Zeena Luchowa joins BBC Radio London’s Brexit special
Zeena Luchowa joins BBC Radio London’s Brexit special
28 January 2020
With just a few days to go until the UK leaves the EU Zeena Luchowa joins the Vanessa Feltz breakfast show for a Brexit special to discuss EU Citizens’ immigration rights.
Listen again here (starts at 2:10).
The Law Commission’s recommendations: A modern blueprint for new Immigration Rules
The Law Commission’s recommendations: A modern blueprint for new Immigration Rules
17 January 2020
The Law Commission released its report earlier this week setting out its recommended changes to make the Immigration Rules navigable, fair and clear for all who use them.
Over the course of 2019, the Law Commission consulted with individuals and stakeholders to define whether and what changes should be put into place, limiting its review and recommendations to the structure and format of the Rules, rather than substantive immigration policy. Respondents to the consultation were unanimous in their desire to see a complete redesign of the Immigration Rules.
We highlight five key recommendations and add our commentary.
1. Restructure the Rules
Since their introduction in 1973, the Immigration Rules have been constantly amended, extended, appended and reinterpreted. Aside from rendering the Rules less accessible, this has promoted uncertainties in their use and application.
Key terms or requirements are imprecisely duplicated across categories, giving rise to multiple interpretations and speculation as to whether this is intentional.
The Law Commission proposes changes are made to reduce length, improve navigability and create a common section of definitions and key universal requirements which appear as word hyperlinks within specific Rules.
In addition, it has set suitability for the non-expert user, comprehensiveness, accuracy, clarity and accessibility, consistency, durability and design with digital form in mind as key principles which should underpin the redrafting of the Rules and guidance.
2. Make the Rules less prescriptive
The Law Commission recommends a less prescriptive approach to drafting, again to improve length, readability and common-sense decision making.
However, there is a careful balance to be struck; a less prescriptive approach to Rule drafting should not be at the expense of clarity. A loss of clear definitions of terms and evidentiary requirements carries the risk of increasing subjectivity and an inconsistent application of the Rules from one application to another by caseworkers. At the same time, overly prescriptive requirements in the Rules belie a caseworker’s overriding discretion to waive or vary requirements in response to real-world facts. The Law Commission acknowledges this concern and limits its recommendation to making requirements less prescriptive only where they are still clear and not disadvantageous for applicants.
3. Easier navigation and readability
The next recommendation is to use shorter, indicative section titles, a table of contents and a clear and sequential indexing or numbering system. Individuals who are not used to navigating the current Rules can have serious difficulties understanding which paragraphs apply to them and how different areas interconnect, particularly due to extensive use of cross references within a Rule to other parts of the Rules.
A shift towards the use of full paragraphs containing all key terms, using plain language and natural meanings would significantly increase accessibility and decrease mistakes by applicants and caseworkers alike.
4. Clearer management and presentation of Rule changes
At present, the Immigration Rules may be changed at any time in the year. Historically, the Home Office published changes quarterly, however this has become more erratic in recent years.
Statements of Changes to the Immigration Rules are published in a separate area of the Home Office website with no notice of forthcoming changes in the live Rules themselves. As a result, non-experts are typically unaware of forthcoming Rule changes and are unable to plan accordingly.
Once located, proposed changes are referenced by a double system of paragraph numbers and Rule numbers and identify only individual words or phrases to be changed within Rule. The exercise of decoding proposed changes is a time consuming task even for the most seasoned of immigration lawyers.
The Law Commission proposes a limit of two Statements of Changes per year, in which all alterations are grouped. We would urge careful consideration of this before implementation, as having a mechanism by which Rules may be adapted responsively to errors and a changing political, social and technological landscape benefits the Home Office and applicants alike, provided it is used reasonably.
We suggest better use of technology to place Rule changes within the context of the live Immigration Rules themselves (eg display proposed changes alongside the current Rules, effective after a certain date) could increase transparency and accessibility of the changes for everyone.
