New Covid Visa Concession Scheme
As a result of global travel restrictions due to COVID-19, some individuals who had permission to enter or stay in the UK were unable to return to the country in order to apply for a Temporary Residence Permit (LTR) or Perpetual Residence Permit in time (ILR) prior to the expiration of their current visa.
If they are citizens who need a visa to reside in the UK and if they no longer have a valid residence permit, they may not be able to return to the UK due to the strict liability rules that air and other carriers have.
The UK government’s position is that those affected by travel restrictions due to COVID-19 should not be punished for circumstances beyond their control.
This scheme applies to migrants who left the UK before March 17, 2020, when the Home Office travel guidelines changed. For such migrants whose residence permits have subsequently expired, subject to the eligibility criteria, a visa-free travel permit will be processed under the Covid Visa Concession Scheme.
Migrants, once a border officer is satisfied with all identity and security checks, will be granted an Outside Immigration Regulations (LOTR) Temporary Residence Permit (LOTR) upon arrival for a period of 3 months with the same conditions as their previous UK visa.
A migrant will not be able to leave the UK and return under the same Covid Visa Concession Scheme.
Immigration categories for use under this scheme
Those who have been in the UK as visitors are not eligible to apply under the Covid Visa Concession Scheme.
Other visa routes eligible for this scheme are those in which a person, while in the UK with their previous residence permit, could apply for a visa in order to stay on the same visa route they now want to apply for application, while extending your residence permit, switching to a different visa route or applying for permanent residence in the country.
Eligibility criteria for this scheme
To be eligible to apply for a visa under this scheme, a person must be abroad and all of the following must apply to him:
– he left the UK by March 17, 2020;
– his residence permit expired and he was unable to return to the UK before his residence permit expired due to travel restrictions due to COVID-19;
– he intends to return to the UK after the Home Office confirms that he is eligible (at least 21 calendar days before the date of his trip);
– he cannot travel because the travel restrictions remain in effect, or prefers not to travel because of the risk of COVID-19 to himself or his family, for example, he has symptoms, needs self-isolation, or is at high risk of illness.
If the eligibility criteria are met
If a person meets the above criteria, they can take advantage of the Covid Visa Concession Scheme, which allows them to return to the UK to apply for a temporary or permanent residence permit.
However, the Covid Visa Concession Scheme does not guarantee that any application for a temporary or permanent residence permit will be successful, or that a UK entry permit will be accurately granted upon arrival.
The person concerned will be personally responsible for checking the requirements for leaving the country in which they are located, as not all countries will allow departure without a valid visa issued by the country of destination.
In these circumstances, if a person is requesting a visa, they can apply for an entry permit along the relevant visa route.
The person may have left the UK after the Home Office travel guidelines changed on March 17, 2020, for compelling or compassionate reasons, which include, but are not limited to:
– serious illness or death of a close relative abroad;
– travel for the purpose of obtaining medical assistance.
Where the applicant has compelling or compassionate circumstances mentioned or implied above, Home Office officials should consider whether the Covid Visa Concession Scheme should apply to such migrants in exceptional circumstances.
Tribunal Defines Historical Injustice in the Context of Immigration
Lawyers often create new terms, or art terms, that is, phrases that have a specific meaning within a certain branch of law, different from the usual.
In Patel (historic injustice; NIAA Part 5A) India  UKUT 351 (IAC) The Supreme Tribunal has defined the concepts of “historical injustice” and “historical injustice”, creating two new terms that will be used in immigration cases in accordance with Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Historical injustice versus historical
The reasoning opens with extracts from the Oxford English Dictionary, which defines the historical as something known or important from history, and historically as referring to something related to the past.
Based on this, the High Court defines historical injustice as something that affects a certain class of people and is generally recognized. Examples of this kind of injustice include the treatment of some British overseas citizens and the families of former Gurkhas.
Historically, an injustice is something that is special to the individual, such as a flagrant delay on the part of the Home Office in making a decision, or the failure to apply certain immigration rules to a submitted visa application.
This difference is significant in terms of the consequences for the individual’s claims under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
The consequence of historical injustice is that a claim will almost certainly be successful. The Supreme Tribunal stated in this regard: “The implications of historical injustice for an individual’s immigration status are likely to be profound, even determinative of success, provided there is nothing materially unfavorable in their immigration history. When someone establishes that they are simply a victim of a historical injustice, the injustice is just one factor to consider. ”
The other side of the difference
The purpose of creating this terminology is to distinguish cases where injustice was systematically committed in relation to a group of people from those cases when injustice was committed for an isolated reason in relation to an individual.
But why should this distinction be so important in relation to visa applications under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, where the determinable right belongs to an individual because he is an individual and not a member of any group?
The real question should be the extent of the unfairness: how unfair was the Home Office’s decision and how significant was the bias towards the person concerned?
By focusing on the distinction between historical and historical injustice, one can risk that decision-makers will not notice that in some cases the historical injustice will be so dire that it will determine the adoption of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
For example, when Home Office mistakes lead to someone staying in the UK for a long time illegally, but through no fault of their own (hypothetical, but hardly unimaginable scenario).
Moreover, although the language used to refer to these two categories may correspond to a vocabulary, in ordinary English the terms “historical” and “historical” are often used interchangeably. UK Home Secretary David Blankett did so in 2002 when he described the evil done to British foreign nationals as historic; the tribunal believes that he meant “historically” (this is stated in the decision of the tribunal).
The specific immigration appeal in the above court case was not at all about injustice on the part of the Home Office, but rather an employer who made a belated decision not to continue sponsoring an applicant on a work visa.
The Tribunal ruled that disappointments caused by the would-be employer’s act are of minimal importance in assessing claims under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
For all questions of immigration and legal nature, you can contact the specialists of our company. We have 20 years of experience in immigration law and business consulting. We will be glad to see you as our new clients and to help sort out all the exciting issues.