Home Office hits international students – again

By Frances Webber

New rules, to make it harder for international students to come and study in the UK, will become law unless Parliament intervenes.

On 22 July, the Home Office published rule changes which make life more difficult for international students. One of the changes says that from now on, graduates from UK universities who wish to stay here for work must prove that their bank balance never fell below £800 in the previous three months. Another says that students wishing to come to the UK to study English must be proficient in English to a high standard.

The rule changes are a bitter disappointment because they reverse the effect of legal rulings won by students and English language colleges in June and July.

The saga started in 2008, when the Home Office introduced new rules for international students who had graduated in the UK and wished to stay here for work, as part of its new points-based system of ‘migration management’. The government was keen to encourage graduates, seen as the ‘best and brightest’, to stay on and infuse British industry, banks and boardrooms with new talent, but wanted to ensure that the graduates could support themselves while they were looking for jobs. So the new rules introduced in 2008 required graduates to show that they had £800 in their bank accounts. The rules did not say how long the money had to be there.

Anastasia Pankina, an international student and a graduate from a UK university, applied to stay on and enclosed a bank statement for the month preceding the application, showing that she had £800 in her account. She was refused. The Home Office said that the £800 must have been in her account for three months before making the application. Although the rules didn’t say this, Home Office policy guidance did, and the Home Office argued that the rules incorporated the policy, leaving officials no discretion but to refuse the application. Ms Pankina and other students, similarly refused, took the Home Office to court, arguing that since they fulfilled the requirements set out in the immigration rules, they could not be refused on the basis of additional requirements contained in a policy. The rules, they said, were required by law to be put before Parliament, to give MPs the chance to vote on them. The Home Office could not get round that legal requirement by making policy and claiming the policy modified the rules.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the students, in a judgment issued in June. The requirement to have had the money in their bank accounts for three months was unlawful, the judges ruled, as Parliament had not had a chance to look at it and perhaps vote against it. Lord Justice Sedley referred to a 400-year-old case which established that the King and his ministers could not make new law without going through Parliament, and held that the same fundamental constitutional law applied today.

The Court of Appeal’s judgment was followed by another case in July. This time, the Home Office had issued new guidance to English language schools that they were not to enrol students below level B2 of the European standard for language proficiency – which requires students to be able to speak and understand the language to a high level before they embark on the course. A group of English language schools got together and challenged the guidance in the High Court, which held that the guidance was unlawful, once again because it had not been put before Parliament.

In mid-July, the Home Office indicated that it did not intend to appeal the judgments, and issued fresh guidance to its case-workers saying that until further notice, graduates wishing to stay only had to show they had had £800 on one day before making the application. But the further notice was not long in coming – within a week, the three-months requirement was in new immigration rules, which were laid before Parliament on 22 July, and came into force the following day. The rules also stipulated the minimum level of English for English students as that which had formerly been in its guidance.

The only difference is that MPs now have forty days from 22 July – excluding holidays – to vote against the new rules. The ball is in their court.

High Court quashes policy of speedy deportations

Reuters report that the High Court has quashed a Home Office policy which allows for the swift deportation of foreign nationals refused permission to remain Britain, saying it is unlawful.

The court ruled that the policy, introduced in 2007 but widened earlier this year, meant those affected had “little or no notice” of removal and so were deprived of access to justice.

The Border Agency’s general policy allows 72 hours notice of removal but this can be reduced to little or none at all for people in certain categories, such as those believed to be at risk of self-harm or unaccompanied children who might abscond because they cannot be detained.

The case was brought by Medical Justice, a body which provides independent medical and legal advice to detainees in immigration removal centres.

It argued that this “exceptions policy” was being used to swoop late at night and escort people to flights leaving only a few hours later, depriving them of the ability to contact lawyers and launch a last-ditch challenge.

The Home Office argued that its policy was “sufficiently flexible” to ensure there were no human rights breaches and that detainees were given as much notice as possible while safeguards had also been put in place.

But judge Justice Silber rejected that argument, the Press Association reported.

“The policy is unlawful and must be quashed,” he said.

However, he did allow the Home Office permission to appeal against his decision, saying the case raised issues of general public importance, including the constitutional right of access to justice.

A Home Office spokesman said they were disappointed with the verdict and would appeal.

“The policy of making limited exceptions in special circumstances to 72-hour notification of immigration removal has been an important element of our management of removals,” he said.

“The government remains committed to removing individuals with no right to be in the UK as quickly as possible.”

