Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill estelegea care reglementează securitatea frontierelor, imigrația și azilul, schimbul de date de la frontieră, articolele folosite pentru infracțiuni grave, și de asemenea, reglementează taxele plătite pentru recunoașterea, comparabilitatea sau evaluarea calificărilor advisorilor de imigrație.
În cadrul acestei legi, IAA (Immigration Advice Authority) va putea aplica măsuri împotriva consilierii ilegale sau de slabă calitate în domeniul imigrației:
Sancțiuni financiare: Capacitatea de a aplica amenzi de până la £15.000 atât adviserilor acreditați, cât și celor neînregistrați, pentru oferirea de consiliere neautorizată sau nerespectarea cerințelor legale.
Rambursarea taxelor și compensații: Poate dispune restituirea comisioanelor plătite și plata de compensații către clienți, în limita a £250.000.
Suspendarea sau anularea imediată a acreditării: Se aplică în circumstanțe specifice în care există un risc imediat pentru clienți sau pentru sistemul de imigrație.
Obligația de cooperare: Poate investiga plângeri (inclusiv împotriva foștilor adviseri), poate obliga la furnizarea de informații și poate emite amenzi pentru neconformare.
Supraveghere: Împiedică persoanele interzise să ofere consiliere în materie de imigrație atunci când sunt sub supervizare.
Proiectul de lege este în prezent în curs de examinare în Parlament. După ce legea va primi Aprobarea Regală (Royal Assent), IAA va actualiza implementarea și termenele prin intermediul site-ului său .
Înainte ca fiecare nouă competență să intre în vigoare, IAA va pune la dispoziție Ghiduri pe site și prin buletine informative IAA și comunicări regulate, pentru a sprijini adviserii și organizațiile în înțelegerea și pregătirea pentru noile cerințe.
Toți furnizorii de consiliere în materie de imigrație, trebuie să respecte Commissioner’s Code of Standards.
Înaintea oricărei sancțiuni financiare, se va emite un Aviz de Intenție (Notice of Intent) și toate amenzile vor avea drept de apel la First-tier Tribunal (Immigration Services).
Home Office va monitoriza :
numărul sancțiunilor financiare emise
ordinele de compensație dispuse
cazurile în care foști consilieri au fost obligați să coopereze
Advice NI provides a general service which includes face to face support (drop ins an appointments), telephone advice line, email advice, webchat and text service.
The Citizens Advice network is made up of 59 Bureaux with over 200 outreaches across Scotland. We have over 1,000 advisers who can provide general Immigration Advice Authority level 1 advice about the EU Settlement Scheme and can also make referrals to our dedicated team of EU Settlement Scheme advisers for clients who need one-to-one support to make an application.
We have several years of experience in providing this service through Home Office and Scottish Government funding. Our holistic approach ensures our generalist advisers are able to identify those who need EU Settlement Scheme support while providing them with any other advice they need on topics such as housing, benefits, income maximisation or debt.
You can find your local bureau by using the postcode tool or by phoning Scotland’s Citizens Advice Helpline.
Settled provides advice to EU citizens on the EU Settlement Scheme and related rights. It is accredited Immigration Advice Authority level 3. Help is available in different languages by email, phone, on Facebook and through sessions in communities.
Telephone: 0330 223 5336 (Monday to Thursday, 1pm to 3pm)
EERC provides complex casework, advice and assistance with the EU Settlement Scheme and pre-settled status applications (Immigration Advice Authority level 2) to the vulnerable, disadvantaged and marginalised Eastern European migrants in London who are nationals of:
Bulgaria
Croatia
Czechia
Estonia
Hungary
Latvia
Lithuania
Poland
Romania
Slovakia
Slovenia
Belarus and eligible to apply for the EU Settlement Scheme
Russia and eligible to apply for the EU Settlement Scheme
Ukraine and eligible to apply for the EU Settlement Scheme
To access the service, call one of the helplines or email us. All helplines are open Monday to Thursday, 10am to 4pm. We don’t accept clients without appointments.
Europia is a Manchester-based charity supporting Central and Eastern European nationals through immigration advice, welfare support, community engagement, and cultural projects.
Our immigration team provides expert assistance with complex EU Settlement Scheme applications (Immigration Advice Authority level 2 and above), supporting clients from application through to confidently accessing and proving their status.
