Source: http://asadakhan.wordpress.com/2011/08/11/points-based-system-switching-etcetera/
Timestamp: 2014-07-24 10:40:37
Document Index: 300977016

Matched Legal Cases: ['EWCA ', 'EWCA ', 'EWCA ', 'EWCA ', 'EWCA ', 'UKSC ', 'UKPC ', 'EWCA ', 'UKSC ']

Points-based system, switching, etcetera | United Kingdom Immigration Law Blog
← Domestic violence and settlement: a Gujarati case
A letter from Manchester →
Points-based system, switching, etcetera	Posted on August 11, 2011	by mkp From July onwards last year Tier 1 (Post-Study Work) visa holders began to face difficulties in switching into Tier 2 (General) because it became virtually impossible to get the UKBA to grant new CoS in the £20,000–£23,999.99 salary band.
New sponsors on the Sponsorship Register who had their limits set to zero and requested initial CoS faced the difficult task of applying to the UKBA under a monthly allocation process which was considered by a panel of the agency’s managers; the panel granted CoS applications in accordance with earnings; the formula used by the panel dictated that requests for CoS which satisfied the £30,000–£40,000 salary range should receive priority.
On 19 July 2010 the UKBA introduced the CoS(AR) form on its website by virtue of which applications for initial or additional CoS were made. With the imposition of the permanent limit following the 6 April 2011 changes to the Immigration Rules, the CoS(AR) form was removed from the agency’s website.
In contrast to the interim limit, the introduction of the permanent limit on Tier 2 (General) on 6 April 2011 seems to have restored the equilibrium for post-study workers which existed prior to the current government’s ascent to power; this is so because at present post-study workers may obtain 30 points while switching into Tier 2 (General) (without satisfying the Resident Labour Market Test) if they work continuously for six months for the same employer–prior to switching into Tier 2 (General).
Where an employer offers a £20,000 per annum salary to a post-study worker switching into Tier 2 (General), the worker will get 20 points more and, with the 30 points from above, will accumulate a total of 50 points; requiring a further 10 points each for English and maintenance to achieve the necessary total of 70 points. (To get an initial visa for 3 years which may be extended for a further two years and may result in the grant of settlement if less than 6 months is spent outside the UK in the total five years.)
Although the Tier 1 (Post-Study Work) visa will be deleted from the immigration rules in April 2012, the introduction of the permanent limit has brought with it the emollient feature that existing post-study workers are able to switch into Tier 2 (General) using “unrestricted” CoS (which are not subjected to a limit). It should be noted, however, that this is no great new innovation because it is precisely what was practised by the UKBA (without the “restricted” and “unrestricted” CoS jargon) prior to the Coalition government’s immigration cap.
The other avenue open to post-study workers–given that over the last couple of years 38,000 such visas were granted annually, there must be tens of thousands of immigrants in the UK under this category–is to switch into the Tier 1 (Entrepreneur) category; the new £50,000 version should provide clever foreigners an opportunity to stay in the UK if they get funding from (i) one or more registered venture capital firms regulated by the FSA; (ii) one or more UK entrepreneurial seed funding competitions which is listed as endorsed on the UK Trade & Investment website (see previous post here); or (iii) one or more UK Government Departments (made available by the Department(s) for the specific purpose of establishing or expanding a UK business).
The freshly launched Tier 1 (Exceptional Talent) category has been restricted to entry clearance applications and the UKBA has explained that “There is no provision in the Immigration Rules for a person already in the United Kingdom in another category of stay to switch in-country into the Tier 1 (Exceptional Talent) category.” Therefore, people already in the UK shouldn’t get their hopes up about extending their stay under this category.
Moreover, the closure of Tier 1 (General) has meant that many migrants who wish to come to the UK are left with no option but to consider the £200,000 Tier 1 (Entrepreneur) visa. Even in-country, post-study workers are, of course, not able to switch into Tier 1 (General). Since “employment”–as interpreted in the Immigration Rules–includes “self-employment and engaging in business or any professional activity”, any post-study workers who have legitimately acquired a UK business of their own would find it quite easy (if they can match the high capital threshold) to switch into the £200,000 entrepreneur category.
The great thing about the Tier 1 (Entrepreneur) route is that entrepreneurs who create at least ten full-time jobs in 3 years’ time qualify for settlement in 3 years–in fairness to the Coalition government this nifty variation does belong to them. Equally, provided that an entrepreneurial business can exhibit a turnover of £5,000,000 or more, settlement rights can be acquired after 3 years.
The revised Tier 1 (Investor) visa provides opportunities to migrants to acquire even more accelerated settlement (and ultimately citizenship) rights in the UK. But in attracting investors the government’s dilemma is that the UK’s economy is doing badly–“plagued by high inflation and low interest rates and mayhem in the world’s financial markets”–and the authorities are also struggling to keep public order.
