A Critical Review of the UK Immigration Points-Based System

Adebayo Daniels Birkbeck College, University ofLondon ©2014

Immigration Law

Essay Title:

“...Benefits will accrue from the new points based system not just because of who it allows in, but also because of how those people are selected. Particularly important in this context are the principles that the new system should be clearand user-friendly, and based on objective and transparent criteria. These are the principles behind using a points-basedsystem for structured decision-making...”

Paragraph 40 Cm 67, A Points-based System: Making Migration Work for Britain (March 2006)

Critically discuss with reference to the UK points-based system.


INTRODUCTION

Every state has the right to exercise legitimate and

discretionary control over immigration. This, according to

Wellman, is a central element of a state’s sovereignty and one

component of the self-determination, which is owed to all

individuals and legitimate states.1

The last fifteen years saw the UK experience major

developments in UK migration law and policies. This essay

seeks to critically analyse the UK Immigration Points Based

System in relation to its anchor principles of clarity, user-

friendliness, objectivity and transparency in making

structured decisions. It argues that, while this new system

appears to meet its objectives of modernizing the previous

system of attracting highly skilled applicants to the UK, it

has been compromised and weakened by the predominance of

short-term aims, frequent amendments, a preference for

1 Wellman, Christopher Heath. "Immigration and Freedom of Association" Ethics 119.1 (2008): 109-141.


administrative convenience over fairness and for control over

flexibility.2

It is unarguably accepted that to understand the need for a

new thing, one must first understand the old and why it is no

longer required or/and why it is due for a revamp or a total

overhaul.

Below are the six developmental phases from 1997-2010 in a bid

to controlling the migration of labour to the UK:3

1997-2000: This period saw a change in political thinking

about immigration. In particular, it now felt that immigration

could have potential positive economic benefits for the UK.

2000-2004: This period was underpinned by five themes: meeting

labour/skills shortages; encouraging innovation and

entrepreneurialism; expanding the UK’s share of the Higher and

Further Education international student market; developing a

self-financing system; and establishing a more rigorous system

of control. The HSMP was introduced in January 2002 to be the

2 Wray, Helena E. "The points based system: a blunt instrument?" Journal of Immigration Asylum and Nationality Law 23.3 (2009): 231-251.3 Edited by Duran Seddon, JCWI, Guide to the Points-Based System, Joint Council forthe Welfare of Immigrants 2011, pg 1-2


flagship of the Government's managed migration policy.

Overseas nationals could enter the UK to work under the Work

Permit Scheme, administered by the Work Permits (UK). The work

permit application is made by a UK employer who must convince

WP (UK): that a genuine job vacancy exits; there is no

suitable EEA national to do the job; the overseas national is

suitably qualified and experienced for the job; and the job

requires a certain level of skills.4

2005 – 2008: The influx of Eastern Europeans into the UK and

negative media coverage of immigration were key factors that

shaped labour migration policy. It was during this period that

the Government introduced a blue-print for a ‘points-based’

system, together with new control mechanisms.

2008-2009: This period saw the launch and implementation of

the Points-Based System. This development was inspired by the

earlier phases and drew heavily from the preceding innovation.

2009-2010: This phase revealed the possibility that the PBS

had drafting oversights. It was a period of fine-tuning,

4 Laura Devine, ‘Is the new highly skilled migrant programme “fit for purpose”?’ JIANL, 2007, 21(2), 90-108


tightening and extending the PBS. Modifications were made to

the system in order to correct unforeseen consequences.

