Indians among nearly 1,000 professionals in UK who get visa reprieve

The issue had affected a large number of Indian professionals, such as solicitors, doctors, chemists and teachers, who demonstrated outside parliament several times since January. Some of them even initiated legal action.

Nearly 1,000 professionals from India and elsewhere won a reprieve when the Theresa May government on Tuesday agreed to review their applications for indefinite stay that were earlier rejected through the use of a rule meant for terrorists and criminals.

The decision to review and put on hold applications that would have been turned down was communicated by home secretary Sajid Javid to Yvette Cooper, chair of the home affairs committee of parliament.

The issue had affected a large number of Indian professionals, such as solicitors, doctors, chemists and teachers, who demonstrated outside parliament several times since January. Some of them even initiated legal action.

Although rule 322 (5) of the Immigration Act is designed to deal with criminals and those considered a threat to national security, it was invoked when applications for indefinite stay by professionals from India and other countries showed errors in their income and tax declarations. Discrepancies in income mentioned in applications to the home office and the income tax authorities were construed as examples of dishonest conduct, and their applications under the tier 1 (general) category for indefinite stay refused.

Javid, who appeared before the committee earlier this month, wrote to Cooper: “I have asked the immigration minister to conduct a review of the cohort of cases that arrived under the tier 1 general route and were refused due to discrepancies with their HMRC (tax) records.”

“I can confirm that all the applications potentially falling for refusal under the character and conduct provisions of paragraph 322(5) in the tier 1 (general) ILR and 10-year long residency routes, where the applicant had previously been in the tier 1 (general) route, have been put on hold pending the findings of the current review,” he added.

As part of the review, Javid said the home office was also checking individual case records to identify any applicants who were removed from the United Kingdom after being refused permanent stay under paragraph 322(5).

“We have identified 19 individuals who were refused indefinite leave to remain and subsequently made voluntary departures from the UK. One has since been issued with a visa to return to the UK, having applied under a different provision of the immigration rules,” he wrote.

Aditi Bhardwaj, one of the co-organisers of the campaign on this issue, welcomed the development. “We have not heard officially, but were awaiting a response after we asked the select committee to raise few questions for us,” she said.

“Other pressure groups are supporting us to stop the home office using this rule for applications from highly skilled professionals. I am happy things are taking this turn; I hope to see these migrants getting justice after at least two years,” Bhardwaj added.

Commenting on Javid’s letter, Cooper said: “We’ve heard of a series of cases of highly skilled workers, employed in our public services and senior jobs legally for many years, now being told to leave apparently due to minor tax errors. So it is a welcome development that the home secretary is now reviewing all those cases and putting decisions on hold.”