We also offer services in mental health, employment, volunteering, and equality advocacy – ensuring inclusive, person-centred support for Central and Eastern European communities across Greater Manchester.
STEP is a rights-based community organisation providing services in advice, support, advocacy, community development, social enterprise and strategic engagement. Under the terms of this grant STEP will offer level 2 immigration advice to late and vulnerable EU Settlement Scheme applicants.
The Refugee and Migrant Centre provides free regulated advice and representation to EEA nationals and their family members in their applications for the EU Settlement Scheme, as well as applications for family permits for family members wishing to join EEA nationals in the UK.
We can support your application from start to finish through our trained and qualified advisors and are approved to support people with vulnerabilities with more complex cases.
E plin pe social media și în special pe grupurile de facebook, de persoane/conturi/pagini care se pretind immigration adviseri sau avocați de imigrație, și-ți suflă în ceafă vânând orice postare unde cineva cere ajutor specializat, furând identități, date personale și înșelând oamenii. Unii mai țepari, doar să le ia banii la disperați, alții mai cu ștaif, cu carte de vizită că lucrează la Home Office, cu postări pro făcute cu Chat GPT, că sunt contabili autorizați(lol) sau că sunt specialiști în imigrație. Oricine poate să își facă un cont și să pretindă orice.
Scopul acestui ghid este să vă ajute să înțelegeți cum arată o relație corectă și legală între client și adviser și să puteți recunoaște din timp practicile incorecte sau ilegale.
1) Ce trebuie să faceți dacă aveți nevoie de un specialist pe imigrație? În primul rând, înainte de orice discuție, să verificați orice nume vi se propune, orice nume din anunț, din reclamă, pagina de Fb sau recomandare și nu mai trimiteți bani oricui pretinde ca e avocat/specialist. Dacă nu are nicio metodă de contact decât mesaj privat sau whatsapp, evitați.
Un avocat vă poate ajuta să gestionați cazul și să găsiți un barrister.
Ce pot face immigration adviserii: au voie să vă ofere sfaturi doar în situațiile pe nivelul la care sunt calificați. Puteți vedea ce tip de consultanță pot oferi în funcție de nivelul lor. Există 3 niveluri.
-cei de nivelul 1 – pot oferi doar consultanță și asistență pentru cazuri simple, fără probleme și unde aveți toate documentele necesare pentru : entry clearance, leave to enter, leave to remain, nationality and citizenship, EU și EEA law.
-cei de nivelul 2 – pot face tot ceea ce pot face consilierii de nivel 1, dar pot accepta și cazuri mai complicate, de ex. dacă ați avut probleme anterioare cu imigrarea și doriți permisiunea de a rămâne în UK. Ei pot ajuta și cu: cereri de azil și aplicații pentru drepturile omului (human rights applications), situațiile în care ați intrat ilegal în UK sau ați rămas după expirarea vizei, administrative review, dacă sunteți supus deportării sau expulzării. -cei de nivel 3 pot face tot ceea ce pot face consilierii de nivel 1 și 2 și doar ei vă pot reprezenta la un tribunal de imigrare.
aflați cât percepe pentru servicii și dacă va trebui să îl plătiți
solicitați o chitanță semnată și datatădacă îi plătiți orice sumă de bani
întrebați cât veți avea de plătit dacă decideți să nu mai folosiți serviciile lui
conveniți asupra unei taxe înainte ca acesta să facă orice muncă suplimentară pentru voi.
Unii consilieri nu percep taxe pentru serviciile lor. Totuși, chiar dacă nu vă taxează, va trebui să plătiți pentru orice cheltuieli suplimentare, cum ar fi costurile pentru traduceri și taxele de aplicare.
⚠ ATENȚIE:
Ca potențial client, immigration adviser-ul trebuie să vă dea o scrisoare de confirmare a serviciilor numită Client Care Letter, înainte de a începe să lucreze pentru voi, nu după. Clientul trebuie să semneze scrisoarea sau să își confirme acordul prin e-mail înainte de a începe orice activitate.