2010-Present: Further amendments and statement of changes to

the PBS; Integration of policy guidance and the immigration

rules.5 6 7

THE POINTS BASED SYSTEM

The Points Based System (“PBS”) introduced in 2008 was based

on an Australian-style points system and was the biggest

immigration shakeup for 40 years. Its purpose was to create a

clearer system, consolidating more than 80 immigration work

and study categories into five tiers. The idea was to

introduce objective criteria to streamline decision-making,

making it fairer by removing tests of intention and

credibility. The PBS also introduced self-assessment to enable

applicants to identify whether they met the relevant tier

criteria.8

5 Statement of Changes in Immigration Rules, Cm 8423, Published 19 July 2012 following the case of Alvi v SSHD6 New Statement of Changes to the Immigration Rules, HC 565 7 Statement of Changes to the Immigration Rules, HC 11388 Damir Duheric, Employment and immigration: the points based system three years on..., Employment Law Bulletin, 2012, (1)


The PBS was introduced as a major part of the Home Office’s

‘simplification’ project. In order words it was rolled out to:9

- Allow the Home Office to have greater control over the

numbers migrants coming to work and study in the UK,

- To devolve much of the work involved in monitoring

migrants workers and students in the UK to their

employers and education providers, and

- To make the decision-making process easier for Home

Office staff by setting very precisely the requirements

that need to be met and the documents that can be

provided to evidence those requirements.

This new system was meant to favour well in comparison to the

then current complex immigration scheme, which had grown up

over many years with its myriad of immigration categories

layered with concessions, discretions and subjective decision-

making.10 Whilst undoubtedly there is room for improvement in

the current immigration system, it can equally be argued that

many of its perceived complexities are the necessities of a

9 JCWI Training Manual, OISC 1/IAAS 1 – Update, March 2014 10 Laura Devine, “Not So Good Migrations: The New UK Points Based System Has Poor Vibrations for Immigration”, International Law Commentary Emerging Issues 4825 (2010)


finely calibrated system; one that has evolved and been fine-

tuned over many years, enabling it to address a diverse range

of circumstances and resulting in a well-honed, sophisticated

instrument for assessing entry to the UK.11

Underpinning the new migration system was a five-tier

framework, each of which was divided into a number of

categories:12

Tier 1 - is the only part of the regime which does not require

applicants to be sponsored either by an employer or an

education provider. It has six subcategories: Investor,

Entrepreneur, Graduate Entrepreneur, Exceptional Talent,

General (closed to new applicants) and Post-Study Work (also

closed to new applicants).

Tier 2 - for skilled workers sponsored by employers holding a

Tier 2 sponsor licence issued by the Home Office to come to

the UK either in order to fill a job for which no suitable

employee is available from the resident labour market (Tier 2

(General)), or for people already working for a company

outside the European Economic Area who are required to join

11 Ibid n412 http://www.gherson.com/immigration/ <assessed 14-04-14>

http://www.gherson.com/immigration/


their employer's UK office on a temporary basis (Tier 2 (Intra

Company Transfer)). Additionally, Tier 2 has separate

subcategories for Ministers of Religion and for Sportspeople.

Tier 3 - this Tier, which was intended for unskilled workers,

has never been operational since the implementation of the

Points-Based System and seems likely to remain closed.

Tier 4 - for those wishing to study in the UK. Tier 4

(General) and Tier 4 (Child) Students have to be sponsored by

a college or a school (in the case of Tier 4 (Child) Students)

which has been granted a Tier 4 sponsor licence by the Home

Office.

Tier 5 - which has two subcategories: Tier 5 (Youth Mobility),

enabling young people from Australia, Canada, Japan, New

Zealand, Monaco and Taiwan to live and work in the UK for a

period of two years, and Tier 5 (Temporary Workers), for those

sponsored by licensed UK employers to come to the UK on a

temporary basis.

The PBS is provided for in the Part 6A and in various

Appendices of the Immigration Rules13. Each category within the

13 Immigration Rules: Part 6A [last amended 6 April 2014]


PBS also has its own Policy Guidance which supplements the

information provided for in the rules. The three main

appendices are: A: Attributes, B: English and C: Maintenance.

Part 6A outlines how an applicant can accrue the necessary

number of points. Under some of the PBS routes, there is only

one way to accrue the requisite number of points.14 Also to be

found in Part 6A are switching rules, the period of leave to

be granted and various other requirements an applicant is

required to meet should they intend to extend their leave or

settle in the UK.

The requirements for each of the tiers are very wide and

complex, as such, for the purpose of this essay, only caselaw

pertaining to Tier-1, 2 and 4 will be examined and used for

illustration.