Huge public support boosts Leicester Tigers star

Leicester Tigers’ rising star Manu Tuilagi can expect a decision over his work permit sooner than expected – thanks to Tigers fans and Mercury readers.

The lawyer fighting the case says the huge local public support for Tuilagi’s cause has been a big help in attracting the attention of those in the corridors of power.

Chris Randall, of London law firm Bates, Wells and Braithwaite, is hopeful that a decision on the 19-year-old’s future could come in the next few days.

The Mercury revealed nearly two weeks ago that Tuilagi was facing deportation back to his native Samoa after his application to stay in England and earn a living as professional with the Tigers was turned down by the Home Office.

Read more

New hope Leicester Tigers star Tuigali

There is fresh hope that a rising Leicester Tigers star fighting deportation may be able to stay in Britain.

Immigration officials have now called Manu Tuigali’s lawyer and told the Mercury they were “keen to achieve a solution” for the teenager.

On Monday, it was reported that Manu had his application to stay in the UK turned down by the Home Office, meaning he faces being sent back to his native Samoa.

It was a major blow for the 19-year-old, who was about to be offered a professional contract at Welford Road after rising through the ranks at the Tigers academy.

Read more

Tigers battle to stop deportation of Tuilagi

Leicester Tigers are fighting to stop one of their brightest young prospects being deported.

Manu Tuilagi, the latest of a Samoan family’s dynasty to play for the club, has had his request for a work permit turned down by the Home Office.

It means the 19-year-old is not allowed to play for the club professionally, and could be sent back to the Pacific Islands.

Leicester’s head of operations, Simon Cohen, said the decision had left Tuilagi “devastated”, but pledged the club would do everything it could to fight the decision.

Full story

Deportation news led to Darfuri’s suicide

By Robert Verkaik

The prospect of certain torture in Sudan was too much for Abdullah Idris, but serious failings in Britain led to his death.

Abdullah Hagar Idris had been counting the days to his release from prison so he could start a new life in Britain after fleeing persecution in his Darfur homeland.

But on Christmas Eve 2007 a prison officer handed the 18-year-old a document making it clear that the Home Office had decided he was to be kept behind bars pending deportation.

The news came as a cruel shock to the young man who could not bear the thought of returning to Sudan where he knew he would be hunted down and murdered by the feared Arab militia.

Read full story

Congo Support Project funding appeal

By Melanie Singhji

The Congo Support Project is struggling to secure funding for its vital services.

After recent grant applications were rejected, money for the everyday running of the Project, which provides a voice for the Congolese community in Britain, has become extremely tight, and there are increasing concerns about the possibility of continuing to offer the services upon which its users heavily rely. Seeing around 150 people a month, the Project provides support and interpretation services for people facing the bewildering rules of housing, education, employment and benefit systems. For those still seeking asylum or being held in detention, the Project offers legal, emotional and moral support, and provides assistance in bail and asylum applications.

Based in London and Manchester, the Congo Support Project has been working since 2007 to raise awareness about the plight of the Democratic Republic of Congo and those that flee to Britain. By informing public opinion about the current human rights abuses, and the political, humanitarian and socio-economic situation of the country arising from political repression and persecution, the Project has been able to raise awareness of the need for asylum, and of the dangers of deporting Congolese refugees back to the DRC. The Project was integral in the campaign of 2007 that successfully forced the Home Office to temporarily suspend deportations to the country and grant leave to remain to many Congolese families.

You can support the project by contacting CSP Manchester on 0161 835 1285. Alternatively, you can email: csp_manchester@yahoo.co.uk (mailto: csp_manchester@yahoo.co.uk )

Congo Support Group ( http://www.congosupportproject.co.uk/)

Judge orders Home Office to stop deportations

By Peter Walker

A high court judge has ordered the Home Office to halt the deportation of foreign nationals with almost no warning after a legal challenge argued the process denies people access to justice before they are removed.

Immigration lawyers say officials have used the policy, introduced in 2007, to swoop late at night and escort people to flights leaving only a few hours later, meaning they cannot speak to a lawyer and challenge the order.

View full article

Human rights claims and rights of appeal

Free Movement – BA (Nigeria) [2009] UKSC 7 in the Supreme Court did not create a right of appeal against refusal of a human rights claim. A right of appeal to the tribunal can only ever exist where an ‘immigration decision’ is made, as exhaustively and (almost*) exclusively defined at section 82 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002.
Read more

A continuing backlog of asylum cases

Read more

« Previous Page — Next Page »