Client Care Letter trebuie să conțină:
-numele organizației/adviser-ului, că sunt reglementați de IAA și nivelul la care sunt autorizați, numărul de înregistrare IAA, mențiunile prevăzute în Codul de Standarde (inclusiv despre asigurarea de răspundere profesională) – care confirmă că acesta are competența de a examina dosarul clientului;
-datele de contact ale consilierului care gestionează cazul, inclusiv numele, adresa, numărul de telefon și adresa de e-mail
-ce anume tip de muncă va face pentru voi (detalii complete privind instrucțiunile primite de la client, consilierea oferită și activitatea convenită a fi prestată, inclusiv termenele estimate)
-cât veți fi taxat (confirmarea costurilor estimate sau convenite, ce costuri suplimentare pot apărea, dacă este cazul)
-cum și când veți efectua plata
-o mențiune privind statutul de imigrație al clientului, dacă acesta este cunoscut
-confirmarea faptului că organizația păstrează responsabilitatea integrală pentru toate activitățile desfășurate în numele clientului
-o trimitere la procedura de soluționare a plângerilor
De ce insist cu Client Care Letter? Pentru că această scrisoare este parte din aplicația de acreditare a adviserului/organizației, care trebuie să trimita la Immigration Advice Authority un şablon de Client Care Letter care să respecte în totalitate toate cerințele Codurilor 23–26, astfel încât IAA să poată fi satisfăcută că aplicația respectă Codurile relevante înainte de aprobarea acreditării. Dacă nu vă dă această scrisoare înseamnă că nu e acreditat. Iar dacă nu e acreditat, e criminal offence să presteze servicii de imigrație fără a fi acreditat. Și chiar dacă sunteți abordați de contabili care promit că vă rezolvă cazul, pentru că lucrează cu specialiști în imigrație, tot trebuie să vă dea această Care letter, din partea acelui specialist.
În concluzie, dacă persoana care vă propune servicii de imigrație nu e de găsit în lista oficială de acreditați, nu vă oferă scrisoarea Client Care Letter, nu vă dă o chitanță datată și semnată pentru banii primiți și vă cere să trimiteți banii pe revolut sau în conturi de terți cu referință gift sau mai stiu eu ce, fugiți, că vă luați țeapă.
*Codul de Standarde 2024, item 5.3–5.4: Organizațiile regulate trebuie să furnizeze un client care letter eficient și să păstreze dovezi că clientul a agreat conținutul (semnat/confirmat) înainte de începerea lucrului.
**Și avocații trebuie să vă dea Client Care Letter
Înalta Curte a dat încă o dată o aprobare pentru măsurile luate de Home Office de a închide accesul la aplicațiile întârziate frauduloase ( „fără merit și nefondate”) depuse de cei care blochează sistemul EUSS cu aplicații frauduloase repetate, care le-au permis să continue să locuiască și să muncească în UK de la o CoA la alta, deși știu că nu se califică în cadrul EUSS.
Iar aici aveți un rezumat foarte bun de la FreeMovement:
“The High Court has dismissed a challenge to changes made to late applications to the EU Settlement Scheme which removed the right to appeal where it is not accepted that the applicant had a good reason for applying late (i.e. where the application is rejected as invalid, rather than being accepted as valid and then refused). The judicial review was brought by Here for Good, a charity providing free immigration advice on the EU Settlement Scheme. The case is R (Here for Good) v Secretary of State for the Home Department[2024] EWHC 2817 (Admin).
Background
Evidence given by a Home Office official was that by January 2023 there were concerns that “spurious and unmeritorious” late applications were being made under Appendix EU. This was apparently so that people could get a certification of application which would then allow them to work and claim public funds pending the outcome of the application (in line with Article 18(3) of the Withdrawal Agreement). It was decided that a two stage approach was permitted under Article 18(1)(d) and so changes were made to Appendix EU from 9 August 2023.
Before the changes made on 9 August 2023, where an application was made after 30 June 2021 there was no requirement for there to be a “good reason” for the late application in order for an application to be valid. The need for there to have reasonable grounds for making a late application was instead found in the eligibility requirements.
This meant that applications would be accepted as valid if they met the other validity requirements, and if refused because it was not accepted that they had reasonable grounds for applying late, the applicant would be granted a right of appeal. From 9 August 2023, where an applicant could not satisfy a Home Office decision maker that there was a “good reason” for the late application, the application would be rejected as invalid, which is a decision that does not generate a right of appeal.
An invalidity decision can be subject to judicial review but this is limited to looking at whether there has been an error of law rather than the merits of the decision, which would include consideration of the facts as well as a proportionality assessment.
