More Photos from the 2 years on day of action

Two years on and we are still fighting for our rights

We take the fight to Parliament

BritCits Goes to Parliament for the APPG on Migration

The APPG on Migration gets under way

Lord Teverson, Liberal Democrats with Ryan Shorthouse of  Bright Blue listening
 

Andrew Percy MP, Conservative 

The panel are told Gary has a problem

Andrew Percy MP, talks about Gary

BritCits Goes to The Home Office to Protest

The protestors gather outside the Home Office

Gathered crowd are told of the heart ache of a grandmother

Many Families Wish the Home Secretary is Listening

Family Life is a Fundamental Right

Lee Jasper speaks out against the Xenophobia of the Government

Ninja's fight for their families

People's experiences are told

Listening to the Horrors caused by the Home Office

The discrimination of the Government against it's own Citizens has to Stop! 

Divided Families

A member of the Clergy from Walthamstow speaks out 

Many communities impacted

A couple under threat 

Migrants are the life blood of the UK

An angry mob sick of immigrants being blamed for everything

Making sure Home Office workers get the message

Any grants or funding for further research into the impacts would be most welcome

Many immigrants are family members of British families

The angry protestors chant so the Home Office Workers can hear

Immigrants will not give up their families

Family life is a Right

BritCits returns to Parliament for the launch of the report on family dependents

Setting up of the Committee Room in the House of Commons

David Hanson, MP ,Labour shadow immigration minister, gives Labour's commitment to review the family migration rules as soon as they are in power.

Sonel Mehta talks about the joint report on family dependents

Sarah Teather MP Hosts the evening 

The panel answer individual questions at the end

The event comes to a close and conversation are moved to another venue

After a long day the conversations continue

Nigerian husband of pregnant Brit denied visa

The Home Office has appealed against the decision to let the Nigerian husband of a pregnant British woman remain in the UK.

The appeal follows the reversal of the decision to refuse her husband a spouse visa by a First Tier judge.

However, the Home Office believes the judge made an error of law by taking into account the best interests of their unborn child.

When British national Becky, 23, met her Nigerian husband-to-be in the UK in December 2010, she had no idea of the hurdles which would lie ahead when the time would come to establish family life together in the UK.

Uzo, Becky’s 33-year-old Nigerian partner, arrived in the UK as a visitor. His subsequent enrollment in the British Army as a trainee combat engineer allowed him to extend his visa more than once, with a view to applying for a two-year work visa at the end of his training. 

But Uzo turned 32 – the cut-off point for applying to join the army – before he could complete his training.

In May 2012, Becky and Uzo got married, and Uzo applied for Further Leave to Remain based on his marriage a month later. His application was made just before significant amendments to the UK’s family migration rules came into force.  

The new rules, introduced in July 2012 and the cause of much anguish among couples such as Becky and Uzo, require British nationals to have an annual income of GBP 18,600 in order to sponsor a non-EEA spouse to settle in the UK.

After a 10-month wait, Uzo was refused a visa on the grounds he had taken the wrong English language exam and that his visa at the time of application was valid for less than six months. The fact Uzo had been in the UK legally for two years prior to application was not considered. 

The couple lodged an appeal against the refusal since they had no way of successfully reapplying under the new rules due to Becky, who was a fine art student in Liverpool at the time, not being able to meet the income requirements.  

A few weeks after giving notice of appeal Becky discovered she was pregnant. “Although we knew our situation wasn't the best to bring a child into, we could not consider an abortion as this was not a decision we should feel forced into because of the immigration laws, and we hoped that our appeal would be successful before our baby was born,” said Becky.

At 25 weeks pregnant, their case was heard and two weeks later, the appeal was allowed under Article 8 due to the best interests of their child. “We breathed the hugest sigh of relief”, said Becky.

But the relief didn’t last long. Four days after the allowed time limit for giving notice of appeal, the Home Office appealed the decision based on the notion the First Tier judge had made an error of law by taking into consideration the best interests of the couple’s unborn child.

Despite the lateness of the application, which the couple later discovered was due to the case officer being on sick leave, the appeal was allowed.

The process has taken its toll on Becky’s heath and well-being, “I have became so distressed and ill with the thought that we have to continue this fight,” said Becky. “At a time when it is of the utmost importance for a woman to be looking after her health, I am experiencing panic attacks, my blood pressure has shot up and I can not sleep,” she added.

The couple has since discovered their baby has a kidney problem and possibly a chromosomal disorder.

With just two weeks to go until the Upper Tier Tribunal hearing, at which time Becky will be 37 weeks pregnant, Becky and Uzo are bracing themselves for the possibility of a ruling which will require Becky to move to Nigeria should she wish to enjoy family life with her husband. “Why should I leave my entire support system, culture and family behind?” asked Becky.

The Foreign and Commonwealth Office advises against all but essential travel to Abia, the southeastern Nigerian state where Uzo comes from.

