eSignature Lawfulness for Funeral Leave Policy in United Kingdom

How to eSign a document: e-signature lawfulness for Funeral Leave Policy in United Kingdom

hi and welcome to this latest immigration law update video in this video i wanted to look at rule 276b which is the long residence rule disregarded overstaying and i'll explain what that means in a minute and lawful residence and what i'm what i'm doing in this video is giving a quick summary of the recent case of manip asif and you can see the citation at the top left of the screen there i've shared my screen with the judgment it's manipu asif paragraph 276b disregard previous overstaying 2021 uk ut96 and it's a decision of upper tribunal judge blum let me give you the the head note first and then we'll see as we go on the proper construction of paragraph 2 7 6 b any period of overstaying between periods of leave that has been disregarded in ance with subparagraph uh roman five a or b is treated as lawful residence for the purpose of sub-paragraph one what does all that mean well this is really a clarification of the case of hawk and others hawk and others is the leading case on this issue uh from the court of appeal last year one of the big cases of last year and i've done a separate video on that which i'll provide a link to in the description of this video so the definition of lawful residence for for this section is in paragraph 276a and law for residence means residence which is continuous residence pursuant to existing leave to enter or remain now the key parts of rule 276b the 10-year long residence rule is 1a he has had at least 10 years continuous law for residents of the united kingdom and then roman 5 and this was the controversial paragraph that led to the cases of junaid ahmed masum ahmed and then now to the court of appeal in hock and others the applicant must not be in the uk in breach of immigration laws except that we're paragraph 39 e of the rules applies any current period of overstaying will be disregarded any previous period of overstaying between periods of leave will also be disregarded where a and then before 24th and november 2016 within 28 days of the expiry of leave or after 24th november 2016 and paragraph 39 e of the rules apply now in hock and others the the majority of the court of appeal found that you couldn't rely on this first disregard about because this related to current period of overstaying but that this second disregard and that's broken down into a and b to make any sense of that that must apply to 1a in the 10 years lawful residence requirement and you could apply these disregards but in this case the secretary of state was arguing well this is a disregard but it doesn't convert that leave into lawful residence upper tribunal judge blam looks at rule 39 e as it was at the time and the long residence guidance version 16 from the 28th of october 2019 then he summarized hock now in hock there was this issue of current periods of overstaying and it would that was described as open-ended overstaying and then previous periods of overstaying which were described as book-ended overstaying so let's go back to the the rule the first bit current period of o saying that's the open-ended overstaying this second disregard a and b are the bookended overstaying now the appellants in hock all concern people who had open-ended overstaying and were trying to rely on that and that was unsuccessful so as i said up a tribunal judge blam goes through the judgment he he sets out what was said and some quotes from all three judges the first judge who gave the leading judgment law justice anderhill in relation to bookended overstaying said this and it he's put it in bold it's from paragraph 50 of what lord justice under hill said it is it is in those circumstances unsurprising that the secretary of state should think it right to allow the period between the expiry of the previous leave and the grant of further leave to count as continuous lawful residence assuming of course that the applicant can satisfy the requirements of paragraph 39 e we'll come back to that later then he cites from lord justice dingeman's and lord justice mccomb lord jesus macomb was a minority judgment because he accepted that both disregards would apply to the 10 years lawful residence requirement in 1a but he was the minority upper tribunal judge blum looks at the facts of the current appeal and unlike the appellants in hock this was a case of book ended overstaying not open-ended overstaying now in this case hoc had been handed down after the decision of the first tier tribunal in this case so it was pretty obvious and accepted that there was an error of law but the difference in the arguments came then that it was argued on behalf of the appellant that those disregarded periods counted now as lawful resonance paragraph 32 but mr clark paragraph 34 on behalf of the secretary of state argued that there is a difference between disregarding periods of overstaying and converting those periods into lawful uh leave for the purpose of subparagraph one disregarding men not taking into account at all the upper tribunal judge up tribunal judge blam at paragraph 38 says the respondents submissions are superficially attractive if a matter is disregarded then it's not taken into consideration against the person but the problem with it he says is well but if you just disregard it you can't count it as lawful residence and he therefore rejects it he relies on what lord justice underhill said in that extract from paragraph 50 that i read out and he also draws some support from the minority judgment of lord justice mccomb so paragraph 42 he summarizes on the proper construction of paragraph 276b any period of overstaying that has been disregarded in ance with subparagraph 5 a and b so this only concerns book ended overstaying i don't want anybody to think that it's extended to open-ended overstaying is treated as lawful residents for the purpose of sub-paragraph one so rejected the secretary of state's case it's not just disregarded but it actually converts those periods into law for residents and therefore following tz pakistan the article 8 appeal was allowed because the rules were met so i hope that summary is helpful to you i'll put the links to this decision and to my previous hawk video below the in the video description thanks a lot