The judicial review
There were three grounds to the challenge. The first was that the failure to provide a right of appeal where a late application had been made was a breach of Article 18(1)(r) of the Withdrawal Agreement which says that:
the applicant shall have access to judicial and, where appropriate, administrative redress procedures in the host State against any decision refusing to grant the residence status. The redress procedures shall allow for an examination of the legality of the decision, as well as of the facts and circumstances on which the proposed decision is based. Such redress procedures shall ensure that the decision is not disproportionate.
This ground centred on whether or not a two stage approach was actually permitted under Article 18. The Home Secretary maintained that it was, “based upon the natural and clear meaning of the words in Article 18(1)(d) of the Withdrawal Agreement which plainly contemplate two discrete stages”. Article 18(1)(d) states:
where the deadline for submitting the application referred to in point (b) is not respected by the persons concerned, the competent authorities shall assess all the circumstances and reasons for not respecting the deadline and shall allow those persons to submit an application within a reasonable further period of time if there are reasonable grounds for the failure to respect the deadline
The second ground was that in the alternative, the failure to provide a right of appeal in these circumstances was a breach of Article 21 of the Withdrawal Agreement which provides for safeguards and a right of appeal. It was argued that a decision to reject a late application is a decision that restricts the applicant’s right of residence and so comes within the scope of Article 21. This was resisted by the Home Secretary on a similar basis to the first ground.
The third ground of challenge was that the failure to provide a late application with a right of appeal is a breach of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Right of the European Union which provides for the right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial. The claimant argued that Article 4(3) of the Withdrawal Agreement allowed reliance on EU law:
on the basis that the situation of a person who comes within the personal scope of the Withdrawal Agreement (irrespective of whether they have made a late application for residence status) is not a purely domestic law situation but one which falls within the scope of EU law.
The Home Secretary’s position was that the Charter was not engaged “because the question does not involve concepts or provisions of EU law in the interpretation or application of these provisions of the Withdrawal Agreement”. This was because Article 18(1) had introduced a completely new process that did not exist under EU law and was different to the EU law principles of free movement.
The High Court’s decision
The High Court agreed with the Home Secretary that a literal reading of Article 18 allows for the two stage approach introduced into the immigration rules on 9 August 2023. The conclusion was that:
A person who is outside the deadline for making an application under the conditions of the new scheme is not an applicant until they have been permitted to make their application and therefore the procedural safeguards under Article 18(1)(r) are not available to them.
The second ground of challenge was also rejected, with the court saying that the existence of an application is needed in order to rely on Article 21. As the validity decision is made before an application is accepted, Article 21 therefore cannot apply.
On the third ground, the court distinguished this situation from that of the cases the parties sought to rely on (CG (C-709/20) by the claimant and AT v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2024] KB 633; [2023] EWCA Civ 1307 by the defendant). The High Court said that “it is of significance to note the important distinction” as CG and AT had made timely applications, been granted pre-settled status and had rights of residence under Article 13 of the Withdrawal Agreement, which was not the case here.
The court said that instead:
this case is concerned with the circumstances of a person who has no such status and who requires permission to make an application for the new residence status which is a creature of the Withdrawal Agreement under Article 18 and unrelated to EU law provisions relating to the rights of citizens.
The court also rejected this ground of challenge saying that it could not accept that the Charter applied in these circumstances, or that it was a breach to fail to provide a right of appeal.
Conclusion
Ultimately this entire situation seems to all come down to Home Office delays – the only reason it was ever possible for a person to “abuse” the certificate of application system is because applications were not being dealt with in a timely manner. We wait to see if this case will proceed any further, in the meantime the remedy for those who have a late application rejected remains judicial review.”
” The following post was submitted earlier, however we declined posting it in its original form as it contains elements which might be misconstrued by others. We are also using this opportunity to teach all members of the group who are patient enough to read this long post about a couple of things and also to debunk a myth that keeps rearing its ugly head.
First, please read the post. Then take a minute to go through the commentary.
“Hi everyone – I wanted to share that I successfully received by ILR yesterday. I’m a non-EU family member, and switching from pre-settled to settled took 3 months.