“We just don't know what our future holds right now,” said Becky. “My husband wants nothing more than the right to work and support his pregnant wife and future son, and to pay taxes and contribute to UK society,” she added.

The immigration rules make no concessions in cases which involve children. Applicants who are parent to a British child must endure the same five-year route to settlement as other applicants, regardless of the length of the couple’s relationship. 

Successful spouse visa applicants are given the right to work but have no access to benefits during the probationary period, during which time the couple must demonstrate they can meet the financial requirements a further two times.

Home Office blunders criticised

From huge backlogs, menacing deterrents and offensive use of social media to proposals for visitor bonds, it is no wonder MP Keith Vaz described this summer as chaotic for immigration policy.

These UK Border Agency (UKBA) failings, among others, are the subject of a House of Commons report published on Thursday.

The report, which covers the first quarter of 2013, is part of a series produced to monitor the work of the now dissolved UKBA by the Home Affairs Committee.

Its publication follows a summer of chaos which has seen the contents of the Immigration Bill debated, the controversial AdVans scrapped, a U-turn on immigration bonds and the publicising of immigration raids on Twitter, alongside other gimmicks labeled as “ineffective and offensive” by Shadow Immigration Minister David Hanson.

Among the Committee’s findings is a backlog of more than 430,000 pending cases, roughly the same figure as before the UKBA was dissolved at the end of March 2013 following damning performance reviews.

In some categories, such as further leave to remain (FLTR) on the basis of marriage, the backlog has grown, with the number of FLTR cases pending initial decision having increased from 2,100 in quarter four of 2012 to 3,791 in quarter one of 2013.

Although backlogs were down overall by around 70,000, the reduction was mostly achieved by loading pending cases onto a computer, with around 50,000 of these cases still awaiting resolution.

Speaking of the backlogs, which could take up to five years to clear according to the report, Keith Vaz said: “[They] must be cleared as a matter of priority, only then will the Home Office be able to tackle the deeper problems in the immigration system”.

The report raises concerns regards the effect the Immigration Bill will have on the most vulnerable, with suggestions for the government to trial a pilot scheme which sees visa applicants use private health insurance as an alternative to an NHS levy.

“We recommend that the government distinguish between those who are temporarily in the country through choice - to work, study or visit family - and those who are here through no choice of their own, such as refugees and victims of trafficking,” says the report.

On the subject of illegal immigration, the report reveals only six per cent of tip-offs from the public were followed up and just 1.5 per cent lead to removals.

In his response to the report, David Hanson said, “Theresa May’s Home Office is failing badly in tackling illegal immigration, backlogs of cases, and can only show progress by sleight of hand”.

“The Home Secretary urgently needs to get a grip on the shambolic performance of the Home Office and make sure people are removed when they shouldn't be here, and sort out the backlogs that are increasing on her watch,” he added.

The break up of the UKBA in March saw immigration services come under the direct control of ministers, with the UKBA replaced by an Immigration Enforcement command and UK Visas and Immigration.

For now it looks as though Theresa May will need more than over-the-knee designer boots to wade through the backlog of pending cases and the mud which the Home Office has been slinging at immigrants of all categories. 

The work of the UK Border Agency (January–March 2013)

Deliberate delays and withdrawals by the Home Office

Allegations the Home Office may be deliberately delaying asylum cases as a means of meeting a rejection target have raised concerns the practice is being used in other immigration appeals, including appeals against spouse visa refusals.

According to lawyers, the Home Office is withdrawing from asylum cases which have a high chance of succeeding at the appeal stage in what appears to be a common practice, as revealed in the Observer on Saturday.

The alleged practice, said to protect the “win rate”, or rejection target, of 60 per cent, is thought to be contributing to a backlog of unsettled cases and to be causing unnecessary suffering to applicants.

The scandal has raised concerns that appeals against spouse visa refusals are also being deliberately delayed or withdrawn, in some instances on the day of the hearing or even after the appeal should have taken place.

This trend supports the idea that the Home Office has a spouse visa rejection rate which is being partly maintained through this practice, at a cost to the taxpayer and the appellants caught up in the process.

BritCits spoke with a couple that has experienced delays and withdrawal by the Home Office first hand – a British man and his Taiwanese wife, a PhD holder who has lived legally in the UK for more than eight years.

At the time of their marriage, the British citizen’s wife had nearly a year left on her highly skilled Tier 1 migrant visa, obtained through the new points based system. The couple lived together for three years prior to their marriage.

After the wedding, the couple tried to make an appointment to submit their spouse visa application in person - a service which comes at a premium. No appointments were available on the system. They kept checking at different times of the day and night, even looking for appointments in other parts of the country. Always, nothing was available.

Reluctant to make the application by post due to processing times of more than five months at the time, the couple approached their MP for help. It took several letters from their MP to the UK Border Agency in order to get a response.

Lady Justice: blindfolded from Home Office tricks

The reply said the Border Agency was having problems with its system and that it only releases appointments when it has the manpower to do so – suggesting it may have turned its system off due to lack of manpower.