We strongly agree with the Law Commission’s other recommendation to create a quicker and more efficient feedback system to eliminate and correct technical or practical issues which arise from Rule changes as soon as possible.
5. Create a one-stop reference system
The Immigration Rules preside over a complex system of application forms and separate policy documents which provide interpretative, procedural and operational guidance to applicants and caseworkers. Presently, an applicant should read and comply with all of these sources to make a successful application, yet none of these items are located in the same place or refer directly to each other and may be easily missed by the non-expert.
We agree with the Law Commission’s recommendation of a central index and connect these resources to each other in an easily accessible way. However, there is a justifiable purpose and need for dedicated technical guidance for caseworkers, separate to that used for applicants, provided that the requirements and terms within them are consistent.
Conclusion
The Law Commission was sharp in pointing out deficiencies and recommendations for improvement on the current Immigration Rules.
Moreover, once EEA nationals fall within the planned new universal immigration system, clear and accessible Rules will be essential to avoid unnecessary litigation and a crisis of confidence in the UK Government by applicants, businesses, schools, universities and British citizens and their migrant family members, all of whom rely on the Rules’ clarity, certainty and fair and proper application to function.
We invite the Government to treat these recommendations as a solid starting point in its structuring of the new immigration system intended for 2021.
Immigration roundup: 2019-2020
Immigration roundup: 2019-2020
14 January 2020
Brexit
Two narrowly avoided no-deal crashes ultimately culminated in a renegotiated deal and a Conservative General Election win, on the promise to “get Brexit done”. The UK is now due to leave the EU on 31 January 2020 and (provided the deal goes through as expected) a transition period will bring freedom of movement to an end on 31 December 2020 – although this could be subject to an extension. Until then, EU nationals remain free to come to the UK to live and work.
However, the prolonged uncertainty has not played well with EU citizens, who have been increasingly leaving (or choosing not to come to) the UK: migration statistics for 2019 revealed EEA/Swiss net migration to the UK dropped to its lowest point since 2003 amid employers’ growing concerns of recruitment difficulties and skills shortages.
Simultaneously, 2019 witnessed the public launch of the EU Settlement Scheme (EUSS), for those EEA/Swiss citizens who do want to stay. The scheme has already received over 2.5 million applications, however, well over a million EU citizens are yet to apply by the deadline of 30 June 2021.
The European Temporary Leave to Remain scheme was also published to cater for those arriving after the UK’s exit in the event of a no-deal Brexit, although this now seems an unlikely prospect.
As the Home Office has been constantly updating and refining the rules and policies for EEA Swiss nationals, more changes to the system are to be expected in 2020.
Tier 2 – sponsored workers
Several tweaks in the Immigration rules came as welcome news for employers, including the significant expansion of jobs on the shortage occupation list (making sponsorship of workers in those occupations easier/less costly for employers).
Tier 1/high value migrants
Despite the Conservatives’ claim that the “UK is open for business”, the Government made changes that drastically decreased the number of international entrepreneurs able to come to the UK and narrowed the requirements for investors, also resulting in a drop in applications.
In March, the Tier 1 (Entrepreneur) and Tier 1 (Graduate Entrepreneur) categories closed at very short notice and were replaced by the new “Innovator” and “Start-Up” categories, with questionable results. Only 4 Innovators obtained UK immigration permission in the first 6 months of the scheme, in contrast with more than 1,700 applicants approved under the last 6 months of the Tier 1 (Entrepreneur) scheme.
Tier 1 (Investor) applicants are no longer allowed to invest in government bonds, which may have at least partially affected the 60% drop in granted entry clearance applications that followed.
Technological advancement
The Home Office modernised various technological aspects of the immigration system, which have been broadly well-received.
At last, the EUSS app has been made available for iPhones, in addition to Android devices. Although not without technical difficulties at times, the ease of use and functionality of the EUSS app and online form (including checking certain data with HMRC and DWP in real-time) is unparalleled in UK immigration application processes and may offer a glimpse of the future for other application types.