The recent riots have done a lot of damage to the UK’s reputation as a civilised, peaceful and democratic country. After all that happened the country’s politicians will have to work very hard indeed to restore domestic and international confidence in the UK as a place which is good for business: the deaths of three Asian men in Birmingham are at the apex of the problem confronting the UK.
In a less serious matter, the PBS judicial review JCWI, R (on the application of) v SSHD, [2010] EWHC 3524 (Admin)–apologies to reduce this to etcetera for now–has landed up in the UK Supreme Court.
On 8 July 2011 the Supreme Court (Lords Hope, Brown and Dyson) granted the government permission to appeal. The proceedings should be really fantastic to watch on UK Supreme Court live.
In the Divisional Court, both JCWI and ECCA won on the ground that the manner in which the limits for Tier 1 and Tier 2 were imposed was unlawful in the light of the decision of the Court of Appeal in Pankina v SSHD [2010] EWCA Civil 719, [2010] 3 WLR 1526.
In the event that the SSHD loses on appeal, the decision will have a lasting effect on the manner in which future government policy in relation to immigration will be structured.
This is a very important case because the question which the Supreme Court will be answering is whether the SSHD acted lawfully by side-stepping the full requirements of the Immigration Act 1971 when she imposed interim limits on Tiers 1 and 2 of the PBS.
For the sake of completeness it is worth remembering that the UKBA’s use of a monthly allocation panel to “exceptionally consider” CoS applications–using the CoS(AR) form–was not found to be irrational by Lord Justice Sullivan in the Divisional Court in the JCWI case.
Advocate High Courts of Pakistan	View all posts by Asad Khan →	This entry was posted in Employment, Immigration Cap, Immigration Rules, JCWI, Pankina, PBS, Tier 1, Tier 2, UKSC, Uncategorized and tagged AP (Russia), Entrepreneurs, Immigration Cap, Immigration Rules, Investors, Pankina, Points Based System, UK Supreme Court. Bookmark the permalink.	← Domestic violence and settlement: a Gujarati case
One Response to Points-based system, switching, etcetera
Tahir Ashraf says:	September 29, 2011 at 10:30 pm	Public order and the economy. I believe what the uk needs is more cuts. But nit the sort that we are becoming accustomed to seeing. In fact a cut in the VAT rate might assist consumer confidence. Having said that investors faced with the prospect of being able to integrate sooner will still face the hurdles associated with integration.
RT @AsylumAid: Legal Aid barrister of the year @S_Chelvan on credibility in #LGB asylum claims, bit.ly/1x0Dip5 Reliance on stereoty… 14 hours ago
Advocate General Sharpston: Charter Constrains “Verifying” Asylum Claimants’ Sexual Orientation nblo.gs/YFmNo 17 hours ago
Advocate General Sharpston: Charter Constrains “Verifying” Asylum Claimants’ Sexual Orientation wp.me/pYES9-1aO 17 hours ago
NetworkedBlogsBlog:United Kingdom Immigration Law BlogTopics:Immigration, Human Rights, Law Follow my blog	New Immigration CasesBudhathoki (reasons for decisions) [2014] UKUT 341 (IAC) (1 July 2014)Greenwood (Automatic Deportation: Order of Events) [2014] UKUT 342 (IAC) (15 July 2014)SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT v MDLULI [2014] ScotCS CSIH_68 (23 July 2014)Khan, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2014] EWHC 2494 (Admin) (23 July 2014)T, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2014] EWHC 2453 (Admin) (22 July 2014)Singh v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2014] EWCA Civ 932 (12 June 2014)Palisetty v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2014] EWHC 2473 (QB) (21 July 2014)Johnson, R (on the application of) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department [2014] EWHC 2386 (Admin) (17 July 2014)PJ (Sri Lanka) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2014] EWCA Civ 1011 (18 July 2014)NA v Secretary of State for the Home Department & Anor [2014] EWCA Civ 995 (17 July 2014)O v The Secretary of State for the Home Department [2014] EWCA Civ 990 (17 July 2014)AT and Others (Article 15c; risk categories) (CG) [2014] UKUT 318 (IAC) (14 July 2014)OPINION OF LADY SMITH IN THE MOTION BY THE APPLICANT BY K.Y. No. 2 AGAINST THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT [2014] ScotCS CSIH_63 (09 July 2014)OPINION OF LORD PENTLAND IN THE CAUSE Z &c FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW OF A FAILURE AND DELAY IN THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT MEETING THE COSTS INCURRED AS A RESULT OF THE REFUSAL TO GRANT LEAVE TO ENTER THE UK [2014] ScotCS CSOH_111 (03 July 2014)R (on the application of AA) v The London Borough of Ealing (IJR) [2014] UKUT 317 (IAC) (19 June 2014)T & Anor, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department & Anor [2014] UKSC 35 (18 June 2014)TA and Others (Kareem explained) [2014] UKUT 316 (IAC) (18 June 2014)McLarty (Deportation - proportionality balance) [2014] UKUT 315 (IAC) (16 June 2014)Durrani (Entrepreneurs: bank letters; evidential flexibility) (Rev 1) [2014] UKUT 295 (IAC) (13 June 2014)Fayyaz (Entrepreneurs: paragraph 41-SD(a)(i) - provided to) [2014] UKUT 296 (IAC) (13 June 2014)Case-Law (Support Bailii)
ⓝⓔⓦ Bimini Blue Coalition Ltd v The Prime Minister of The Bahamas & Ors (The Bahamas) [2014] UKPC 23 (24 July 2014): bit.ly/1x5ugXP 34 minutes ago
ⓝⓔⓦ Cartus Corporation & Anor v Sidell & Anor [2014] EWHC 2492 (QB) (24 July 2014): bit.ly/1nuUu4Q 34 minutes ago
ⓝⓔⓦ Siroka (Order of the Court) (French Text) [2014] EUECJ C-459/13_CO (17 July 2014): bit.ly/1x5uhLp 34 minutes ago
ⓝⓔⓦ Airtours Holidays Transport Ltd v Revenue And Customs [2014] EWCA Civ 1033 (24 July 2014): bit.ly/1nuUwd0 34 minutes ago
ⓝⓔⓦ Bhatnagar v General Medical Council [2014] EWHC 2562 (Admin) (24 July 2014): bit.ly/1x5uhuZ 34 minutes ago
ⓝⓔⓦ Greenwood (Automatic Deportation: Order of Events) [2014] UKUT 342 (IAC) (15 July 2014): bit.ly/1tEAgqz 1 hour ago
ⓝⓔⓦ Budhathoki (reasons for decisions) [2014] UKUT 341 (IAC) (1 July 2014): bit.ly/1tEAgXs 1 hour ago
ⓝⓔⓦ Hendy v Ministry of Justice [2014] EWHC 2535 (Ch) (23 July 2014): bit.ly/1npRPcs 18 hours ago
ⓝⓔⓦ London Borough of Barking and Dagenham v C & Ors [2014] EWHC 2472 (Fam) (03 July 2014): bit.ly/1x1qbnA 18 hours ago
ⓝⓔⓦ Symes v St George's Healthcare NHS Trust [2014] EWHC 2505 (QB) (23 July 2014): bit.ly/1rt6jKm 19 hours ago
ⓝⓔⓦ DSD & Anor v The Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis [2014] EWHC 2493 (QB) (23 July 2014): bit.ly/1tA4vPr 19 hours ago
ⓝⓔⓦ VS v The Home Office [2014] EWHC 2483 (QB) (22 July 2014): bit.ly/1tA4vPh 19 hours ago
ⓝⓔⓦ Bentham, R (on the application of) v HMP Usk and Prescoed & Anor [2014] EWHC 2469 (Admin) (23 July 2014): bit.ly/WCS6iE 20 hours ago
ⓝⓔⓦ Redhill Aerodrome Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Ors [2014] EWHC 2476 (Ad... bit.ly/1sQvGYw 20 hours ago
ⓝⓔⓦ IM Properties Development Ltd v Lichfield District Council & Ors [2014] EWHC 2440 (Admin) (18 July 2014): bit.ly/1pETKsv 20 hours ago
ⓝⓔⓦ SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT v MDLULI [2014] ScotCS CSIH_68 (23 July 2014): bit.ly/1pF7tQ1 21 hours ago
ⓝⓔⓦ AMIESON v O'NEILL & Anor [2014] ScotCS CSOH_117 (22 July 2014): bit.ly/WCuzhK 21 hours ago
ⓝⓔⓦ BOUGUES E & S CONTRACTING UK LTD v VITAL ENERGI UITILITIES LTD FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW [2014] ScotCS CSOH_115 ... bit.ly/1pF7tPS 21 hours ago
ⓝⓔⓦ FRIENDS OF LOCH ETIVE FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW 2014] ScotCS CSOH_116 (22 July 2014): bit.ly/WCuz1p 21 hours ago
ⓝⓔⓦ SUPPLEMENTARY OPINION BY THE LORD JUSTICE CLERK IN APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE BY S CONNAL v HER MAJESTY'S ADV... bit.ly/WCuA5m 21 hours ago
UKSC Tweets @chrismccork Hi Chris, it will start streaming when the case begins shortly. 1 hour ago
Judgment next Weds 0945: whether Agricultural Sector (Wales) Bill is within legislative competence of Welsh Assembly ow.ly/yJpm0 3 weeks ago
Follow me on TwitterMy TweetsCorporate Law Tweets Error: Twitter did not respond. Please wait a few minutes and refresh this page.UKILB on Twitter RT @AsylumAid: Legal Aid barrister of the year @S_Chelvan on credibility in #LGB asylum claims, bit.ly/1x0Dip5 Reliance on stereoty… 14 hours ago
@S_Chelvan well said; ignorance is bliss and tons of it about too 14 hours ago