be a fresh claim meeting the requirements of paragraph 353 of the Immigration Rules. Even if this is right, though, this in effect creates a right of appeal against a paragraph 353 fresh claim refusal because it will fall to the First-tier Tribunal to decide whether a “human rights claim” has or has not been made: there should be no need to apply for judicial review.
The big question raised by this third group, though, is what amounts to a human rights claim? For example, is an old application made before 6 April 2015 under Appendix FM a human rights claim? If so, there is a right of appeal but limited to human rights grounds only. If not, there is an old style appeal. There is no clear answer to the question and the tribunal or courts will just have to flip a coin. It may matter in some cases but in most cases, because of the Mostafa approach, a human rights only appeal can include consideration of compliance with the relevant Immigration Rules.

4 Lastly, where a decision was made before 6 April 2015 and an appeal could have been brought under the old regime or has been brought and is pending, the old regime will apply (amended Article 9(d) of the No. 3 Order, wrought by Article 8 of the No. 4 Order)
Example
Honour applies for further leave to remain as a spouse under Appendix FM on 1 March 2015. Her application is refused on 5 April 2015 with a removal decision issued at the same time, generating with a right of appeal under the old appeal regime. The appeal is lodged on 7 April 2015. The old appeal regime applies.
Existing and old human rights claims

What about a person who has an outstanding judicial review challenging refusal of a human rights claim? Many such cases in truth seek a new removal decision that would trigger a right of appeal: the applicant can never succeed with the Home Office because the Immigration Rules are not satisfied, but if the facts are strong might succeed on a right of appeal to an independent judge. The problem is that under the new regime there is no such thing as a removal decision, only a general power to remove, and anyway a decision to remove does not generate a right of appeal, only refusal of a human rights claim does that. The judicial review cannot achieve a right of appeal, it would seem.
The way forward is probably to withdraw the judicial review and to make a new human rights claim. For as long as the Upper Tribunal’s determination in Waqar remains good law, the claim should address the fresh claim test at paragraph 353 of the Immigration Rules. Any new application will potentially incur the NHS surcharge, unfortunately.

The same applies to old cases where a human rights claim has been made and rejected but with no right of appeal. The commencement of the new regime cannot magically confer a right of appeal on an old case, but a new application could, assuming while Waqar lasts that the fresh claim test is met and that the application fee and NHS surcharge are affordable or that the person is exempt.

Finally, for reference, links to all of the commencement orders collected together in one place:

Immigration Act 2014 (Commencement No. 1, Transitory and Saving Provisions) Order 2014 (SI 2014/1820)
Immigration Act 2014 (Commencement No. 2) Order 2014 (SI 2014/1943)
Immigration Act 2014 (Commencement No. 3, Transitional and Saving Provisions) Order 2014 (SI 2014/2711)
Immigration Act 2014 (Commencement No. 4, Transitional and Saving Provisions and Amendment) Order 2015 (SI 2015/371)
Immigration Act 2014 (Commencement No. 5) Order 2015 (SI 2015/874)