PROPOSED BENEFITS AND SELECTION PROCESS

The Migration Advisory Committee (MAC) was set up by the

Government in 2007 as an independent non-departmental public

body to provide evidence-based advice to the Government on

where shortages of skilled labour can sensibly be filled by

14 JCWI Training Manual, OISC 2/IAAS 1 – Update, March 2013


immigration from outside the European Economic Area (EEA). The

MAC also advises the Government on other immigration issues

from time to time.15 Prior to this, the then Home Secretary

Charles Clarke set out the Government's proposed immigration

plan to introduce a ‘clear and modern points system’ in a

Command Paper in February 2005. It consisted of a five-year

plan setting out changes in the immigration law, which he, at

the time termed ‘outdated and confusing’.16 However, in July

200517, a consultation was held to examine how applicants would

be admitted selectively in order to maximise the economic

benefit of migration to the UK.” This showed a slight

variation with regards to the main purpose of the Points-Based

System. It now appears that the core of the proposed PBS was

‘economic and international ‘competiveness’ and ‘control’.18 It

is worth arguing that the Government had more in mind with the

Points-Based System and it is not surprising that there are

current consultations being held in relation to extending this

15 Migration Advisory Committee Report, ‘Skilled Shortage Sensible – Review of Methodology’ March 201016 Home Office, Controlling our borders: Making migration work for Britain- Five year strategy for asylum and immigration Cm 6472, February 2005 pp 5-6.17 Home Office, Selective Admission: Making Migration Work for Britain, July 200518 Home Office A Points-Based System: Making Migration Work for Britain Cm 6741, March 2006, p 12.


system to all areas of the UK immigration law, especially

citizenship.

In response to the Home Office consultation paper entitled,

‘Earning the right to stay: A new points test for

citizenship’, JWCI argued against the introduction of a

points-based test for British citizenship/permanent residence.

In its view, there is no sound objective basis for its

introduction. We argue that it will ultimately lead to: (i) a

reduction of the UK’s ability to attract the skilled workers

it requires in order to remain competitive (ii) increased

insecurity for migrant workers, (iii) the generation of a pool

of undocumented workers, (iv) administrative inefficiency and

(v) inconsistency with the policy objective of facilitating

circular migration.

USER-FRIENDLINESS

According to a Home Office Research on users’ views of the

Points- Based System19, it would appear that a high percentage

of users found the PBS to be more user-friendly. However, it

is worth noting that, at onset, some Home Office staff felt19 Home Office, Research Report 22 – Users’ views of the Points-Based System: January 2009


they had not received enough training and resources to

implement the PBS effectively.20

Since the PBS came into operation, applicants and legal

advisers have been continually frustrated by refusals of

applications that seem, in the eyes, to be based on technical

and bureaucratic grounds. The PBS has been drawn up in such a

way as to eradicate discretion, uncertainty and areas for

dispute on appeal; it also removes judgement and common sense

from the system.21 There have been cases where applicants are

thrown into bewilderment because the reason given for refusal

was so minute. For example, an applicant who may well be

perfectly able to maintain and accommodate themselves and

their dependants without recourse to public funds (and would

previously have been found to be so able), may now be refused,

not because they cannot, but because they have not ticked the

required boxes.22

Further frustration experienced by users of the PBS is the

frequent roll-out of a new version of the PBS application

20 Home Office, Research Report 49 – Users’ views of the Points-Based System: January 201121 Ibid n2, pg 41222 ibid


forms. In Pengiliang v SSHD23, the appellant got into trouble

because he had failed to submit an application in the proper

form. Judge MItting noted the following:

I would not however wish to leave this case, which

has not succeeded, without this observation. This

claimant has plainly satisfied the requirements of

the Immigration Rules throughout his stay up until

the moment that he made a mistake when submitting

his application on 29 May 2009. The error which he

made was a simple mistake. I do not know how it

occurred or why it occurred, but the Secretary of

State might, when reconsidering or considering any

application made by him in future, take into account

that but for a mistake, and nothing more than that,

the claimant would unquestionably have been entitled

to have been granted, and would have been granted,

leave to remain to pursue his course of studies.

