header-logo header-logo

15 January 2020
Issue: 7870 / Categories: Legal News , Immigration & asylum
printer mail-detail

Redraft ‘confusing’ immigration rules

Home Office officials should take a ‘less prescriptive approach to evidence’ and redraft the Immigration Rules to save money, speed up decision-making and build trust, according to the Law Commission

While not making any recommendations on substantive immigration policy, the Law Commission report on the Simplification of the Immigration Rules, published this week, suggests improvements to the way the rules are written and presented could save the government as much as £70m over the next decade. It recommends ‘a complete redrafting’ to make the rules easier for applicants to understand, as well as introducing a twice-yearly limit to updates, in April and October.

It also recommends the Home Office reduce the level of detail and prescription required, as this has led to increasing numbers of amendments and changes, making the rules more complicated.

The Commissioners say these changes would save the Home Office money by reducing mistakes and, consequently, administrative reviews, appeals and judicial reviews.

Nicholas Paines QC, Public Law Commissioner, said: ‘For both applicants and case workers, the drafting of the Immigration Rules and frequent updates makes them too difficult to follow.

‘This has resulted in mistakes that waste time and cost taxpayer money. By improving the drafting, restructuring the layout and removing inconsistencies, our recommendations will make a real difference by saving money and increasing public confidence in the rules.’

In the past decade, the rules have nearly quadrupled in length, stretching to more than 1,100 pages in 2019. The Law Commission described the structure as ‘confusing’ and the numbering system as ‘inconsistent’. Moreover, it found duplication between different types of application and unnecessary repetition within categories.

On evidence, the Law Commission recommended a more flexible approach could involve providing a non-exhaustive list of examples and asking for any other document that meets requirements.

Issue: 7870 / Categories: Legal News , Immigration & asylum
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Haynes Boone—Jeremy Cross

Haynes Boone—Jeremy Cross

Firm strengthens global fund finance practice with London partner hire.

DWF—Stephen Webb

DWF—Stephen Webb

Partner and head of national planning team appointed

mfg Solicitors—Nick Little

mfg Solicitors—Nick Little

Corporate team expands in Birmingham with partner hire

NEWS
Contract damages are usually assessed at the date of breach—but not always. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Gascoigne, knowledge lawyer at LexisNexis, examines the growing body of cases where courts have allowed later events to reshape compensation
The Supreme Court has restored ‘doctrinal coherence’ to unfair prejudice litigation, writes Natalie Quinlivan, partner at Fieldfisher LLP, in this week' NLJ
The High Court’s refusal to recognise a prolific sperm donor as a child’s legal parent has highlighted the risks of informal conception arrangements, according to Liam Hurren, associate at Kingsley Napley, in NLJ this week
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Mazur may have settled questions around litigation supervision, but the profession should not simply ‘move on’, argues Jennifer Coupland, CEO of CILEX, in this week's NLJ
A simple phrase like ‘subject to references’ may not protect employers as much as they think. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, analyses recent employment cases showing how conditional job offers can still create binding contracts
back-to-top-scroll