Nationals of seven further countries (including the USA and Australia) became eligible to use e-gates at several UK airports, facilitating entry without encountering an Immigration Officer. Whilst this enhances convenience for some travellers, it also increases the risk of migrants unwittingly entering under the wrong category (which may also result in a breach of their immigration conditions) and creates practical problems for employers undertaking right to work checks due to the absence of passport entry stamps. Employers can now conduct right-to-work checks online.
New immigration routes
The Johnson Government announced that Brexit is an opportunity to reshape the current immigration system entirely and to attract the brightest and the best (ironically, echoing statements of the then labour government when the present system was introduced in 2008), while reducing overall migration.
The flagship proposal, the introduction of an Australian points-based system, so far appears remarkably similar to the current system. Details are currently scant but the three “new” categories, exceptional talent, skilled workers with a job offer and temporary workers, are all already catered for in the existing points-based system, under Tier 1 (Exceptional Talent), Tier 2 (sponsored workers) and Tier 5 (temporary workers), respectively.
With the new system due to launch in January 2021, further details should be unveiled early this year, and will in part depend on the recommendations of the Migration Advisory Committee in its soon-to-be-released report on salary thresholds for sponsored workers and the application of points-based immigration systems.
In addition, the Government has announced some new immigration categories targeting the migrants they want to attract. It will launch a “Global Talent Visa” for STEM professionals and an “NHS visa” for medical staff, who will all be set on an immigration fast track. The post-study work category will return, enabling students graduating from summer 2021 to apply to stay in the UK for two years to seek employment and switch into another category.
Home Office charges
Despite the average cost of the Home Office considering an application being just £127, Home Office filing fees typically exceed £1,000 per applicant and are accompanied by other substantial charges. Unfortunately, this trend seems set to continue in 2020 with a growing concern that costs may be used as a key tool to restrict migration.
Compared to 5 years ago, the typical cost to sponsor a Tier 2 migrant has risen by over 1,000%. This will only rise further with the Government’s plan to raise the “Immigration Health Surcharge” from £400 to £625. This double tax, which requires migrants to pay up front to access NHS services, despite contributing via income tax while working in the UK, was already raised in 2019 from £200 to £400.
For further information on UK Immigration changes as they arise in 2020, please contact your assigned lawyer or email enquiries@lauradevine.com.
Appendix W
Appendix W
13 January 2020
Uptake on these new visa categories, both of which fall outside the current points-based system (PBS), has been disappointingly low, particularly as compared with their predecessor routes. In fact, the Innovator route attracted just 16 total successful main applicants in the six months since opening, while the Start-up visa saw only 290. Compare this to the 1,784 Tier 1 (Entrepreneur) and 687 Tier 1 (Graduate Entrepreneur) applications in the two quarters prior to March 2019, and it is clear that neither new route is meeting previous demand.
But why is this happening?
Process and Rules
In part, the two-stage process for both the Innovator and Start-up visas may be to blame for the low application rates. Under Tier 1 (Entrepreneur), for example, business plans and finances were reviewed simultaneously with the applications for leave. By contrast, individuals seeking permission under either the new Appendix W visas must first apply to one of the approved third-party endorsing bodies, which undertake a review the applicant’s idea and skill set to ensure that the business venture is innovative, viable, and scalable. It is only after the applicant is endorsed, a process which can take several weeks, that they may apply for leave to remain or enter the UK.
In addition to a more involved process, the underwhelming adoption may be further compounded by the limited endorsing bodies available to undertake the initial assessment. Indeed, only 35 Innovator bodies have obtained Home Office approval to date, with many only open to applicants from within their own accelerator programmes. Start-up applicants, by contrast, have 122 UK higher educational institutions they may use in addition to those bodies available to Innovators, which may account for the greater number of applications in that category.
