LightNews LightNews
aninjarainbow.bsky.social
@aninjarainbow.bsky.social
210 followers 1.8K following 99 posts
Posts Replies Media Videos
aninjarainbow.bsky.social
are you tho
May 24, 2025 at 10:00 AM
aninjarainbow.bsky.social
:(
Section 6 of the Interpretation Act 1978, so far as relevant: "In any Act, unless the contrary intention appears [...] words in the singular include the plural and words in the plural include the singular".
April 12, 2025 at 11:18 AM
aninjarainbow.bsky.social
Badenoch said "That is not what the [Ukrainian] scheme was designed to do." That's misleading: the ultimately successful claim was a human rights claim outside the Immigration Rules made using the Ukrainian scheme form because that was HO policy on making such claims.
4. Following the attacks of 7 October 2023 and during the ensuing conflict, the appellants’ home was destroyed by an airstrike and they were displaced. On 25 January 2024, the appellants submitted the collective application for entry clearance (said to constitute the claim), accompanied by representations. The applications were made using the Ukraine Family Scheme form, although the representations acknowledged that they could not qualify under this route, or any other provisions of the Immigration Rules (“the Rules”), but had chosen this form in accordance with the respondent’s policy with regard to applications for entry clearance outside the Rules. Detailed submissions were made in relation to the appellants’ particular circumstances, together with a request for predetermination of the claim, with the enrolment of biometrics to take place thereafter. 5. Following a good deal of correspondence between the parties to which we need not refer now, the respondent refused the claim in a decision dated 30 May 2024. The respondent concluded (unsurprisingly) that the requirements of the Ukraine Family Scheme were not met. Further, the respondent was not satisfied that there were compelling, compassionate circumstances justifying granting leave outside of the Rules. The decision noted the absence of any resettlement route for Palestinians and ultimately concluded that refusal of the application was not disproportionate. The decision purported to deny a right of appeal to the appellants on the basis that there had been no human rights claim.
February 20, 2025 at 12:05 PM