While drafting a skeleton argument yesterday it has became apparent to me that the UKBA’s website provides an inaccurate picture of the immigration rules. Allow me to explain. The skeleton had a section on Tier 2 (General) and appendixes A, B and C of the rules.
Since 19 July 2010 the UKBA has operated an unlawful limit on CoS. Judgment from the High Court is eagerly awaited. In the Tier 2 context, as of 21 December 2010, the UKBA has operated an “interim limit” by amending paragraph 63 of Appendix A of the rules. The government, it seems, is backdating its illegal cap to 19 July 2009 (when it was not even in power) and consequently paragraph 63(F)(i) currently reads:
63F. The number in paragraph 63D(i) is calculated as follows: (i) The number of Certificates of Sponsorship assigned by the Sponsor to a Tier 2 (General) Migrant between 19 July 2009 and 31 March 2010 is identified by the Secretary of State;
It is really alarming that independent people in legal practice should correct UKBA information. Last year I posted that the agency’s information in relation to the Tier 2 (General) CoS was inconsistent. Hatnews linked my post and to preclude further embarrassment the UKBA ultimately redacted its mistake.
Anyway the above cited paragraph is a bit of a joke given that pursuant to paragraph 63E:
63E. All Certificates of Sponsorship that have been assigned by the Secretary of State to a Sponsor prior to 21 December 2010 and which have not been assigned by the Sponsor to a Tier 2 (General) Migrant prior to 21 December 2010 are withdrawn and the only Certificates of Sponsorship assigned to any Sponsor under the Tier 2 Interim Limit are the Certificates of Sponsorship assigned in accordance with the calculation in paragraph 63F.
If the contents of paragraph 63E are correct then it is quite a nonsensical notion that paragraph 63(F)(i) should apply at all as all the CoS allocated thereby are invalidated automatically by virtue of paragraph 63E. Equally, any unassigned CoS expire anyway in 12 months. Therefore, the idea of a valid CoS from 19 July 2009 – 31 March 2010 is quite obtuse.
It is my sincerest hope that the UKBA will spend less of its time harassing people and try to concentrate on getting its legal information sorted out. It seems that the UKBA requires independent advice and managerial supervision: they really are at sea with it all. Perhaps if they pay me a fee I can help them edit their shabby site. UKBA money: I wonder what that is like? Wonder no more, it’s 50p an hour mate!