1.    Migrants who have already obtained a second extension to their HSMP and have not got their Indefinite Leave to Remain should have their fee waived and be awarded back dated ILR, or a letter issued confirming the time spent by the individual over 4 years will be counted towards future citizenship.

2.    Migrants who have paid for a second extension and additionally paid for their ILR should be issued a refund for the amount they paid for their ILR and migrants who have been granted ILR after 5 years should be allowed to apply for British nationality immediately.

3.    As well as those who paid for their second extension, the ILR and further obtained British Citizenship should be issued a refund for the amount they paid for the ILR.

4.    Children who have become over 18 years of age due to the extension from 4 to 5 yrs and had to apply separately for a visa should have their fees refunded.

5.    There should be no requirement to submit the Life in the UK and English language Test when making an ILR application for pre 3rd April 2006 HSMP migrants as these requirements can not be applied retrospectively in accordance with the high court order (point 1) and the judgment to apply such new requirements now.

6.    Those who were on a work permit and switched to HSMP before 3rd April 2006 should be allowed to count the time spent on work permit to their 4 years ILR application.

7.    Those migrants (and their dependants) who lost their UK Immigration tribunal appeals and either left the UK or were issued with discretionary leave should be issued a backdated ILR or a letter acknowledging the time after the ILR refusal will be carried forward for their citizenship application.

8.    Those migrants (and their dependants) who ended up becoming overstayers after refusal of their 4 years ILR application should have their UK immigration status restored by issuing an ILR. Additionally, those migrants and their dependants who left the UK due to the April 2006 ILR changes should be allowed to return and the time spent abroad acknowledged under these issues.

9.       The pre 3rd April 2006 settlement criteria that allowed 180 days of absence from the UK in 4 years should be applied to pre 3rd April 2006 migrants. The qualifying criteria/requirements for ILR should be considered only up to the date of completion of four years for those admitted before 3rd April 2006.

10.   The facility to apply in person at Public Enquiry Offices for ILR should be applicable for all those who joined HSMP scheme prior to 3rd April 06 and pre November 06 without having to incur an extra ‘premium service’ fee as this will allow those who already suffered due to the ILR changes to be able to obtain settlement at the earliest without the need to wait further.

11.   The criteria for ILR application which was in existence before 3rd April 2006 (and accordingly for those admitted between 3rd April 2006 and as at 7th November 2006) or when the migrants were admitted under the HSMP scheme should be fully reinstated. No further or additional criteria should be applied for settlement. ILR should not be interchanged with Probationary Citizenship or any other immigration changes in the future as it will not be in accordance with the court order (1) and our JR judgment.

12.   There are some migrants (admitted pre 3rd April 2006) who have paid overseas student fees to enrol in university or college for themselves or their dependants due to the 5th year. They should be given appropriate letters to inform the university or college to rectify the overseas student fees and consider them on local fees thereafter. Since most of the Universities are state owned it should not be difficult for UKBA to rectify this issue.

13.   Those migrants who left UK after the November 2006 changes and returned back and those subsequently returning to the UK as per the HSMP Forum Limited policy document of 9th July 2008 should be issued with a letter confirming the time spent abroad will be acknowledged for their ILR. Though the policy document acknowledges the time spent abroad will be carried forward for their ILR application but no such letter is being issued on individual basis in this regard. We believe this can have possible problem in future for the individuals concerned when making an application for ILR.

14.   We believe apart from those admitted / approved before 3rd April 2006 in the HSMP scheme, migrants who have submitted their applications for HSMP approval before 3rd April 2006 but received an approval letter after 3rd April 2006 should also be considered for ILR after 4 years because they applied for HSMP based on the guidelines prevalent at the time.

Outside the scope of the Judgment  – Wishful thinking??

15.   This is of immense interest to those of our members who are on UK work permits and UK Ancestral Visas that the Home Office’s stand in its earlier communications to HSMP Forum and also during our Judicial Review proceedings has been that the ILR 4 to 5 years April 2006 changes is concerned with all immigration categories and not just HSMP.

Although the UKBA is not obliged to make any changes for other categories in light of our recent Judicial Review Judgment we suggest, keeping in view of the UKBA’s own stand on this matter,  it would only be fair to apply the new policy benefits to other skilled immigration categories as well namely work permit and Ancestral Visa.

How optimistic are you the Home Office will respect the courts judgement and implement the necessary changes? Leave your comments below.

Justice Cox, guardian of equal rights, friend of HSMP

The UK government have failed in their latest attempt to enforce ‘unlawful’ changes to the Highly Skilled Migrant Programme (HSMP) visa holders.

The High Court ruled on Monday in favour of the HSMP Forum, which means the UK government must stick to their original commitment to HSMP visa holders who applied before November 2006.

HSMP visa holders were originally told they would have to work in the UK for four years but then the Home Office unfairly applied retrospective changes to those who applied before the new changes were introduced, meaning they would have to work an additional one year in order to be eligible for Indefinite Leave to Remain.

The HSMP Forum won the Judicial Review against the Home Office on 6th April with the High Court ruling the Home Office acted unlawfully in applying the changes retrospectively.

In her judgment, Justice Cox DBE remarked, “The ratio of the decision, in my view, is clear.  It was a substantive, legitimate expectation of all those on the HSMP that they would enjoy the benefits of the programme, as they were at the time they joined it.”

The executive director of the HSMP Forum, Amit Kapadia, welcomed the landmark victory, “The Home Office’s continued attempts to apply policies which cannot withstand legal scrutiny only suggests that there is a dearth of skilled policy makers and Ministers. HSMP Forum hopes that the Home Office will learn its lessons and avoid a repetition of applying such unlawful retrospective legislations in the future.”

Are you one of the thousands of highly skilled workers who have contributed to the UK work force and economy, paying your taxes and building a life in the UK? How have you been affected by the Home Office’s unfair UK immigration policy? Leave your comments below.

US and UK immigration given vote of confidence

US immigration officials have been voted the rudest in the world in an online survey by travel and social networking site WAYN.com (Where Are You Now?).

In the survey 2250 passengers were asked questions about baggage handling, customs and security at major international airports.

American immigration officials came out worst, followed by India and Russia.

“Our survey would suggest that the US customs and immigration need to address their attitude towards visitors, simplify the form filling, generally be a lot more welcoming and better reflect the personality of the American people,” said Jerome Touze, joint founder and joint chief executive of the site.

Despite the the USA immigration verdict, New York’s JFK performed well in the security question coming joint first with London Heathrow, which was also voted the most annoying airport for passport queues followed closely 2nd by JFK.

Tell us your experiences of immigration around the world, who do you think sucks? What’s been your best and worst experience? Stories related to mile high are particularly welcome.  Leave your comments below and read some experiences of UK immigration!

This comes as a Pakistani traveller found without a visa was sentenced to 5 years in prison for staying in India illegally. As the judge, Arijit Pasayat, said, “Considering the large number of infiltrators coming to India without valid documents, there is a need for imposing stricter sentences.”

“Applying for a visa to India is not a difficult process,” says Ajay Hasija of www.globalvisas.com. “It is just a matter of going through the process and abiding by the visa’

The Supreme Court in India has announced that they will show absolutely no leniency toward those in India without the correct papers no matter what the circumstances.