Jump to content




Photo

Legacy Cases (further leave to remain)


  • Please log in to reply
246 replies to this topic

#21 ashyyyyy

ashyyyyy

    Prefered Member

  • Active Members
  • 1,740 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:United Kingdom
  • uk

Posted 26 June 2008 - 04:43 PM

We applied for FLR(M) on 27th October 2007 and had it refused on 28 january 2008.



have you made any further representation after the refusal



Gezimalia, we wanted to overturn the descision by going through a Judicial review but our new solicitor told us just 2days ago that he has contacted a barrister and that barrister told him, our case has no merits (not a good case) as our old solicitors wrote a 'Letter before action' to home office asking wrong questions and made it easy for HO to answer. So we are going to see our solicitor tommorow as he tells us that we still have a chance by making a fresh claim for FLR(M).

KM2007, as my lovely friend ashyyyy said, i received the legacy case questionnaire and have posted the questions on this forum somwhere.


pathaniprincess they were 3 caselaws which where decided by the House of Lords yesterday. yes you have a massive chance for a fresh claim on article 8 grounds now. you can also tell your solicitor to send representations to your legacy team citing the caselaws below. that will make your legacy case even stronger

http://www.bailii.or...HL/2008/39.html
http://www.bailii.or...HL/2008/40.html
http://www.bailii.or...HL/2008/41.html

good luck my friend



#22 pathaniprincess07

pathaniprincess07

    Senior Member

  • Active Members
  • 158 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:uk
  • uk

Posted 26 June 2008 - 05:03 PM

Hey ashyy! thanx for that new information!!!
Yea omg, actually, i forgot to add that our solicitor did say that the barrister had told him about a 'fresh claim' being good on our case as we could use the article 8 but he didnt fully say why etc but i guess this is why!
So yes! thanx so much for this new information! i will tell our solicitor about these 3 caselaws.

#23 gezimalia

gezimalia

    Senior Member

  • Active Members
  • 205 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:london
  • uk

Posted 26 June 2008 - 06:13 PM

pathaniprincess07'

Was your case delt with by Case Resolution Dirctorate when you receivde the refusal

#24 pathaniprincess07

pathaniprincess07

    Senior Member

  • Active Members
  • 158 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:uk
  • uk

Posted 26 June 2008 - 06:41 PM

Hiya gezimalia.
If you mean the FLR(M) case then no, at that time the CRD wasn't dealing with our case when we received our refusal.
After like a month of our FLR(M) was refused, we phoned a number for the CRteam to see if my hubby was one who came under legacy case and they only told us then that indeed our case was a legacy. Then another two months with pressure from MP and important document of Ombudsmans findings they sent us this questionnaire which we are now waiting for.

#25 iraqimmigrant

iraqimmigrant

    Prefered Member

  • Active Members
  • 1,378 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • uk

Posted 26 June 2008 - 07:16 PM

I did not understand these extensive caselaws ,can anybody summarize what has happened in the house of lords?
thanks
Iraqimmigrant

We applied for FLR(M) on 27th October 2007 and had it refused on 28 january 2008.



have you made any further representation after the refusal



Gezimalia, we wanted to overturn the descision by going through a Judicial review but our new solicitor told us just 2days ago that he has contacted a barrister and that barrister told him, our case has no merits (not a good case) as our old solicitors wrote a 'Letter before action' to home office asking wrong questions and made it easy for HO to answer. So we are going to see our solicitor tommorow as he tells us that we still have a chance by making a fresh claim for FLR(M).

KM2007, as my lovely friend ashyyyy said, i received the legacy case questionnaire and have posted the questions on this forum somwhere.


pathaniprincess they were 3 caselaws which where decided by the House of Lords yesterday. yes you have a massive chance for a fresh claim on article 8 grounds now. you can also tell your solicitor to send representations to your legacy team citing the caselaws below. that will make your legacy case even stronger

http://www.bailii.or...HL/2008/39.html
http://www.bailii.or...HL/2008/40.html
http://www.bailii.or...HL/2008/41.html

good luck my friend





#26 pathaniprincess07

pathaniprincess07

    Senior Member

  • Active Members
  • 158 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:uk
  • uk

Posted 28 June 2008 - 02:27 PM

Iraqimmigrant...basically, the house of lords are the highest of people making descisions.

So in the zimbabwe case (no.40) they are saying to the home office that it is now unlawful for the home office to be sending people back to their home countries, separating them from family, When they themselves know peoples countries are not safe. As home office use the excuse of refusing these kind of people 'simply in order to enforce the entry clearance procedures' (as one of the lord says) He also goes on to say that it is a rule without any meaning! lol!

Also that if the HO are saying to these kind of cases "to wait in the entry clearance queue like everyone else."
And refusing these people here telling them to go back and apply from their country.
-One of the lords say HO are not making the ques any shorter so what is the point in telling people to go back if they still going to come here.-As the HO argues that these people are jumping the que and others get put on hold.

You all should read the report, the lords really ridicule the HO on its policies lol and it makes sense too what the lords are saying!!!!! i am really greatfull to this person who has taken this case all the way as it has made this case alot easier for all of us in this similar situation!! (AS THIS IS HELPFUL IN MY HUBBY CASE BTW- OUR SOLICITOR TOLD US!!)