In relation to the above, the Home Office has in place the

evidential flexibility process, where if there are minor

23 [2010] EWHC 2922 (Admin)


errors or omissions on specified documents submitted with a

valid application but there is enough evidence to show the

application would otherwise be granted, the caseworker may

contact the migrant, sponsor or representative as appropriate

for clarification or to request missing documents and/or

information.24 Not surprisingly, there have been several

versions of this policy, with the recent one in March 2014

stating the non-obligatory duties of the caseworker to contact

the applicant should there be an omission.

The appeal in the case of Rodriguez, initially decided by the

Upper tribunal in Rodriguez v SSHD25 and then on appeal by the

Secretary of State by the Court of Appeal, SSHD v Rodriguez26,

concerned the effect of the so called "Evidential Flexibility

Policy" in the applications for leave to remain under the

Points Based System. At the Upper Tribunal considered the

Court of Appeal decision in Alam and Others v SSHD27 which was

concerned with documentary evidence that was missing in the

application but was then made available at the First-Tier

Tribunal hearing. Also considered was a similar but different24 Home Office, Points-based system: evidential flexibility25 [2013] UKUT 00042(IAC)26 [2014] EWCA Civ 227 [2012] EWCA Civ 960


case – Shahzad28. This case is different in that the immigration

judge dismissed the appeal because he agreed with the

respondent that the documentation submitted with the

application in support was not sufficient and because he

declined to take account of additional evidence offered to him

because he found that he was precluded from doing so by s85A

of the 2002 Act, in its amended form.

The Court of Appeal overturned the much welcome decision of

the Upper Tribunal and ruled that Evidential Flexibility

Policy did not put the Secretary of State under any obligation

to make any additional enquiries. Those who failed to

support their applications with the required documentation had

no one to blame for it and the harsh consequences for the

Appellant did not outweigh the public interest of consistent

decision making.

The decision marks the end of Evidential Flexibility in PBSapplications.

OBJECTIVITY

At the kick-off of the Points-Based System, the functions of

Work Permit were outsources to ECOs abroad. Prior to this,

28 [2012] UKUT 81 (IAC)


there were growing concerns around the quality and objectivity

of ECO decision-making in that a high proportion of ECO

decision as at 2005 were incorrect, and up to 83 per cent of

refusals by ECO decisions in certain skilled based category

were overturned on appeal. 29

In its submission to the Home Affairs Committee30, ILPA stated

that it did not agree that the Points-Based System was fair,

transparent and objective. Under PBS, ECOs now decide who can

and who cannot come to the UK by reference to the evidence

which the individual is able to produce. The Immigration Rules

now require an applicant to provide ‘specified’

documentation.31 It (ILPA) further stated that the effect of

this was that rather than demonstrating that they meet an

attribute criterion, such as proving that they hold a degree,

the applicant must in fact prove that they hold a particular

type of document regarding that attribute. For instance, under

Tier 4 (General) applicant whose original degree certificate

has been misplaced and whose university does not issue

29 JCWI, The points-based system: Can it really make labour migration work for Britain? A Critique of the PBS, November 200630 ILPA, Submission to the Home Affairs Committee Enquiry into Managed Migration: the Points Based System, July 200831 Public Accounts Committee Report, Immigration: the Points Based System – Work Routes, 17 May 2011


duplicates will be refused a Tier 4 visa even if he produced

an original transcript of his degree results with an original

letter from his university which were accepted as genuine by

the ECO.

ILPA was not the only group who had concerns; in its report on

the PBS in July 2009, the Home Affairs Committee concluded

that:

