This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/sep/14/home-office-breaking-law-to-expel-highly-skilled-migrants

The article has changed 5 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Home Office 'breaking law' to expel highly skilled migrants Home Office 'breaking law' to expel highly skilled migrants
(35 minutes later)
A judge has accused the Home Office of breaking the law and being “nonsensical” by trying to force two highly skilled migrants out of the UK by triggering a terrorist-related part of immigration law. A judge has accused the Home Office of breaking the law and acting in a “nonsensical” way in trying to force two highly skilled migrants out of the UK by triggering a terrorism-related part of immigration law.
The two substantial judgements will boost those campaigning to halt the use of paragraph 322(5) of the Immigration Rules against those who have made legal amendments to their tax returns. In the rulings, the judge quashed the Home Office’s decisions to trigger the power, saying the department had been cursory and made public law errors. The two substantial judgments will boost those campaigning to halt the use of paragraph 322(5) of the immigration rules against people who have made legal amendments to their tax returns.
At least 1,000 highly skilled migrants seeking indefinite leave to remain (ILR) in the UK are wrongly facing expulsion from the UK for making legal amendments to their tax records under paragraph 322(5), according to the support group Highly Skilled Migrants. The judge quashed the Home Office’s decisions to trigger the power, saying the department had made errors in public law.
The judgments of the Upper Tribunal judge, Melissa Canavan, in the cases of Oluwatosin Bankole Williams and Farooq Shaik, will strengthen the hand of the 20 MPs and a member of the House of Lords who are to establish separate pressure groups to persuade the Home Office to stop misusing the power. At least 1,000 highly skilled migrants seeking indefinite leave to remain (ILR) in the UK are wrongly facing expulsion from the UK under paragraph 322(5) for making legal amendments to their tax records, according to the support group Highly Skilled Migrants.
In the House of Commons on Thursday, one of those MPs, Alison Thewliss, demanded a debate on what she said is “the incompetence of the Home Office” concerning 322(5). The judgments of the upper tribunal judge, Melissa Canavan, in the cases of Oluwatosin Bankole Williams and Farooq Shaik will strengthen the hand of the 20 MPs and a member of the House of Lords who are to establish separate pressure groups to persuade the Home Office to stop misusing the power.
“We were promised on 21 June that there would be a review in the next few weeks. This has not emerged,” she said. “Too many highly skilled migrants are waiting for this government to make a decision, living in poverty and racking up huge debts. ” In the Commons on Thursday, one of those MPs, Alison Thewliss, demanded a debate on what she said was “the incompetence of the Home Office” concerning 322(5).
The leader of the House, Andrea Leadsom, agreed to take the issue up directly with Home Office ministers on Thewliss’s behalf. “We were promised on 21 June that there would be a review in the next few weeks. This has not emerged,” she said. “Too many highly skilled migrants are waiting for this government to make a decision, living in poverty and racking up huge debts.”
While at least 50% of immigration appeals against Home Office decisions succeed in the courts – a rate the Law Society said suggests the system is “seriously flawed” - the support group for those fighting paragraph 322(5) say their success rate is far higher, at 75.3%. The leader of the house, Andrea Leadsom, agreed to take up the issue directly with Home Office ministers on Thewliss’s behalf.
While at least 50% of immigration appeals against Home Office decisions succeed in the courts – a rate the Law Society said suggested the system was “seriously flawed” – the support group for those fighting paragraph 322(5) say their success rate is far higher, at 75.3%.
The figure is so high that it has caused legal experts to question whether the Home Office is cynically pursuing cases without merit.The figure is so high that it has caused legal experts to question whether the Home Office is cynically pursuing cases without merit.
In one of the recent rulings, Canavan cited a third Upper Tribunal judgment in which the Home Office was criticised for maintaining that migrants are responsible for the mistakes of their accountants, even when accountants later write to the government to admit culpability for mistakes. In one of the recent rulings, Canavan cited a third upper tribunal judgment in which the Home Office was criticised for maintaining that migrants were responsible for the mistakes of their accountants, even when accountants later wrote to the government to admit culpability.
Canavan agreed that: “...the mere fact that an applicant is responsible for his own tax affairs does not lead to the inexorable conclusion that an applicant has been dishonest.” Canavan agreed that “the mere fact that an applicant is responsible for his own tax affairs does not lead to the inexorable conclusion that an applicant has been dishonest”.
Her judgment is at odds with a letter sent to Lord Dick Taverne last week by Baroness Williams defending the government’s use of 322(5) power. “The courts have agreed that our conclusions were reasonable in such cases,” Williams wrote. Her judgment is at odds with a letter sent to the Lib Dem peer Dick Taverne last week by Susan Williams, a Home Office minister, defending the government’s use of the 322(5) power. “The courts have agreed that our conclusions were reasonable in such cases,” Lady Williams wrote.
Canavan said: “Where an applicant has presented evidence to show that he was not dishonest but only careless, the secretary of state is presented with a fact-finding task ...The evidence must be cogent and strong.” Canavan said: “Where an applicant has presented evidence to show that he was not dishonest but only careless, the secretary of state is presented with a fact-finding task … The evidence must be cogent and strong.”
Immigration and asylumImmigration and asylum
House of Lords
Tax and spending
newsnews
Share on FacebookShare on Facebook
Share on TwitterShare on Twitter
Share via EmailShare via Email
Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn
Share on PinterestShare on Pinterest
Share on Google+Share on Google+
Share on WhatsAppShare on WhatsApp
Share on MessengerShare on Messenger
Reuse this contentReuse this content