Finally, another significant change from the legacy entrepreneur routes is that new applicants only qualify if they have a new business idea that they will actively run on a day-to-day basis. This means that endorsements will only apply to the specific venture or ventures on the application, such that foreign entrepreneurs who successfully establish, run, and subsequently sell their business – precisely the accomplished migrants the Government purportedly wishes to attract – may need to make a fresh application in order to set up a new enterprise. This alone risks dissuading some from applying in the first instance.
Looking ahead
With the introduction of the Start-up and Innovator visas, the Government has signalled its desire to move away from the present points-based system. Indeed, in light of the Government’s announced future plans for a Global Talent Visa for STEM professionals, as well as its reintroduction of the much-needed two-year Post-Study Work Visa replacement, it’s conceivable that Appendix W could be expanded to include a host of new immigration routes, all of which would fall outside of today’s points-based system.
On the other hand, Prime Minister Boris Johnson has stated that his party intends to introduce an Australian-style points-based immigration system by January 2021. With the recent Conservative general election victory, it is conceivable that an expansion of Appendix W could be shelved in favour of wiping the slate clean with a new unified and comprehensive scheme.
Could the EUSS be a second Windrush?
Could the EUSS be a second Windrush?
10 January 2020
Windrush
The UK Windrush scandal in 2018 concerned members of the ‘Windrush generation’ who were wrongly denied legal rights and NHS care, detained and (in a number of cases) deported by the Home Office.
A case which typifies Windrush is Baker v Abellio London Ltd, where Mr Baker, an individual born in Jamaica but had lived in the UK since childhood, was dismissed from his job as he was unable to provide documentation evidencing his right of abode in the UK.
Mr Baker made a claim for unfair dismissal against his former employer at the Employment Tribunal. He explained to the Tribunal that he did not apply for the relevant immigration documentation because it was legally unnecessary and he could not afford the application fee.
Whilst Mr Baker was successful in his appeal of the Employment Tribunal’s original decision to dismiss his claim, the circumstances of his case are a classic example of the challenges faced by the Windrush generation in the Conservative Party’s ‘hostile environment’. A false and often baseless equivalence of the absence of prescriptive documentation with the lack of permission to reside and work in the UK, combined with the increasingly excessive application fees to obtain immigration documentation left many individuals (and companies wishing to avoid civil and criminal penalties) helpless in their fight against the Home Office’s denial of their rights and often corresponding disproportionate enforcement action.
The European Settlement Scheme (EUSS)
The EUSS opened to applicants on 30 March 2019, allowing all EEA nationals and their family members who enter the UK before the transition period ends (currently on 31 December 2020) to apply for ‘Settled’ or ‘Pre-settled’ status which would protect their right to reside in the UK in the future.
A notable feature of the EUSS is that it is free to apply to the scheme. It could therefore be argued that, unlike Windrush, those who fail to make an application within the required timeframe will be unable to blame their inability to pay the application fees. This would, however, ignore the numerous technical and technological issues with the scheme which is likely to have left many applicants in need of inaccessible legal assistance to proceed with making their application.
Perhaps the most noteworthy similarity between Windrush and the EUSS is the emphasis on evidence or ‘status’ to live a life in the UK. Currently, EEA nationals and their family members have an automatic right to reside in the UK as a matter of fact subject to satisfying the relevant provisions of the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2016. Their right to reside in the UK is not dependent on possession of any form of documentation evidencing this right.
As noted by the Home Affairs Committee in a report in May 2019, the EUSS alters this position by requiring those who are eligible for status in the UK to actively apply for it. In February 2019, the then Home Secretary Sajid Javid confirmed that those who had not registered in the EUSS by the deadline would be in contravention of the Immigration Rules. He was, however, keen to emphasise that that such individuals would not be considered “unlawful” in the same manner as someone who has illegally entered the country. Whilst this should be reassuring, it is the view of Colin Yeo, a barrister specialising in immigration law, that it is likely it will become criminal offence for those who miss the deadline to take employment in the UK and that they are also likely to encounter difficulties in renting property and accessing medical treatment. Furthermore, the echoes of Windrush and its real-life consequences in addition to the complete lack of clarity in relation to the system which will be in the place for those who miss the deadline also makes it difficult to believe that the Home Office will adopt a somewhat humane approach, particularly given that the Home Office holds no historical records of EU citizens.