I didn’t have the best experience with the EU Resolution Centre as I called them several times and they told me everything on my application was correct and this was roughly 6 weeks after applying. When I got my lawyer to contact them to try and expedite the process, she was able to get the information there was in fact a mistake on my application where I had accidentally filled out that I had a permanent resident card (I mistook that field for my BRC) and they had actually disregarded my application and weren’t looking at it. After rectifying the mistake it took another 6 weeks to get my final decision. Just wanted to share my experience in case it’s helpful to anyone else.”
First and most importantly: congratulations to the OP for having been granted Settled Status, despite the circuitous route it took him/her to get there.
Now: 1. The reoccurring myth: THE RESOLUTION CENTRE IS NOT STAFFED BY CASE WORKERS. YOU CANNOT AND YOU SHOULD NOT EXPECT TO BE GIVEN FEEDBACK (OF ANY KIND!!!!!!!!) ON YOUR APPLICATION WHEN YOU CALL THE EUSS RC. The only time when you call in and you can expect to glean anything new about your application is if your caseworker has already left some comments on your case file, which are meant to be passed onto you. However, IN MOST SUCH SITUATIONS, those comments will have already made it to you via email, SMS, or direct phone call from the caseworker himself/herself. It is only when they weren’t able to reach you (after repeated attempts) that your caseworker will leave a note with the Resolution Centre, as a last-ditch resort. So: just as the resolution centre can’t give you immigration advice, they also can’t give you feedback on an application that’s already been submitted. THAT IS NOT THEIR ROLE, AND IT WOULD BE INCREDIBLY IRRESPONSIBLE IF ONE OF THE EUSS RC CALL RESPONDERS WERE TO BREACH THAT RULE.
2. “When I got my lawyer to contact them to try and expedite the process” – in 99.99% of cases you are throwing your money out the window. We do not allow solicitors to pressure a caseworker to expedite an application, especially if it’s been fewer than 6 months since the application was submitted. After six months is a different story. But before the 6 months are up making formal representations on behalf of a client is, in most cases, A COMPLETE WASTE OF TIME AND MONEY. As you can see, OP, it was also a waste of time and money in your case, as you had to wait another 6 weeks after this solicitor took your money and scammed you into thinking she was actually expediting anything. She wasn’t.
3. ” they had actually disregarded my application and weren’t looking at it” – COMPLETELY UNTRUE. Again, you have been lied to by your solicitor. A caseworker IS NOT ALLOWED to disregard an application and “not look at it” just because it contains a mistake. That would be a serious dereliction of duty and a breach of code of conduct in and of itself. When a mistake is ascertained by the caseworker, there are investigations that are automatically started, to identify the source of the mistake or a potential explanation for the mistake. The case isn’t just put in a pile, on the side, and forgotten about. Yes, it will delay the decision making process (because of the aforementioned investigation, which in most cases also involves contacting the applicant), but THE APPLICATION WILL NOT BE COMPLETELY DISREGARDED.
4. We are DEFINITELY not discouraging applicants to use immigration advisors or immigration solicitors (please, qualified ones you can find on the OISC or SRA registers), however the best time to pay for such services, if you feel you need support, or if you have a complicated application, is at the time of applying. not six weeks later. Because then you might fall prey to unscrupulous professionals (or not-professionals) who will promise you that they can expedite your application and correct mistakes and you need to pay them to do that. And, as the OP demonstrated with his/her own case, nothing was expedited in the end by the solicitor.
Which brings us to the following very useful advice:
4a – how to check if you made a mistake in your application: log into your dashboard (here: https://user-auth.apply-to-visit-or-stay-in-the-uk.homeoffice.gov.uk/auth/ ), find the relevant application, click on the link for viewing/downloading it (not on the green button under it, that’s for uploading evidence), then navigate to the page where on the left side you see the “chapters/sections” of the application, and on the top right corner (if you are on a laptop screen) you will see the download option. Download it and save it. It will be a pdf document containing all the answers you have given when applying (well, most of the answers, not the security questions). OPEN IT, READ IT CAREFULLY, AND LOOK FOR ANY MISTAKES
4b – what to do if you discover a mistake: depending on how important the mistake is, you have two options… EITHER withdraw the application altogether (here: https://eu-settled-status-enquiries.service.gov.uk/start Start >> Option 3 >> Yes >> Fill in the withdrawal request, check it, and submit it) and reapply OR upload a note (using the aforementioned green button under your application) explaining the mistake and, with the note, any evidence that proves that your correction is indeed the truth.”
