Thought Leader – Immigration & Nationality – A. Sriharan (Sriharans Solicitors)
I have been a Practitioner and Solicitor of England and Wales for 33 years. More than 28 years of my Practice has been absorbed by the Immigration, Nationality and Human Rights Practice. The Practice involves applications, representations to the Home Office and conducting cases from the First Tier Tribunal to the House of Lords (in the past) and now Supreme Courts. I enjoy my area of practice in this field because it delivers liberty, life, a future and prosperity to my successful clients.
Settlement in UK
Since 2012, I have been experiencing an agony of inhuman, unjust and unfair laws and dispensing justice. Prior to 2012, Immigrants on various walks of lives were able to achieve UK residency, which is fondly referred by the Immigrants as ‘Permanent Residence’ and legal term as ‘Indefinite Leave to remain’. The changes since 2012 up to now have brought grief to many families of Immigrants who are already settled in the UK.
Family members who are settled in the UK fall within the dream category of the Government who are called ‘hard working people’, but they cannot bring their parents to live with them. The change of rules only allows entry clearance if the parents cannot take care of themselves. Even without being recourse to public funds, parents over 65 cannot enjoy their retirement in settlement with their children in the UK. The rights to appeal on family visits have also been withdrawn. Refusals on technical grounds are on large scales.
Immigrants who are well settled with jobs in the UK and who have adequate income cannot bring their spouses who remain abroad, and also cannot join the spouse in UK unless he or she has higher level of fluency to pass the English Language Test. This test should have been at least applied to the marriages after the implementation of this rule, instead it is applied to the very old marriages and spouses too.
‘Access to Justice’ has become a household name in Legal and Judicial circles. This is simply because of the cuts in Legal Aid funding. In Immigration and Human Rights Law access to justice has been deprived on two fronts; firstly, with the Legal Aid cuts, and in addition to that, withdrawal of rights to appeal in many categories of applications to the Home Office. In the event of a decision which does not attract a right of appeal, the only choice is to seek redress to the Administrative Court (High Court) or Upper Tribunal by way of Judicial Review application. Such application would only be on Point of Law or Error in Law and is enormously expensive for an ordinary man.
Asylum Law
Asylum Law in my view has positively developed in the past 30 years. Earlier it was relied on UN Convention for Refugees 1951. Thereafter, the Human Rights Act 1998 had been installed within the UK Laws. During the landmark case of ‘Sivakumaran and Others’, in which I was also involved, the House of Lords gave guidelines that the expected ‘Standard of Proof’ is not beyond reasonable doubt and not based on a balance of probabilities, but a lower threshold ‘Standard of Proof’ by ‘reasonable degree of likelihood’. This definition made the Asylum Law Practitioners and their Asylums Seekers lives slightly easier.
New weapon to prevent access to Justice
In Nationality applications there is no right of appeal but the application fees have been increased on regular basis. For a single person to apply for Nationality after living in this country for many years and paying taxes, the fee is £1236. The cost for an ideal hardworking family with two children would be £4344. The other scenario is in limited appeal rights; the court fees for the appeals have been drastically increased many fold. This is not to cover the cost of the administration and judicial process, but to deter people from appealing and exercising their right of appeal to have access to justice. The latest increase to appeal to the First Tier Tribunal against an Immigration decision was £140 per person in the family. From the 10th October the fees increased from £140 to £800.
There has been no agitation or lobbying against these unfair administrative rules. There are no consumer lobbies or Immigrant lobbies or even the opposition from MPs or Community Groups. Is it because it only affects the Immigrants?
General view on Service to Clients
With all the difficulties, hurdles and injustice, I still enjoy the practice of Immigration and Human Rights Law. The mantra I preach to the clients is to come clean and tell the truth to your lawyer, who will find the appropriate solution and the best outcome. I tell them: “The system in this country is good. Therefore do not fight the system but fight within the system.”