So basically with these new rules every caseworker will get this new law on his desk and when considering alot of peoples cases they will have to make a decsion based on this paper which i really dont think they have much to refuse people with now!!! lol!!!

#27 parnin

parnin

    New Member

  • Active Members
  • 26 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Glasgow
  • uk

Posted 28 June 2008 - 04:33 PM

Iraqimmigrant...basically, the house of lords are the highest of people making descisions.

So in the zimbabwe case (no.40) they are saying to the home office that it is now unlawful for the home office to be sending people back to their home countries, separating them from family, When they themselves know peoples countries are not safe. As home office use the excuse of refusing these kind of people 'simply in order to enforce the entry clearance procedures' (as one of the lord says) He also goes on to say that it is a rule without any meaning! lol!

Also that if the HO are saying to these kind of cases "to wait in the entry clearance queue like everyone else."
And refusing these people here telling them to go back and apply from their country.
-One of the lords say HO are not making the ques any shorter so what is the point in telling people to go back if they still going to come here.-As the HO argues that these people are jumping the que and others get put on hold.

You all should read the report, the lords really ridicule the HO on its policies lol and it makes sense too what the lords are saying!!!!! i am really greatfull to this person who has taken this case all the way as it has made this case alot easier for all of us in this similar situation!! (AS THIS IS HELPFUL IN MY HUBBY CASE BTW- OUR SOLICITOR TOLD US!!)

So basically with these new rules every caseworker will get this new law on his desk and when considering alot of peoples cases they will have to make a decsion based on this paper which i really dont think they have much to refuse people with now!!! lol!!!



#28 parnin

parnin

    New Member

  • Active Members
  • 26 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Glasgow
  • uk

Posted 28 June 2008 - 04:36 PM

Iraqimmigrant...basically, the house of lords are the highest of people making descisions.

So in the zimbabwe case (no.40) they are saying to the home office that it is now unlawful for the home office to be sending people back to their home countries, separating them from family, When they themselves know peoples countries are not safe. As home office use the excuse of refusing these kind of people 'simply in order to enforce the entry clearance procedures' (as one of the lord says) He also goes on to say that it is a rule without any meaning! lol!

Also that if the HO are saying to these kind of cases "to wait in the entry clearance queue like everyone else."
And refusing these people here telling them to go back and apply from their country.
-One of the lords say HO are not making the ques any shorter so what is the point in telling people to go back if they still going to come here.-As the HO argues that these people are jumping the que and others get put on hold.

You all should read the report, the lords really ridicule the HO on its policies lol and it makes sense too what the lords are saying!!!!! i am really greatfull to this person who has taken this case all the way as it has made this case alot easier for all of us in this similar situation!! (AS THIS IS HELPFUL IN MY HUBBY CASE BTW- OUR SOLICITOR TOLD US!!)

So basically with these new rules every caseworker will get this new law on his desk and when considering alot of peoples cases they will have to make a decsion based on this paper which i really dont think they have much to refuse people with now!!! lol!!!


Hi, these case laws, I found them hard to make sence, would you please tell me on which group og asylum seekers they have the most affect? is that about the family life or its just about some nationalities?

#29 ashyyyyy

ashyyyyy

    Prefered Member

  • Active Members
  • 1,740 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:United Kingdom
  • uk

Posted 28 June 2008 - 05:29 PM

Iraqimmigrant...basically, the house of lords are the highest of people making descisions.

So in the zimbabwe case (no.40) they are saying to the home office that it is now unlawful for the home office to be sending people back to their home countries, separating them from family, When they themselves know peoples countries are not safe. As home office use the excuse of refusing these kind of people 'simply in order to enforce the entry clearance procedures' (as one of the lord says) He also goes on to say that it is a rule without any meaning! lol!

Also that if the HO are saying to these kind of cases "to wait in the entry clearance queue like everyone else."
And refusing these people here telling them to go back and apply from their country.
-One of the lords say HO are not making the ques any shorter so what is the point in telling people to go back if they still going to come here.-As the HO argues that these people are jumping the que and others get put on hold.

You all should read the report, the lords really ridicule the HO on its policies lol and it makes sense too what the lords are saying!!!!! i am really greatfull to this person who has taken this case all the way as it has made this case alot easier for all of us in this similar situation!! (AS THIS IS HELPFUL IN MY HUBBY CASE BTW- OUR SOLICITOR TOLD US!!)

So basically with these new rules every caseworker will get this new law on his desk and when considering alot of peoples cases they will have to make a decsion based on this paper which i really dont think they have much to refuse people with now!!! lol!!!


Hi, these case laws, I found them hard to make sence, would you please tell me on which group og asylum seekers they have the most affect? is that about the family life or its just about some nationalities?


this is abt right to respect family life (article 8) i believe it will cover all nationalities especially if the conditions in contries where the conditions are harsh . for example countries like zimbabwe,somalia,afghanistan,iraq,iran etc. so basically its now easier to win an in-county human rights application (article 8) if you have a family life here.

#30 Guest_scoobydoo_*

Guest_scoobydoo_*
  • Guests

Posted 02 July 2008 - 07:28 PM

here is a copy of letter recieved from HO under freedom of infomation.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users