In response to the Home Affairs Committee report, a Home Office spokesman defended the EUSS by arguing that an alternative, optional system where EU citizens would not actively be required to make an application could itself cause a Windrush-type situation due to a lack of immigration documentation. The government has also defended the EUSS via the regular release of statistics which demonstrate the satisfactory take-up and performance of the scheme so far, although the basis of such statistics have been questioned.
Will the EUSS lead to a Windrush type-fallout? It is unlikely that we will get any concrete answers until the end of the transition period, although it is clear at this stage is that familiar warning signs have already arisen. Given the extremely negative reputational damage on the government following Windrush, one would hope that the Home Office will do everything in their power to remedy these warning signs before they spiral into another scandal that has the scope to affect groups of society that have made the UK their home. One way of avoiding this risk entirely could have been an automatic grant of indefinite leave to remain for all EU citizens lawfully resident in the UK as promised by Vote Leave in 2016.
Fast track science visa
Fast track science visa
6 January 2020
Brexit is feared to have detrimental effects on scientific progress in the UK. For instance, many European scientists have been leaving the UK since the referendum. Moreover, UK research institutions will no longer have access to generous EU funding, including the ground-breaking Horizon 2020 programme.
Attracting the brightest and best
With an eye on proving Britain can be a leader in innovation and scientific progress without freedom of movement, the Johnson Government announced important changes to the immigration system to “attract the brightest and best minds”. When taking office last summer, Prime Minister Johnson promised the introduction of a Global Talent Visa, which would provide a fast track entry for scientists without the need for a job offer or a fellowship.
His announcement last week to double the number of fellowships eligible for accelerated processing from 62 to 120 brings some relief to the scientific community. Nevertheless, its effects are not near to what had been promised and definitely not what would be needed for a brain gain.
Exceptional Talent visas
Currently, the Home Office allows 2000 individuals per year to enter the UK under the Tier 1 (Exceptional Talent) category. Highly skilled people who are internationally recognised and established as leaders in their field can enter the UK under this category. They first have to apply to an endorsing body, consisting of experts in their field who decide whether they qualify for such status. In case they secure the endorsement, they can apply in a second phase to the Home Office which assesses whether they fulfil the general visa requirements.
If they successfully obtain leave to enter as a Tier 1 (Exceptional Talent) migrant, in most cases they enjoy the freedom to choose their employer or be self-employed and a shorter track to obtain settlement. This confers them a privileged status over other economic migrants
Accelerated science track
Within the Tier 1 (Exceptional Talent) visa category, the “Research and Innovation Talent Visa” provides an accelerated route to obtain leave to enter. Applicants who obtain a fellowship with a recognised institution are immediately set on a fast track route for their visas. It is this list of recognised institutions which is being doubled. The full list is expected to be revealed shortly, however, amongst the new institutions are the European Research Council, Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions and Human Frontier Science.
The beginning of an ambitious scientific visa scheme?
Given the niche character of the fellowship route, the Johnson Government will have to live up to its prior immigration promises to substantially strengthen the scientific sector. For instance, the Home Office had announced in earlier communications that it is looking to remove the cap for the entire category of Tier 1 (Exceptional Talent) visas and to expand the list of endorsing bodies. We encourage these proposals and hope the Home Office will not limit itself to merely symbolic measures.
Queen’s Speech: UK immigration implications
Queen’s Speech: UK immigration implications
20 December 2019
On 19 December 2019, the Queen opened a new session of parliament and set out the recently elected Conservative government’s policy objectives in her speech.
