Tag Archives: reasonable grounds

Lack of appeal against rejection of late EUSS applications does not breach Withdrawal Agreement

Articole Imigratie, Home Office, , , , , , , , , ,

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.

Acesta este textul complet al hotărârii: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2024/2817.html

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.”

BY Sonia Lenegan – https://freemovement.org.uk/

Când speri aiurea că Home Office s-a sucit pentru că te informezi de pe tiktok de la unii care au citit un titlu

Brexit, Comunicate, Home Office, informatii utile, Noile reguli de imigratie dupa 9 august 2023, Rezidenta, Rob Mar, Settlement Status, Social Media, Viata in UK, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

“Din categoria “INTOTDEAUNA CITITI ARTICOLUL, NU VA OPRITI DOAR LA TITLU!”, e trist ca si un ziar de nivelul lui The Guardian alearga dupa click-uri cu titluri atat de periculos de amagitoare si potential inselatoare…Iar miile de disperati de pe grupuri care posteaza in ultima vreme variatii ale lui “ce sa scriu in aplicatie ca sa mai imi dea sharecode, ca nu mai imi da sharecode” pot intelege gresit citind doar titlul si apoi fiind expusi la stupizeniile debitate pe TikTok, ca a venit vremea sa mai puna inca o aplicatie la plezneala in sistem, ca acum o sa le iasa.

NU, nu a venit vremea pentru asa ceva, si NU, nu o sa le mai iasa in veci. Pentru ca robinetul la “cele 7 pagini” si la “sercod” tot inchis este, pentru cei care au trait cu lunile/anii in UK din aplicatie frauduloasa in aplicatie frauduloasa si care nu au membri de familie rezidenti in UK. Si chiar si pentru cei care au membru/membri de familie rezidenti aici, nici ei nu mai pot face aplicatie dupa aplicatie, pentru ca regula de “90 de zile de la intrarea in tara pentru orice aplicatie” si regula “daca ai trimis o aplicatie la timp nu o mai poti face pe a doua fara a primi derogare speciala” sunt amandoua aplicate extraordinar de strict (mai mult de 95% din aplicatiile intarziate ale celor ce aplica pe picioare proprii si mai mult de 80% din aplicatiile repetate ale membrilor de familie sunt acum refuzate instant, la bariera de validitate, in maxim 48-72 de ore).

Sa clarificam despre ce se vorbeste in acest articol si ce anume inseamna aceste noi “modificari” la schema de rezidenta (veti vedea de ce cuvantul e in ghilimele): NU, HOME OFFICE NU A FACUT O INTOARCERE DE 180 DE GRADE CU PRIVIRE LA MOTIVELE CARE SUNT ACCEPTATE PENTRU A DEPUNE O APLICATIE INTARZIATA. Ce s-a intamplat este ca Home Office a clarificat, in documentul care se numeste “Ghidul lucratorilor de caz”, situatia unui anumit grup foarte specific de aplicanti. “Clarificat” pentru ca lucratorii de caz deja aveau voie, discretionar si folosind judecata proprie, subiectiva, sa permita astfel de aplicatii intarziate primite de la aceasta categorie de aplicanti. Dar acum aceste instructiuni sunt si in Ghid, explicite, ca sa nu mai fie nevoie sa interpreteze lucratorii de caz legea.

Despre ce categorie de aplicanti vorbim? Despre cei care au locuit in Marea Britanie pentru minim 5 ani inainte de 31 decembrie 2020 si carora le fusese acordata deja permisiunea de sedere permanenta in Marea Britanie, sub forma unui document emis pe baza vechilor reguli (dinainte de Brexit). In aceasta categorie, pentru ca multi dintre ei au aplicat deja de multa vreme la Schema de Rezidenta (EUSS), nu au mai ramas foarte multi, dar Home Office vrea sa se asigure ca persoane intr-o astfel de situatie au access la Schema de Rezidenta daca: 1) nu au trecut 5 ani de cand au plecat din UK, 2) nu au mai depus nicio aplicatie la EUSS intre timp, 3) nu au comis infractiuni care sa ii descalifice de la a mai avea statut in Marea Britanie.

E important de repetat: aceasta categorie de oameni oricum erau lasati sa aplice intarziat (pentru ca lucratorii de caz au si putere de decizie discretionara pe anumite teme). Si, de adaugat: oamenii din aceasta categorie de aplicanti nu au fost niciodata obligati sa aplice la EUSS pentru a isi pastra rezidenta permanenta in UK… dar multi dintre ei (>75%) o facusera deja. De aceea aceste “modificari” numai modificari nu sunt…. Ca nimic nu s-a schimbat, ci pur si simplu Home Office a clarificat Ghidul, astfel incat cei care merita sa aiba statut si sa continue sa locuiasca in UK sa nu fie pusi in aceeasi oala cu toti cei care aplica fraudulos, in foamea de CoA/sharecode.”

Aveti EU Settlement Scheme: caseworker guidance aici: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/65a64d87640602000d3cb6fa/EU_Settlement_Scheme_EU_other_EEA_Swiss_citizens_and_family_members.pdf

PS. Nu e prima dată cand diverși tiktokari în foamea de like și share inflamează internetul de la un simplu titlu de știre de click bait sau nu, și ăla prost înteles sau distorsionat, dezinformînd grosier, fără discernământ și responsabilitate. Vestea proastă e ca legile și rezidențele nu se dau și nu se aprobă că așa a zis nelutzu pe tiktok. Verificați întotdeauna o informație la sursă, pe site-ul guvernului englez.

Material de Rob Mar