Home Office taken to court for retrospective law

There will be a judicial review conducted of the Home Office?s contentious new immigration policy which will take place as intended on 14 and 15 June 2007.

The High Court will make a decision on whether it was within the Home Office’s rights to introduce immigration rules that applied in retrospect to migrants who were already living in the UK when they were announced.

Mikhail Spivakov, a coordinator of the group ‘Voice of Britain’s Skilled Immigrants’ (VBSI) said that the changes had forced many holders of HSMP visas to leave the UK on short notice and had consequently resulted in a great deal of hardship for those forced to leave as well as those who were permitted to remain. He said that there was no objection to the Home Office making changes to the rules as long as the changes were lawful and fair.

Stephen Kong, a solicitor who is pursuing a review on behalf of the immigrants affected has said that there is solid evidence the Home Office was in breach of people’s legitimate expectations.

This legal course follows twelve months of widespread attempts to lobby the government to abolish the retrospective component introduced in the revised rules.

Spivakov said that with a combination of immigration lawyers, MPs and ethnic groups they were attempting to show the Home Office that the new policies were unfair. With no response from the Home Office, taking legal action has been the necessary last report.

Notes

The Judicial review is aimed at the retrospective changes that were made to the qualifying time for Indefinite Leave to Remain which was changed from 4 years to 5 years for people holding employment and British ancestry visas which were made available in April 2006.

Further into 2006, the Home Office then began forcing HSMP visa holders to reapply and qualify under the new, more stringent criteria. Consequently, many people were facing deportation. However, one appeal against the rules was won on the grounds of ‘legitimate expectation’. People are still seeking another judicial review in order to complete an assessment of the whole HSMP process.