Court Order for HSMP Forum (UK) Ltd., R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2009] EWHC 711 (Admin) (06 April 2009)

Dear Sir or Madam,

This is a request for a copy of the Court order by the
Administrative Court to the Borders Agency on 6 Apr 09 in the
aforementioned case. The Court order was issued on 6 Apr 09
pursuant to the release of the judgement by Mrs Justice Cox DBE in
the case of HSMP Forum (UK) Ltd., R (on the application of) v
Secretary of State for the Home Department [2009] EWHC 711 (Admin)
(06 April 2009). The judicial review was itself heard on 13 Mar 09.

The court order which followed the judgement is a public document,
raises important issues in immigration law, human rights, race
relations and public interest. It should therefore be placed in the
public domain. The beginning of the judgement is as follows:

# The Claimant, HSMP Forum (UK) Limited, is an incorporated
organisation formed to support and assist skilled migrants
currently in the United Kingdom. The majority of its members came
to the UK under the Highly Skilled Migrant Programme (HSMP)
introduced by the United Kingdom Government in January 2002. Under
this scheme, people were encouraged to come to the UK if they could
meet the criteria identified and qualify for migration. The mutual
benefits of the HSMP were expressed as follows:

"This programme is a new way of allowing individuals to migrate to
the United Kingdom. It aims to provide an individual migration
route for highly skilled persons who have the skills and experience
required by the United Kingdom to compete in the global economy."

# In this application for Judicial Review the Claimant is
challenging the policy document, "HSMP Forum Limited: policy
document", adopted by the Defendant on 9 July 2008. This document
was adopted following a previous, successful application by the
Claimant for Judicial Review [2008] EWHC 664 (Admin) in which Sir
George Newman decided, on 8 April 2008, that the Defendant had
acted unlawfully in applying to people who had already been
admitted to the HSMP, as at 7 November 2006, the changes to the
programme set out in Immigration Rules HC 1702 (Rule 135D). The
Defendant did not appeal against that decision, but adopted new
policy guidance on 9 July 2008, which purported to give effect to
it.

# The Claimant's written grounds of challenge are based on what are
said to be unlawful shortcomings in this policy guidance, following
the earlier judgment, in relation to two issues. First, it fails to
deal with an earlier change made to the HSMP, on 3 April 2006,
increasing the qualifying period for settlement (indefinite leave
to remain) from 4 to 5 years, a change which the Claimant contends
should not apply, but is being applied, to those who were already
on the programme before it came into force. Secondly, those members
of the HSMP who, relying on the earlier judgment, applied for
settlement after 4 years on the scheme, have not only had such
applications refused, but have also not been given a further year's
leave to remain, to enable them to complete the 5 years; and have
also been told that their continued presence here is unlawful, and
that they are liable to removal unless successful on appeal.

# In granting permission to apply on 27 November 2008, Stuart
Isaacs QC (Deputy High Court Judge) refused the Defendant's
application for an extension of time for filing her Acknowledgment
of Service and ordered that:

"The Defendant's position can be ventilated at the Judicial Review
hearing subject to her compliance with CPR Part 54.9 (1)(b)."

I am one of the affected Highly Skilled Migrants and will be
grateful for your kind response,

Yours faithfully,

Dr M Khan