The couple gave the Border Agency their details but again, they were unable to secure an appointment, even after their MP followed up on the request. In the end, the couple was forced to make a postal application just before the non-British partner’s visa expired.

A week after the postal application was sent, they received confirmation of receipt and the fee was taken from the couple’s account. In the letter, it stated that if there was any problem with the application, such as missing documentation or omissions, a caseworker would write to advise what action would need to be taken to rectify the problem.

“The uncertainty of the process and the retaining of our passports and wedding certificate for a long period of time has impacted both on our work and our ability to travel for both projects and to give papers at international conferences,” said the British partner.

The couple then received a letter requesting the non-British applicant to go to a Biometric Enrolment Centre despite the fact the Border Agency already held the applicant’s biometric information - a requirement of her previous Tier 1 visa application.

After submitting the biometrics, the couple felt confident the visa would be issued soon after. But it was not. A refusal letter – ridden with errors and threatening and intimidating language - was received in April 2013, stating the couple had not provided evidence of a genuine and subsisting relationship, and that their savings were not held for the specified six months. At no time had the Border Agency requested further information before making a decision.

Among the letter’s errors were an incorrect reference number – which their MP later found belonged to a nurse in Shropshire – incorrect application dates and incorrect age. The letter outlined the time limit for appeal, leaving the couple with just four working days to appeal against the decision since the date on the letter was four days prior to its receipt. Even if the letter was received the day after it was dated, the couple would only have had just over a week to appeal.  

Having sought the help of an immigration solicitor, the couple sent the Home Office a notice of appeal. A date for the hearing was eventually set six months from the notice date – not the 12 weeks Theresa May proudly claimed in Parliament recently. Their MP’s efforts to get an earlier date were unsuccessful.  

On the day of the appeal, the Home Office representative arrived late. The judge started proceedings by asking the representative if she had read the appeal bundles for the couple’s case. She had not. The judge instructed her to go away and read the papers and to then seek guidance from her supervising officer.

An hour later, the representative came back and made presentation to the judge that the Home Office was withdrawing from the case. She said the Home Office was not permitted to give an undertaking on what the decision would be.

The couple’s barrister indicated the Home Office often withdraws in this manner, a practice which prevents the judge from awarding the costs of the appeal fees against the Home Office.

“We paid extra for an oral hearing, took the time to attend the hearing, paid for a barrister to represent us at the hearing and at the last minute, the Home Office withdrew, meaning we are still waiting for a decision as well as being out of pocket,” said the British partner.

“Why do we feel like we have just been mugged and our pockets picked?” he added. “This has been such a waste of the Courts time and of public money.”

The Home Office faces no repercussions if it loses at appeal. This practice involves wasting taxpayers’ money on cases which, in many instances, should not have made it to the appeal stage had the correct decision been made the first time around.

Three weeks on, the couple is still waiting for a decision. Until a decision is made, this couple – like many others – remains in limbo.

Norman Baker: friend or foe to family migrants?

Yesterday’s cabinet reshuffle, which saw Liberal Democrat Norman Baker appointed to the Home Office, came as a surprise to many and as an outrage to others, including Home Secretary Theresa May herself who, according to the Guardian, was said to be ‘furious’ over the appointment.

As the minister of state, Baker will replace fellow Liberal Democrat Jeremy Browne in overseeing issues relating to crime prevention, national security, and organised crime. It is thought he will make a more vocal opponent to May than his predecessor, considered by some to have been used by the home secretary as a doormat.

So what does this change in composition mean for family migrants? Well, while Baker will not be directly responsible for immigration issues, early signs reveal he is set to be a proponent of fair Home Office decisions, with the London Evening Standard reporting his belief that Home Office decisions should not be “too harsh, unfeeling or unsympathetic” to those affected by them.

Indeed, the injection of a “dose of liberalism” into the Home Office which Baker looks set to bring with him could be just the sort of ‘refresh’ that the department needs.

Campaigners for change in the UK’s family migration rules remain hopeful that Baker’s past membership to the Joint Committee on Human Rights will prove to be a powerful force against May’s relentless push for a reduction in net migration, the curtailment of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and the scrapping of the Human Rights Act.

Baker, who until yesterday had served as Shadow Secretary of State for Transport since May 2010, is perhaps best known for uncovering, or at least trying to uncover, scandals, most notably the 2003 death of Ministry of Defence expert in biological warfare Dr David Kelly.

The outspoken left-wing politician, described by the Daily Mail as a “thorn in the Government’s side”, has previously shown support for issues such as animal rights, a climate change bill and Tibetan human rights cases; however, his backing of the raising of tuition fees and his failure to support marriage equality and a reduction in rail fares have been less popular.

If anything, the reshuffle looks set to be an interesting change for those negatively affected by the new immigration rules, if only to punish Theresa May with his rhetoric, which was compared with “root canal surgery without anesthetic” by Labour MP Stephen Pound in 2002.