immigration reform

7 petitions

Started 3 weeks ago

Petition to home office, DavidLammy , TheresaMay

Put A Stop To Inhumane Delays With Leave To Remain Applications

The public is yet to grasp the callous immigration policies that plaque the lives of migrants in the UK- the Windrush scandal is just the tip of the iceberg. Thousands of migrants are stuck in an administrative limbo, waiting years for the Home Office to come to a decision on their application. During these wait times, most migrants are stripped of their rights to the most basic human needs, like the right to healthcare, the right to work and the right to rent. It strips people of not only their livelihood but their mental health and their dignity. Migrants pay up to and over £2000 per settlement application, only to face inhuman and undue delays with their application.  Applicants for Indefinite leave to remain are sent standard letters stating that their application raises issues relating to Human Rights, which means there is no standard processing time. Why are migrants paying extortionate prices for settlement only to be left in a constant state of anxiety and depression with no assurance of when their application is to be decided?  It goes against every fabric of humanity for the Home Office to strip people of their basic human rights while keeping their applications for extended periods of time- This amounts to a breach of their Human Rights as ruled in the recent Court of Appeal case, Secretary of State for the Home Department v Said [2018] EWCA Civ 627, where the Court of Appeal ruled that  delays with immigration decisions went beyond maladministration and were a breach of Human Rights which could lead to substantial compensation. The BBC also ran a series of articles entitled ‘Home Office visa delays ‘inhumane’, examining the financial and emotional pressure many individuals found themselves under, resulting from their personal circumstances and delays in making decisions.  Why are migrants, who have legally resided in the U.K. for over 10 years, being stripped of their right to work while their application is being processed?  How does the Home Office expect people to survive with no means of income and no access to healthcare or accommodation? Why has the Home Office still not grasp the  scale of mental distress it is inflicting on migrants by taking a year and over to decide an application? This is all part of the Hostile Environment Policy that was introduced by the then Home Secretary, Theresa May. It is a policy that is passive aggressive and used as a method of psychological oppression, a form of torture - systematically used to pressure people to self deport without any physical interference. It is designed to make the lives of migrants as miserable as possible, the effects of which is seen through mental suffering ,  loss of time, financial loss and loss of livelihood.   It is unfair, Inhumane and very callous for a Government department to inflict such pain on people who have stayed legally in the country for over a decade. The Hostile Environment is designed with a semblance to tackle illegal immigrants but the reality of the matter is that, legal migrants also get caught up in the net. The system is designed to catch legal immigrants, turn them into illegal immigrants and strip them of their basic rights while taking extended periods of time to decide their application for leave to remain.  I thereby humbly ask every single person that has any ounce of humanity in them, to sign this petition on behalf of every single legal migrant that is caught up in the hostile environment, and facing inhumane delays with their leave to remain applications. Show them that they are not suffering in silence and that the Home Office is incompetent and unfit for purpose because of they way it treats migrants with no regard for their Human Rights and Mental Health The Home Office needs to ensure that all applications for leave to remain are decided in a timely manner, and to ensure that applicants whose applications cannot be decided within the standard customer service time to be allowed to work and access health care. It is a BASIC HUMAN RIGHT You cannot strip someone of their Human Rights and dignity while taking years to decide their application because MIGRANTS ARE PEOPLE, NOT STATISTICS.   Kindly sign and help us put an end to this inhuman delay of settlement applications              

Tamara Johnson
170 supporters
Update posted 3 weeks ago

Petition to Amber Rudd MP, home office, Theresa May MP, Jeremy Corbyn MP, UK Parliament