Unsurprisingly, the speech did not contain any new substantive information in regard to Brexit and proposed changes to the UK immigration system. Instead, it mirrored recent government announcements that:
- the priority is to deliver the UK’s exit from the EU on 31 January 2020;
- the government will then negotiate and aim to secure a free trade agreement with the EU whilst also commencing trade negotiations with other leading global economies;
- they will introduce a new NHS visa which will offer fast-track entry to the UK for eligible healthcare professionals; and
- a new points-based immigration system will be introduced to “welcome skilled workers from across the world”.
Now that the Conservative government possess a sizeable majority and are thereby free from the parliamentary chains they have been shackled by in recent years, it will be interesting to monitor the extent and effectiveness of the objectives listed above by the time of the next Queen’s speech.
EU citizens: steps UK Government should take if it really “wants them to stay”
EU citizens: steps UK Government should take if it really “wants them to stay”
16 December 2019
Now that the Conservative Party under Prime Minister Johnson secured a majority in the recent general election, the fate of EU citizens in the UK will be in the Tories’ hands. Despite their clear promise to “get Brexit done”, they have always simultaneously assured EU citizens that they “want them to stay”. We have scrutinised the measures that the Government has already taken to substantiate this promise and identified the steps the Government needs to take during this new legislature to live up to this pledge.
Whilst on paper most issues have been taken care of, several loopholes still exist, due to which EU citizens could still lose their rights at a later point.
For instance, at the moment, the Home Office website clearly states that EU citizens who have obtained pre-settled status can remain outside the UK for up to two years without losing their status, with the caveat that they will have to maintain their continuous residence if they later want to qualify for settled status. To maintain their continuous residence, EU citizens must be present for at least 6 months in any 12-month period, subject to exceptions.
However, at a closer look, the rules allow for the Home Office to curtail pre-settled status from the moment that continuous residence has been broken, which can be earlier than the 2 years detailed on the Home Office website. Whilst most of the provisions in Part 9 to curtail leave don’t apply to EU citizens, a few still do, including rule 323 (ii), which states that “a person’s leave to enter or remain may be curtailed if he ceases to meet the requirements of the Rules under which his leave to enter or remain was granted”.
For example, if an EU citizen with pre-settled status moves away for a year and a half, they risk curtailment of their leave even though they intend on residing in the UK for the rest of their 5-year leave.
Not only can the Home Office later restrict EU citizens’ rights by interpreting the Immigration Rules narrowly, it also has the power to openly change them and take away vital protections. All the legal provisions concerning the EU Settlement Scheme are currently contained in the Immigration Rules, which are written by the Home Office and can be changed overnight. If the Government is serious about guaranteeing EU citizens’ rights, they ought to propose legislation in Parliament to protect them, which is much more difficult to repeal.
Furthermore, even those who secured their settled status after applying to the EUSS can be denied their rights because they have no way to prove them. The Home Office refuses to issue physical documents, such as residency cards, to prove a person’s status. As a result, people are dependent on an online register to demonstrate their residence rights. This can attract a host of problems including when the Home Office website has technical difficulties preventing access to the online records and when airline personnel demands a physical document to prove a non-EU family member’s right to reside in the UK before allowing them to board a flight and return to the UK.
The story of a Danish-Turkish couple with pre-settled status that was stuck in a Turkish airport for 24 hours illustrates that these are not just hypothetical scenarios. The Turkish spouse was prevented from boarding a British Airways flight, after the airline personnel refused to use the online verification system and did not seem to understand the concept of pre-settled status.
Given there is a political consensus that EU citizens who are currently residing in the UK should be allowed to stay, it is time for Parliament and the Government to step up their efforts to substantiate this pledge.
Natasha Chell discusses the implications of the new Brexit deal for employers
Natasha Chell discusses the implications of the new Brexit deal for employers
21 October 2019
In a recent article in the Recruiter Magazine, Natasha Chell, Partner and Head of Risk and Compliance, discusses the implications of the Prime Minister’s recently re-negotiated Brexit deal.
