The secretary of state has announced that Afghan citizens’ resettlement scheme will aim to allow 5,000 Afghans to settle in the UK, with the long term goal of a total of 20,000. With particular focus on women and children, other religious and minorities in greater danger of persecution from Taliban. However for the Afghan workers and interpreters: the Afghan relocations and assistance policy (ARAP) scheme was launched on 1 April 2021. It was designed to resettle interpreters and other people who worked for the UK in Afghanistan. The statistic by the Home office is that 2000 Afghan staff and their families in the UK, although the target is 5,000 by the end of this year under this scheme.
The secretary of state is able to revoke indefinite leave to remain under section 76 of Immigration Act 2002. In the following instances,
Liable to deportation – section 76(1) revocation
Where a person is liable to deportation but cannot be deported for legal reasons, the
Secretary of State can decide to revoke indefinite leave under section 76(1) of the
A legal reason normally means that a person’s deportation would breach the UK’s
obligations under the Refugee Convention or the European Convention on Human
Deception – section 76(2) revocation
Indefinite leave obtained through the use of deception, including by a third party,
may be revoked under section 76(2) of the 2002 Act. The deception must be material
to the grant of leave.
A person who obtains, or seeks to obtain, leave to enter or remain by deception is
guilty of an offence under section 24A of the Immigration Act 1971 (1971 Act).
Where a person has been convicted under section 24A of having obtained leave by
deception, it will have been proven to the criminal standard (beyond reasonable
doubt) and therefore the Secretary of State will have good reason to conclude that
the evidentiary requirement in respect of revoking leave (balance of probabilities).
If you require further assistance do get in touch with us.
The Employment tribunal held that respondent was in brearch of its duty under section 1(1) of the ERA 1996 and therefore, the claimant was unfairly dismissed, see detailed of the case via the link below