Stop creating Hostile Enviornment for Immigrants - - EU or Non -EU

We have been reading, hearing a lot about "Hostile enviornment" for "illegal immigrants" but the truth is under the current government it is Hostile enviornment for Legal immigrants! Those immigrants who were mainly on a highly skilled programme in the UK, working in respectable industries and positions are going thru almost inhumane conditions and there is no way they are able to get it to the main light media because there is always a hush hush about immigration; immigrants which generally carries the bad image! The government instead of formalising the immigration policies ;they are making conditions for legal immigrants worst which potentially makes them leave and the government wins because the immigration number reduces. One of the things which is happening at this end which a lot of you are unaware about is - that the applications for a lot of non - eu migrants for indefinite leave are held for over 10 months ! Some even reaching to 15 - 17 months. Which basically means they have no travel document to travel back in any given circumstance! No official form of ID if they dont have a licence.  Some of these people have lost their loved ones back home ; ageing parents ; family problems ; mid - life crises; jobs ; careers everything is at stake for these people. Immigrants have the same problems a we all do ! We are no different. We also saw the introduction of new restrictions on access to privately rented accommodation, driving licences, bank accounts and the introduction of an NHS surcharge and deport first appeal later rules , which are very discriminatory. The most damaging section of the Immigration Act 2014 removed the right of appeal from most migrants. It restricted the right of appeal to those appealing human rights decisions and decisions related to grants of asylum and removal of refugee status. Others were doomed to use an internal review system known as ‘Administrative Review’ whereby the Home Office had to review their own decisions rather than scrutiny by an independent adjudicator.  Under the new Bill the Secretary of State will have the power to certify ‘human rights’ claims.This will effectively require appellants to leave the UK before they can exercise a right of appeal on human rights grounds. Only where an individual can meet a very high threshold of ‘serious and irreversible harm’ would they be able to remain in the UK during the appeal process. This will see family members of British Citizens, children, seriously ill persons and those who may not have left the UK for many years, and who may have lost all ties with their country of origin, having to uproot their lives in order to challenge a Home Office decision, which statistically has a 50/50 chance of being successful. Some of these migrants are being referred to a threat to the country just because they might have filled their tax late or had to maybe even amend their taxes which is acceptable by HMRC. And most of these migrants have been in the country for almost a decade; can you really call them a threat/cheat because of the above ?  We want the UKVI to start processing the applications within the service standard times at the least - which is 6 months !  Secretary of State to re- consider late paid taxes or amendments, does not make some one a threat (that too just because they are an immigrant) and it does not mean all of these migrants businesses are ingenuine. Most of them are specialised in there own fields and roles they perform, they might not have technical details or answers about taxation , business plans etc . Non - EU migrants had always been in the lime light and now in the course of this Brexit our EU migrants could see a similar situation. Stop the Secretary of State to make hostile enviornment for us immigrants.   This affects my family ; your family; our neighbours; your colleagues, our nurses , doctors and every 3rd person who touch mine and your soul! Lets make our community that our children would remember! Lets bring unity in our diversity 

Aditi B
23,208 supporters
This petition won 1 month ago

Petition to home office, Sajiv , Sajid Javid

Allow baby Julian's dad in the country

Today we received the heartbreaking news that Didin’s spouse visa for the UK has been refused. This visa was to allow Didin to work and live with Julian and I in the UK. Our son Julian who is 10 months old is described as medically complex. He was born with one kidney, bladder and bowel problems, high blood pressure and anaemia. He spent the first month of his life in neonatal intensive care. Since one day old he has lived with a colostomy and a suprapubic catheter. He has been through 5 surgeries in his small life and faces another major operation next month. He takes medicine 8 times a day to stay healthy and attends hospital appointments weekly. His medical needs require 2 adults to bathe him and change him. Didin was Julian’s main carer as I had to return to work. We made the decision to return to Indonesia in January as Didin’s visa had expired. We applied for his spouse visa on February 28th and have been waiting until now to receive this news. We met all the requirements of the visa route we went down. We provided the home office with all our financial details, numerous medical letters stating it is in Julian’s best interest to remain in the UK and supporting letters from my family. -this visa cost over £3500 ( money which we will never get back) -the appeal will cost us over £1000 The reason for the refusal is a miscalculation of our financial evidence from the entry clearance officer. The refusal also states that we have no exceptional circumstances in which the refusal would have harsh consequences on a child. Unfortunately there is no way for me to call and ask them to add their sums up again. I now have to lodge an appeal and wait 12-18 months to get a response. Julian and I will have to go through his major surgery without his dad to support us. Please sign this petition and help stop these small mistakes that are having devastating impact on families all over the UK.

Christopher Lunday
924 supporters
Update posted 5 months ago

Petition to Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, Justin Trudeau

Protect the Public & 4200 Immigration Consultants Livelihood from the Current Regulator

Petition for Authorities To Order an INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION Of the ICCRC to Protect the Public Interest & the Immigration Consultants Profession from the Current Regulator ICCRC Request to take action as soon as possible and protect the public interest and the livelihood of over 4200 Canadians and their families. "It is impossible, in my mind, to distinguish between the refusal to receive a petition or its summary rejection by some general order, and the denial of the right of petition." Caleb Cushing Action Required from the Government: If the Government can intervene and talk to the US government to protect the interest of hundreds of employees of other industries, why can’t the Government take care of the livelihood of 4200 Canadian citizens by simply dealing with the Canadian corporation running its operations with Government power? The Public and the Membership demands an OPEN and an INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION on all Affairs of the Council, including financial spendings, complaints and third-party payout to private contractors, since inceptions. We the members of the ICCRC request the Government to immediately take an action to safeguard the public interest and the livelihood of the RCICs. We the Members of the ICCRC want the Government to Protect Our Profession We want transparency and accountability in our Profession and the Government to connect directly with the membership at large rather having closed-door meetings with the self-interest directors of the Council to safeguard the corporation's interest The Canadian Immigration Consultants are regulated by a federal body known as the Immigration Consultants of Canada Regulatory Council (ICCRC). The "ICCRC" currently has over 4200 registered members (RCIC). The majority of the regulated, licensed Immigration Consultants are competent, honest and helping the public to protect their interest within Canada and globally. Immigration Consultants (RCICs) provide services to the public at a professional standard and highly competitive fees as compared to other legal professionals in the similar industry. The current board and administration have lost its credibility and trust not only among its own membership but also the government and the public.  ICCRC holds its annual general meeting every year to present and discuss its affairs among the membership. The Problems: Our profession is facing a hard time to maintain its professional standards and status due to actions of the current administration, which consists of current and former board members of the ICCRC and senior officers since the inspection. Regular members are not responsible for this turmoil. In May 2016 the ICCRC board approved a new regulation called "PULA" (Planned and Unplanned Absence) outside of all respect of laws concerning the Canadian Charter of Rights, privacy, confidentiality, the competition, and consumer protection, to name few. No member or public group was consulted.   In the opinion of the majority of the public and the members, "PULA" is not a very well thought-out regulation. It directly affects the livelihood of the 4200 members and their families which are Canadian citizens. In addition, the requirements to comply negatively impacts the public interest as well as the practice of the members, and might eventually discourage the public and (RCIC) consultants to stop doing business in every respect. This oppressive regulation is purely enacted to make the government happy so that they may allow the organization to keep its status as a regulatory body—again, a perfect example of the effort to protect its self-interest. On November 2, 2017, several members submitted their proposals to discuss and resolve these issues during the upcoming 2017 AGM. These requests were for discussion on the following serious issues: Matters to Discuss & Resolve: Concerning Planned or Unplanned Absence Regulation Version: 2016-001 Approved By the Board of Directors: May 13, 2016. Andrew John Roman Professional Corporation Report To: The Immigration Consultants Of Canada Regulatory Council On Review Of ICCRC’s Intake Process For Disciplinary Matters And Recommendations For Change January 31, 2015  The states of relationship since inception and at the current time between “NRCDS,” former ICCRC CEO, other directors-officers of the corporation between the period 2011–2017, Registrar and the Council  Statistics concerning the number of complaints referred to and processed by “NRCDS” during 2011–2017  Summary of the Fees paid to “NRCDS,” and names of members of the FAC committee who reviewed and approved it. Summary of Legal Counsel Fees Paid - January 2016 to March 31, 2017 ($2.2 million paid to lawyers) Evidence # 1 Evidence # 2 On November 3, 2017, members also submitted a request to the chair of the board and the chair of the election committee to have the registrar of the council recuse himself from any board election and AGM voting process, since he is the subject of members’ request for investigation and also has a direct conflict of interest by filing direct complaints against members who asked questions about his personal actions and the actions of the board. On November 7, 2017, the council declined to entertain any such request. On November 7, the ICCRC board responded through its lawyer that they could not entertain such requests. Evidence   •Letter from ICCRC on Resolutions & Member's Response •Letter to the election committee chair on LEB Recusing himself •Response from the Committee Chair & UCICA Response Public and Members Interest At High Risk: The "PULA" Affect: The "PULA" regulations are a direct threat to the public interest. The Council’s recent mandatory PULA regulations are not only oppressive but also against the greater public interest. These regulations have certain elements for members to complete before signing a declaration for compliance which is a direct attack and infringement on the public and the members’ rights pursuant to Canadian laws: RCIC must arrange and execute a power of attorney to appoint a third-party representative to take over members’ banking accounts, business, practice, and all past, current and future client files and records, and even enter the client’s office premises (home business or commercial). This power can trigger simply if the member fails to respond to a client’s call in three days.  Concern: How can a member execute such power of attorney without the consent or knowledge of the client/member of the public? Is this not a direct threat to the public interest and member’s right to practice and protect his/her property and assets freely and without any forceful action of the Government body?  On top of above power of attorney, RCIC must execute a will, to automatically assign all the above requirements in the name of a third-party representative, and again without the consent and knowledge of the client or member of the public.  Concern: How can a member execute such power of attorney without the consent or knowledge of the client/member of the public? Is this not a direct threat to the public interest and member’s right to practice and protect his/her property and assets freely and without any forceful action of the Government body?  It is also required to inform, discuss and share the client’s file record which includes all confidential information with the third-party representative in advance and without the consent of the client!  Concern: This is a direct threat to client privacy and confidentiality and also an invitation to the third party to compete with the member by contacting the client.  Once the client file is transferred to the third party, the third party will take over the file without client’s consent or willingness to accept that, because the member has already selected a third party without the consent of the client. This will also allow the third-party representative contact with the IRCC/CIC. Now how can this happen, if there is no IMM5476 form in place signed by the client granting such authority?  This could be a major issue concerning IRPA/IPPR and ATIP legislation dealing with authorization and representation and access to private information. There are several other elements almost impossible to comply with, which members are nevertheless required to comply with on or before January 1, 2018, or the member may lose his/her license to practice. If member’s license is suspended or terminated by the above action, then thousands of client who are members of the public will be left unrepresented and may suffer procedures and financial loss. This action of the Council is also a direct threat to the livelihood of the thousands of the members of the ICCRC and affects their families. Evidence Click Here (refer to pages # 46, 49, 58, 62, 64) Outsourcing Complaint & Disciplinary Process! Facts and Independent Opinions:  The ICCRC's Complaint and Discipline Process: An important function of ICCRC is to protect the public from members who fail to provide service that meets ICCRC’s ethical and competency standards. This protective function is carried out through the complaint and discipline process (C&D). Unlike most professional regulatory bodies, ICCRC contracts out the entire Intake stage to an external independent contractor. This raises very serious concerns among the members and the public.  The ICCRC took the unprecedented action of outsourcing its Complaint and Discipline system right from the beginning in 2011. These functions are/were carried out by four retired RCMP officers, working in close coordination with ICCRC. One of these retired RCMP officers, Robert Kewley, is the independent contractor (through his company) who manages and supervises the others.  Contracting out most of the intake activity for four years means that ICCRC cannot discipline or fire individual investigators, or bring the process in-house until the contract expires. According to an independent report which directly relates to the public interest and was never published by the ICCRC Administration:  Very few if any other professional regulatory bodies have outsourced their investigative functions to this degree, probably because regulators maintain greater control over the entire intake and investigation process (including communications with members and complainants) by integrating these functions within the staff. The private (C&D) contractor Inappropriately closed complaint files which may have to be reopened after the member, the complainant and perhaps also CIC have been told the file is closed. This raises issues of fairness to the member and makes it difficult to carry on the complaint in these circumstances. It also damages ICCRC’s credibility both externally and among the membership. In several cases, there was no record in the file explaining why the file was closed after the initial investigation. In such cases, legal counsel is simply left to guess and to try to explain this to the complainant, CIC or the media. Although these RCMP officers have had extensive experience in dealing with crime and criminals, the ability to make informed decisions in professional discipline matters affecting an individual’s ability to earn a living is quite different. The somewhat vague and overinclusive content of the current Code of Professional Ethics makes the task more difficult even for experienced lawyers. The field of professional discipline requires an understanding of administrative law, an area of law in which most practicing lawyers themselves have had little or no experience. ICCRC staff open a file and send it directly to one of the investigators, advising Mr. Kewley of this, or directly to Mr. Kewley. Occasionally, Mr. Kewley or one of his investigators may instruct an ICCRC staff person to open new files. In one notorious case, an ICCRC clerical employee was instructed to open 45 new files, one for each of 45 complaints against a single member, and to assign each file folder a different file number. Evidence Click Here Transparency & Accountability: The Council’s decision and ongoing renewal of outsourcing our the C & D process to a private corporation owned and operated by the friends of the directors and officers is a major concern and threat to the public interest, and an unfair procedure to discipline the membership at large. (Refer to an independent report dated 2015 and a private contract with the “NRCDS.”) Evidence Click Here Membership believes that the C & D contracting had a purpose and that was to redirect the funds out of the Council’s account. Members apprehend that there is a connection between the owners of the private contractor “NRCDS,” former CEO and the current registrar of the Council. This can only be further verified if there is an independent public inquiry. Members have made several requests and submitted proposals to the board to conduct or order investigations, which have been summarily denied for obvious reasons. If there is nothing wrong with the spending and financial affairs or connection between the parties concerned, then why is the members’ simple request to investigate denied? It does not make any sense and raises great concerns among the membership and the public. There have been questions about major financial discrepancies in Council's reports, objections were made, but in return, members asking questions were disciplined.  Evidence Click Here Director's (Ryan Dean) Statement Before CIMM Misrepresentations and major financial discrepancies lies Members Choice and Options: Members have no choice left other than to ask the government to intervene and protect the public interest and the livelihood of over 4200 members and their families. A majority of the membership (RCIC) cannot even afford to pay their very high licensing fees, and cannot seek expensive remedy through the Justice system. On the other hand, the board of directors and the administration is spending millions of dollars received from members in licensing fees to defend its interest via high-profile law firms. Members efforts to protect the public and their interest: Since 2013 the membership has at large has expressed its serious concerns about the council's transparency, accountability and mandate to protect the public. Members have been submitting proposals and changes in the system all denied by the Board to protect their self-interest. Evidence Click Here The Council's Response & Actions Against the Membership: In response to those concerns and questions, the council's administration and board of directors has always retaliated and filed disciplinary complaints and lawsuits to silence the critics. Recently, the term of an elected member of the board, Mr. Ryan Dean, was simply terminated by the self-interested directors/administration because he demanded a full investigation into its financial spending and major discrepancies and appeared before a parliamentary committee to openly expose the "Bad Actors." Evidence Click Here This Council has no mechanism in place to file a complaint or request an investigation against its staff and directors. The code of ethics and policies are only on paper. Such request is processed by the same individuals who are subject to the complaint, having a direct conflict of interest.  Millions of dollars have been paid to lawyers to simply advise and protect the existence of the corporation and to keep the control of current Board and administration within the grasp of the same and few close friends. During Jan 2016 - March 2017 ICCRC spent over $ 2.2 million towards litigation costs, the majority of which was paid to lawyers to protect the interest of the corporation and its directors and no explanation was provided.  Evidence Click Here Indeed, this $2.2 Million was hidden from the membership and it does not reflect what is shown the current certified and audited ICCRC Financial Statements. The board of directors has proposed and approved several very oppressive bylaws and regulations purely to protect its self-interest and the interest of its directors and officers. there is no apparent intent to protect the public interest. Membership Approaching the Government & Response: In October 2017, UCICA on behalf of its members approached Minister of Citizenship and Immigration The Honourable Ahmed D. Hussen MP and members of the parliamentary committee with direct evidence concerning the public interest and to request a direct meeting with the members at large of ICCRC/UCICA. Government: No action was taken and the meeting request was denied.  On June 16, 2017, the parliamentary Committee on Citizenship Matters finalized its recommendations to bring major changes to our regulatory system. But no action has been taken since then. Evidence Click Here On October 16, 2017, The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration submitted his response to the CIMM report, but again, no action has been taken or a solid plan provided to protect the public and the livelihood of the 4200 members and their families. Evidence Click Here If the Government can intervene and talk to the US government to protect the interest of hundreds of employees of other industries, why can’t the Government take care of the livelihood of 4200 Canadian citizens by simply dealing with the Canadian employer running its operations with Government power? Who is Who: U.C.I.C.A. UNITED CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION CONSULTANTS ASSOCIATION is a Federal Not for Profit Corporation with a mission to serve and protect the public interest and the interest of its members (RCICs). UCICA currently has over 2900 members and their supporters who are also members of the ICCRC. UCICA is working to protect the objective interest of all RCICs. ICCRC Background & Introduction: ICCRC is the national regulatory body designated by the government of Canada, in July 2011, to regulate Canadian immigration, citizenship and international student advising services. Permitted service providers of these regulated professions are known as Regulated Canadian Immigration Consultants (RCICs) and Regulated International Student Immigration Advisors (RISIAs). ICCRC currently regulates over 4200 Regulated Canadian Immigration Consultants in Canada and abroad. ICCRC’s mandate is to protect consumers of immigration services through effective regulation of immigration and citizenship consultants and promotion of the benefits of using only authorized immigration representatives. ICCRC is not an ordinary not-for-profit society. It is not a social club, nor a religious organization. ICCRC has been delegated the authority under IRPA, subsection 91(5) to regulate immigration consultants. It has the power to determine if a person may make a living in that particular profession. The Profession "Licensed Immigration Consultants is a Federal Profession.” Pursuant to IRPA/IRPR provisions The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration directly and the Government of Canada is responsible to oversee and monitor the designated body to regulate this profession. ICCRC is unusual in several respects. First, almost all professional occupations in Canada are regulated by provincial legislation under the power to pass laws concerning property and civil rights in a province pursuant to paragraph 92(13) of the Constitution Act, 1867. ICCRC protects consumers by mainly: Managing a rigorous complaints and discipline process ICCRC regulates RCICs mainly by:  Delivering Practice Management Education (PME) courses in order for RCICs to maintain their competent practice. Conducting a Compliance Audit to make certain that RCICs’ practice and documentation comply with ICCRC Regulations. Accrediting and auditing the Immigration Practitioner Programs (IPPs) offered by post-secondary institutions across Canada. UCICA and its member rely on following statutes when considering an action in this matter against the council by the Government: LIST OF STATUTES AND REGULATIONS 1. Canada Not-for-Profit Corporation Act, SC 2009, c. 23, ss. 253 to 262; 2. Constitution Act, 1867, s. 92(13) 3. Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c. 27, s. 91 4. Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, SOR/2002-227, s. 13.2 5. Regulations Designating a Body for the Purposes of Paragraph 91(2)(c) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SOR/2011-142 Click here for more details about UCICA Members and Details

584 supporters