A Brexit deal would allow EU citizens to move to the UK until 31 December 2020 with the option to settle, giving employers some much-needed certainty and time to adjust to the new immigration system, expected from 2021.
Queen’s Speech: Brexit and Beyond
Queen’s Speech: Brexit and Beyond
14 October 2019
After a myriad of legal challenges on the prorogation of Parliament, the Queen finally delivered her speech today. With only weeks to go until Brexit, we look at the most significant provisions relating to immigration.
Ending free movement in favour of Australian-style points-based system
The proposed Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill mentioned in the Queen’s speech today is similar to the Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill published by Theresa May’s government in December 2018. This proposed Bill adds a few points, mainly related to the EU Settlement Scheme.
The Bill’s emphasis is to confirm the provisions to be put in place at the ‘end of free movement’ for EU citizens travelling to the UK after Brexit, whilst not recognising that Brexit in fact will lead to the end of free movement for the British population, who will no longer have the ability to freely travel to a Member State.
The Queen’s Speech also referred to the government’s intentions to introduce a ‘new’ points-based system, for which it has already commissioned the Migration Advisory Committee. It remains unclear as to whether Mr Johnson’s government intends to completely overhaul the current immigration system or instead, wishes to introduce additional and supplementary categories to the existing UK immigration system, which is in fact, predominantly made up of, at least in name, a points-based system.
Perhaps an indication of the government’s position is the apparent emphasis on an individual’s skills and potential contribution to the UK. Whilst this is obviously a factor to be considered, the proposals fail to engage with the industries and sectors which will be most adversely affected by the end of free movement by EEA/Swiss nationals.
Challenges to business
Last year’s White Paper seemed to recognise the labour shortages affecting business by referring to the possibility of lowering the skills threshold applicable to non-EEA/Swiss workers, but the Queen’s Speech made no acknowledgement of these prior commitments. Moreover, even if implemented, this improvement will only have a minor impact if the salary thresholds, which do not take into account the lower pay range for lower skilled jobs, remain unchanged. Particularly with the Home Secretary recently suggesting that the new immigration system will encourage overseas nationals to obtain work outside of London and the South East, the salary threshold may remain an excessive barrier for many employers’ needs.
The continuing uncertainty and anticipated administrative burden a new UK immigration system may have on individuals as well as local and global businesses is worrying. Right at a time when businesses will be feeling the effects of a post-Brexit climate, the introduction of a new, more cumbersome system for organisations to grapple with can have serious repercussions on the economy.
EU Settlement Scheme (EUSS)
While the government seems to be celebrating the fact that 1.7 million EEA/Swiss citizens have applied under the EUSS, this still leaves at least half the population of EEA/Swiss nationals in the UK having not made an application. These numbers are particularly concerning regarding vulnerable members of society, many of whom may have acquired permanent residence under the EEA Regulations, but are failing to officialise their status because they have insufficient access to information or help.
Children who may be automatically British or entitled to register as British citizens, may also be rendered victims of the hostile environment. The introduction of a deadline for applications to the settlement scheme creates a significant risk for these vulnerable people, particularly in view of the Immigration Minister’s statement last week confirming those without status would be subject to removal.
Moreover, there are ongoing concerns and confusion about the type of status EEA/Swiss citizens are being granted with many being eligible for settled status but made to believe that they should accept pre-settled status. The grant of a right of appeal is a positive and welcome change but is something that should have been in place from the commencement of the EUSS.
Second Windrush in the making?
The concern is precisely that the government’s deadlines for the EUSS will result in a second Windrush-like incident.
Moreover, as the government is simply transferring the existing compensation system into statutory provisions, this does little to address the implications of thousands of individuals suffering under the hostile environment with the onus of proof still lying disproportionately on the individual.