MORE proof has emerged that migrants are managing to overturn UK Government visa refusals after a judicial review – contrary to what Immigration Minister Caroline Noakes told MPs.
The National told yesterday how Glasgow SNP MP Alison Thewliss had raised the issue in a debate on the treatment of highly-skilled migrants who had been denied residency because of corrections to their tax returns under rule 322.5.
This allows refusals if a person is of bad character, is involved in terrorism or criminality and was originally intended to tackle serious criminals.
However, it has been used to refuse nearly 2000 entrepreneurs and professionals the right to remain in the UK, often over minor tax issues.
Nokes said no refusal under the rule had successfully challenged at judicial review.
Thewliss earned a rebuke from Speaker John Bercow when she expressed her concern that Nokes had “misled” MPs but retorted: “I think it would be useful if the minister could come to the House to explain the statement that she made last week, because it is deeply concerning that while people have quite clearly won at judicial review, the minister either did not know that or did not share it with the House.”
Several barristers have revealed their success with judicial reviews, or JRs. Some, such as Kenworthy’s Chambers in Salford, took to social media: “Craig Holmes succeeded in a JR earlier this year, applicant had been refused indefinite leave to remain under clause 322 (5). The Secretary of State alleged that the applicant’s tax returns were filed late, & perceived ‘discrepancies’ in the amount earned.”
London-based immigration barrister, Parminder Saini, said the Home Office had conceded five of his cases and a further four clients had already won leave to remain in the UK.
The Home Office gave no indication if Nokes would correct her remarks, but the figures are thought to be subject to change given that the work involves a manual trawl through individual records.
A spokesperson said: “As the minister made clear, the review of these cases is ongoing. The minister was reporting on the findings made available to her at that point in the review.
“The Home Office has since identified a small number of Judicial Reviews in which the applicants have been successful at substantive hearing.
“As has been indicated, we will publish the full findings of the review in due course.”
Angela Constance, meanwhile, Scotland’s Equalities Secretary has accused the UK Government of operating a two-tier immigration system.
She said Scotland had welcomed thousands of Syrian refugees under the resettlement programme but the support they were given differed from others fleeing persecution.
“We have a two-tier system that is utterly, utterly unacceptable,” she told MSPs in a Scottish Parliament debate marking World Refugee Day.
“The tailored support that is part of the resettlement programme is in complete contrast to the lack of support in the asylum system”
Constance added: “This notion of the two-tier system must be challenged, it’s absolutely unacceptable.”
Green MSP Ross Green called for the Scottish Government’s move to give the vote to refugees and asylum seekers to be extended across the whole UK.
He said: “For as long as someone who is a refugee or an asylum seeker is resident here this is their home, and the decisions that we take in this place, in Westminster and in our council chambers affect them just as much, and in many cases even more so, than everyone else.”
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel