Of course when I say that ‘all systems are go’ what I really mean is ‘all systems bar one’ namely the UK Border Agency. Fears that spectators will face problems entering the UK in the Olympic Year are well known, from Border Control meltdowns to waiting times stretching to millennia. However what is
becoming more and more apparent is that in all the furore surrounding the Olympics UKBA have made a slight oversight in omitting to make preparations for the tens of thousands of migrants who want to enter the UK for reasons other
than the Olympics be that work, settlement or pleasure.

We had a client attend a visa centre in Australia today who was told to expect to wait a month for their application to process due to delays from the Olympics. This for a process that
should normally take no more than 15 days maximum for 99% of applications according to UKBA’s own website!

This categorical failure of UKBA to prepare correctly for
this Olympic Year only goes to show that they are sticking strongly to their own Olympic Year Slogan, ‘inspire a general sense of panic and despair’.

The latest amendment to the rules, is the decision by UKBA to deny family members the right to appeal against a decision to refuse an application for entry to theUKfor a family visit.

In brief, if you want to visit a member of your family in the UK you have to satisfy the following:

• you are 18 or over
• visiting a family member
• you intend to visit the UK for no more than 6 months
• you intend to leave the UK at the end of your visit
• you have enough money to support and accommodate yourself without working or help from public funds, or you and any dependants will be supported and accommodated by relatives or friends
• you can meet the cost of the return or onward journey

The introduction of an appeal for family visits originally came about after a prolonged campaign as it was clear that the number of refusals was huge, Entry Clearance Officers were not being objective and treated every applicant as a potential villain, hell bent on getting to the UK and once there would not depart in accordance with the rules.

The number of people who have missed weddings, funerals, Christmas and other special events is dreadful but at least they had a chance to challenge the decision.

Now that safety net is about to be withdrawn.

You can object to this by writing to your Member of Parliament. Here is the link – http://www.parliament.uk/mps-lords-and-offices/mps/

You can imagine the hue and cry when all the Authorising Officers panicked and also started emailing us. So began a series of calls / emails to UKBA. Obviously we weren’t the only ones and this morning we received an apology from UKBA stating that it was an IT error.

You have been contacted today by the Sponsor Management Team saying that your application for a Sponsor License has been rejected.  I apologise for this email and any inconvenience it may have caused. The email was sent to you in error due to an isolated IT incident.  I can assure you we are investigating the issue as a matter of urgency and can confirm that you will receive no further such emails.

I apologise for this email and any inconvenience it may have caused…………….really! Have they any idea of the mess they caused yesterday. We think that UKBA should have to pay a financial penalty to every company each time the SMS system doesn’t work, they fail to process an application within a timely manner or like yesterday create havoc.

Companies have to pay for the PBS licences and some have paid £25,000 for a premium service.

National rail have to cough up when their trains are delayed totally over 36 million in penalties. If UKBA coughed up for every f*** up, it would be a roll over every week!

We have longed argued that the restrictions the government are imposing on companies who simply wish to recruit to the best regardless of nationality will not have the desired effect they are seeking.

“I once went on a mission to charm Sepp Blatter, the Swiss lawyer who controls global football. I was ushered into his lair and found the ancient autocrat on a sofa, surrounded by statuesque blondes of possibly Ukrainian extraction. Stumped for something to say, I went for the old chestnut.

“Mr President,” I said, in tones of calculated self-deprecation, “how come England hasn’t won the Fifa World Cup since I was two? France, Germany, Italy, Spain — all our European rivals, but not England. What’s wrong with us?” Blatter figuratively stroked the white cat on his lap, and replied that it was very simple.

The trouble with England was the Premiership, he said. You import all these players from around the world. It means that the local talent never gets the same attention, or the same investment. That’s the problem with English football, he said, and then I found that my time was up and that the blonde Ukrainian six-footers were heading me to the door.

I was much struck by his analysis, and relayed it immediately to one of my colleagues, an ardent Lefty and lifelong Arsenal fan. I wondered whether there could be a smidgen of truth in what Blatter suggested. Perhaps all these intergalactic imports — Brazilians, Nigerians, Russians, Croats, you name it — were depressing the growth of our autochthonous talent. Perhaps we should have some rule — as Blatter suggested — to exclude these superstars, or to limit their numbers, in order to protect and bring on the native English players.

My colleague sighed with the impatience of one who has heard it all before. Don’t be fooled, he said. The English Premiership is the jewel in the crown of global football. English teams are supported and followed by the entire planet. The Premiership is where the money and the sponsorship go, and of course Fifa is and always has been jealous of the commercial dominance of English football. That is why Sepp Blatter would like to see foreign players excluded from the English game — it’s a cynical ploy from a rival business interest. As for the suggestion that English players are being somehow suppressed or forgotten, nothing could be further from the truth.

All the big clubs have massive and well-funded scouting operations. They have all kinds of junior teams and missions to discover the potential of inner city kids. No, said my Left-wing colleague, he didn’t for one second believe that young English players would do any better if their foreign rivals were kept out of the market. Quite the reverse, he said. If anything, the foreigners helped to ginger them up and provide a high standard to emulate.

Oh, ah, I said, and accepted the wisdom of his judgment. I have been thinking about this argument over the past few weeks and months, because our number one priority as a society is to boost growth — and get people into work. Some readers may have been following the London elections, and will have gathered that we have fantastic plans to invest in transport, housing and regeneration schemes — projects that will cumulatively help create 200,000 jobs.

We are building a platform now for a more successful and prosperous city in 10 and 20 years’ time: high-quality family homes, a better Tube network, new river crossings, orbital rail; and we are addressing the immediate economic problems by getting Londoners into work.

 The trouble is — as many people have pointed out to me at street corners — that London’s formidable job-creating powers do not always seem to involve the creation of jobs for native Londoners. Go into any coffee shop and talk to the staff, listen to the voices on the building sites — and you will see how the city is working as a magnet for talent and energy from outside the UK, many from the countries that have recently acceded to the EU.

There are plenty of people who take a Sepp Blatter-ish line about this phenomenon. There are some who say the immigrants are simply too talented and energetic. I was discussing the problem with a group of journalists not long ago, when a Guardian man — a kindly and distinguished fellow — started heckling me. It wasn’t fair, he suggested, that indigenous Londoners should be asked to go toe to toe “with Polish graduates”. I see his point. I see the unfairness.

But we are forced to ask what is the alternative, and what is the best way forward for the young Londoners who are not finding the work that they need. I suppose we could try to protect them by constructing Blatteresque barriers and quotas — though we would almost certainly find that such moves were against EU law. But surely the best approach now is to look at every stage in the chain of causation that results in a young Londoner losing out, in the jobs market, to a contestant from abroad. We need to hear an honest and unflinching account from the employers: just why is it that so many individual recruitment decisions seem to go against young Londoners?

Why do immigrant workers seem to look at a job in McDonald’s or Starbucks as a stepping stone, while some who were born here apparently regard it as a dead end? Is the problem just to do with pay and conditions? Is it really true that immigrants will work harder for less? Is there really a difference in the “work ethic”, or is that an urban myth? One of my first priorities as re-elected mayor is to analyse and expose the roots of this problem.

I have already launched an inquiry into education in London, and we will now extend this to include all the failures of the labour market — all the reasons Londoners are not getting the jobs they need. We will simultaneously expand our apprenticeship programme by a colossal 250,000 — to give young people that vital experience of competing in a workplace. So far, 84 per cent have gone on to full-time jobs. But should we go for the Blatter solution, and haul up the drawbridge?

Against illegals, yes. Against talent, no. In football as in the economy at large, you don’t make people more competitive by excluding the competition.

It said it would reduce the number of daily appointments until 18 May.

The system records who is legally living in the country. One applicant said people sobbed as officials told them the computers were frozen.

The computer crash came emerged amid fresh pressure on the Home Office over queues at Heathrow.

Earlier on Thursday, BAA, which operates the airport, said that the UK Border Force had failed to meets its target at the airport in April for processing most passengers from outside the European Economic Area within 45 minutes.

At Croydon, to the south of the capital, hundreds of people queuing for biometric visas or permits were told to go home because the UKBA system could not cope.

The Home Office operates a system of issuing biometric residence permits to foreign nationals and has distributed more than 600,000 of the ID cards since they were created almost four years ago. The system does not cover foreign nationals who were legally resident in theUKbefore the launch.

One applicant whose visa appointment had been cancelled told the BBC that people were sobbing at the identity card centre as officials tried to explain the situation to them.

“It’s totally shambolic,” said the applicant. “Officials have been saying they can’t do anything for us today despite the fact that we have appointments. Normally if there is a problem they would rebook there and then. But we’re being told to go home and book online – but that will mean weeks of waiting to get back into the system.”

In a statement, a UKBA spokeswoman said: “We are experiencing some IT problems in our Croydon Public Enquiry Office which we are working to resolve as soon as possible.

“In order to complete cases that have been affected, we will be reducing the number of daily appointments until May 18.

“We will prioritise completing all outstanding applications and those with cancelled appointments can rebook through the UK Border Agency website or can submit postal applications using our postal service.”

Employers are saying they can’t access a reasonable immigration system and they’re considering moving abroad. They’ve come to the point now where they’re seriously considering not investing or working in theUKbecause they can’t access any reasonably competent system.

This case concerns a student whose application for further leave was refused in light of his sponsor’s licence to sponsor Tier 4 students seemingly being revoked. 

His appeal had been allowed on the basis that he ought to have received 60 days in which to seek an alternative sponsor under the relevant policy guidance, and that decision was set aside on the SSHD’s appeal to the Upper Tribunal on the then accepted ground that the policy could not have the effect of extending leave (per JA (India) [2011] UKUT 52 (IAC)). 

He sought to argue Article 8 grounds before the senior immigration judge, who refused to consider these – in part, it appears, in view of the absence of any respondent’s notice, Article 8 not having been raised in any response to a one-stop notice or in the original grounds of appeal; and not having been raised before the First-tier Tribunal.

Below is a summary of the scheme, feel free to contact us for further information.

• What is premium customer service
• Eligibility
• How to apply
• Benefits of being a premium sponsor
• Benefits of being an SME+ sponsor
• What is premium customer service

Premium customer service is aimed at companies who want to pay for a higher level of customer service and a package of benefits.

There are two levels of premium customer service for sponsors:

• Premium sponsor
• SME+ sponsor

Who can apply?

Premium sponsor

Any company that is A-rated for Tier 2 or Tier 5 sponsorship  providing they meet the requirements as listed below.

Cost                       £25,000 per annum

SME+ sponsor

A-rated sponsors in Tier 2 and Tier 5 who paid the lower licence fee for their most recent sponsor licence application and meet the requirements.

 Cost                       £8,000 per annum

Eligibility

To apply for Premium Sponsor service or SME+ Service a company must meet all of the following requirements.

• not have been issued with a civil penalty in the past 3 years, and must have paid in full any civil penalties issued before that;
• be A-rated in all tiers of your licence; and
• be able to fully satisfy a compliance check, either before or during the application process, to ensure you are continuing to meet A-rated standards.
• If you do not meet the requirements, we will refuse your application and will not refund your fee.

How to apply

We can assist your company to draft and submit the application.

Benefits of being a premium sponsor

• are defined as A (Premium) on the register of sponsors;
• have a named licence manager within the UK Border Agency;
• have a senior account manager within the UK Border Agency;
• receive priority treatment on requests you make after you receive your licence, such as changes of circumstances;
• receive 50 pre-paid checks using the online employer checking service (from May 2012); and
• are invited to premium sponsor events.

The migrants you sponsor receive:

• immediate passport returns for online applications;
• priority access to appointments at public enquiry offices in theUK; and
• guaranteed access to priority and premium services overseas.

 Benefits of being an SME+ sponsor

• are defined as A (SME+) on the register of sponsors;
• have a named licence manager within the UK Border Agency;
• receive priority treatment on requests you make after you receive your licence, such as changes of circumstances;
• receive 25 pre-paid checks using the online employer checking service (from May 2012)

If you would like any further information concerning this scheme and whether the benefits are worth the costs, please contact us.

From: DavidsonMorris
To: UKBA

Subject: Clarification needed re cooling off period and t2 entry clearance applications

Dear UKBA

I am emailing with a query regarding the 12 month cooling off period for Tier 2 Migrants. I understand that we have contacted you with a number of previous queries surrounding the recent changes to policy and would greatly appreciate your assistance on this occasion.

We are somewhat unsure of exactly when the cooling off period beings in the situation outlined below:

If a sponsor notified UKBA that a Tier 2 ICT (Long Term) Visa was no longer needed and indicated this on the Sponsor Management System by selecting to indicate that ‘Migrant has left the sponsor’ are we correct in our assumption that the date that the sponsor notified UKBA on the SMS is the start of the 12 month cooling off period?

Please can you indicate when the date of curtailment and the start of the 12 months are in the above situation? Is it when UKBA are notified by sponsor or when UKBA act on the notification from sponsor and curtail leave?

We are currently seeing a lot of similar situations to the above with individuals who are in the process of applying for Tier 2 General entry clearance whose previous employer has notified UKBA of their having left the sponsor but who have not received any further notice of curtailment.

I would greatly appreciate your help in clarifying the above.

 Kind Regards,

 DavidsonMorris

From: UKBA
To: DavidsonMorris
Subject: RE: Clarification needed re cooling off period and t2 entry clearance applications

Dear DavidsonMorris,

The cooling off period always commences from the date that the applicant’s previous Tier 2 leave ended.  If their leave was curtailed, the period begins on the date the leave was curtailed to.  Normally this will be 60 days from the date the notification was processed.

We are aware of some concerns about the timely processing of SMS notifications.  UKBA are addressing these and will be processing Tier 2 curtailments more quickly in future.

Regards,

UKBA

The new rules do not in any sense assist employers.

From: UKBA

Sent: 01 May 2012 12:32
To: DavidsonMorris
Subject: RE: Tier 2 (General) query – Graduate Schemes & appropriate SOC Code

Dear DavidsonMorris

Our advice to Sponsors on this sort of query is that they should select the most appropriate SOC code for the job they anticipate the migrant worker will end up filling at the end of the initiation scheme.  If they end up filling a different role then, as you noted, a change of employment application would be needed.  This would require a fresh RLMT if the job was not in a shortage occupation or the original RLMT was no longer within its validity date.

I understand the points you are making that this may not be ideal for how the employer wants to operate the scheme.  However, we do not plan to make any changes to specifically accommodate this type of scenario.  Tier 2 is designed for the purpose of filling specific skilled vacancies for which no suitable resident workers can be found.  Although some general recruitment campaigns may just about meet the Tier 2 criteria, they are not really what the route is intended for.

Regards,

UKBA

From: DavidsonMorris
Sent: 26 April 2012 10:30
To: UKBA (Immigration Policy)
Subject: Tier 2 (General) query – Graduate Schemes & appropriate SOC Code

Dear UKBA

I was hoping you could assist with the following.

Our client is a large financial institution who are currently recruiting for their graduate scheme. The scheme is designed to provide the graduate with experience in as many different business areas as possible. Departments involved in the programme include Primary Markets, Equity and Derivatives Markets, Post Trade, Information Services, Technology, Corporate Finance, Legal, Public Affairs, Regulation, HR, Strategy, Marketing and Communications. At the end of the scheme, successful graduates will be given a permanent role in one of the listed business areas.

Previously, all non-EEA nationals on the scheme would have held leave as Tier 1 (Post Study) migrants, which allowed migrants to work in various roles without restriction. Following the closure of the PSW route, the client is now taking steps to bring graduates under the Tier 2 (General) route.

Due to the varied nature of the scheme, the client is having difficulty identified the most appropriate SOC code when assigning theCOS.

More worrying, it is possible that the employer will need to make a change of employment application for each non-EEA graduate if the SOC code assigned at the outset does not match the role which they will ultimately fill. This, as you know, would require undertaking a RLMT, which surely would be inappropriate given the circumstances and is something the employer is eager to avoid.

The alternative seems to be to try and anticipate each graduate’s career trajectory from the outset and restrict them to certain roles within the business; which defeats the purpose of the graduate scheme.

I would be grateful if you could provide any guidance on this. Can we expect any changes to the policy guidance or Occupation Codes of Practice which will address this scenario?

I look forward to hearing from you.

Kind Regards

DavidsonMorris

……….‘ The cooling off period applies to all Tier 2 entry clearance applications (except ICT in a short term category returning under ICT Long term Staff).  Applicants must not have had Tier 2 leave at any time in the last 12 months, regardless of whether they have been in theUKduring that time.

The cooling off period begins on the date the applicant’s previous Tier 2 leave expires.  If their previous leave was curtailed, the expiry date will normally be 60 days from the date of curtailment.  UKBA write to applicants to inform them of any curtailments.  If an individual thinks their leave may have been curtailed but has not received a letter confirming this, they can contact UKBA to enquire about their leave status.

We are currently considering whether there should be any limited exceptions regarding the cooling off period for those earning £150,000 or above.  If there are any changes, we will publish an update on the UKBA website.

We are less minded to make any exceptions for ICT migrants wishing to return under Tier 2 (General).  Businesses have consistently told us that the ICT route is temporary and that is the basis on which we have exempted the route from an annual limit.  The route is not intended for individuals to seek a longer-term or permanent career in theUK, either with the same or another employer.

I hope that this information is useful.