Although objectivity is to be welcomed, measuring

skill by awarding points for criteria such as past

earnings or academic qualifications gives undue

priority to easily quantifiable attributes and

ignores ability or experience in a job. In

particular, the overemphasis on formal

qualifications at the expense of professional

experience or training is arbitrary and unfair.32

The recent introduction of ‘genuineness’ tests under Tiers

1(Entrepreneur), 2(Ministers of Religion) and 4(General) of

the Points-Based System has ended the Home Office’s reliance

on objective criteria for these routes. It leaves one32 Home Affairs Committee, Managing Migration: The Points Based System, 15 July 2009, HC 217-I, 2008-09


wondering if this represents the end of the PBS seeing that it

was these criteria which characterised the new system, and

justified the loss of appeal rights when it was introduced in

2008.33

On 23 May 2011, the Government commenced s19 of the UK Borders

Act 2007 which restricts the evidence upon which a person can

rely in an appeal against a Points-Based System decision.34 The

provision restricts evidence to one of four types: (i)

evidence that was presented at the time of making the refused

application;35 (ii) evidence that relates to any race

discrimination, human rights or asylum ground of appeal;

36(iii) evidence adduced to show that a document is genuine or

valid;37 and (iv) evidence that relates to a matter other than

the acquisition of ‘points’ under the Points-Based System.38

33 OISC Level 1 update, An Introduction to Immigration Law and Practice in the U.K.,JCWI,( March 2014) 10334 Steve Symonds, “Points-based system appeals and new evidence.” J.I.A.N.L. 2011, 25(3), 215-21635 Section 85A(4)(a), 2002 Act.36 Section 85A(4)(b), 2002 Act.37 Section 85A(4)(c), 2002 Act.38 Section 85A(4)(d), 2002 Act.


There are concerns that the pursuit of perceived ‘objectivity’

has become the driver of the Points-Based System, at the

expense of other important policy objectives.39

CLARITY AND TRANSPARENCY

The landmark case of Pankina40 was one, which revealed the lack

of clarity and transparency of the Points-Based System. It was

significant in that it related to circumstances where Guidance

amounted to a ‘substantive criterion for eligibility for

admission or leave to remain. The decision in Pankina finds

Sedley LJ ruling that policy guidance does not have binding

effect on Courts in certain circumstances where it impacts on

the immigration rules. At para [28] states:

“A policy is precisely not a rule: it is required by law

to be applied without rigidity, and to be used and

adapted in the interests of fairness and good sense. To

take the present case, the policy guidance standing alone

would not only permit but require a decision-maker to

consider whether, say, a week's dip below the £800

balance during the three-month period mattered. This39 ILPA Submission to the Home Affairs Committee Enquiry into Managed Migration: the Points Based System para 11; 200840 [2010] EWCA Civ 719


would in turn require attention to be given to the object

of the policy, which is to gauge, by what is accepted on

all sides to be a very imprecise rule of thumb, whether

the applicant will be able to support him- or herself

without recourse to public funds. If that object was

sensibly met, the law might well require the policy to be

applied with sufficient flexibility to admit the

applicant, or would at least require consideration to be

given to doing so. But if the requirement is a rule – and

it is the Home Secretary's case that by incorporation it

becomes a rule – then there is no discretion and no

judgment to be exercised.”

Following the above, a number of judicial review cases

challenged previous refusal decisions based on the guidance.

In English UK v SSHD41, the challenge made was that the change in

the minimum level of English language tuition permitted ought

to have been introduced by a change to the Immigration Rules.

The court in this case deemed this requirement unlawful as it

had been introduced in amended UK Border Agency guidance

41 [2010] EWHC 1726


instead of being laid before Parliament under the negative

resolution procedure;

In JCWI v SSHD42, Sullivan LJ at [37] said:

“...the defendant's intention in laying HC 59 and HC 96

before Parliament was to change the Rules so as to give

her the power, not merely to determine the limits for

Tier 1 and Tier 2 and incorporate those limits into the

Rules by cross-reference to the UKBA website and PBS

Guidance in existence at the time, but also to be able

thereafter to alter them at will by making such

alterations to the website and/or the Guidance as she saw

fit.”

Following Pankina, the Home Office moved swiftly with Statement

of Changes43 to incorporate into the main Immigration Rules

some provisions that had previously featured only in the

policy guidance and which were deemed unlawful in the Pankina

and English UK cases.

42 [2010] EWHC 352443 HC 382


Further cases such as Alvi44 and New London College Ltd45 find the

Secretary of State using the guidance as a tool in refusing

the appellants. However, the courts overturned the decision in

these cases stating that any matter of substance used to

determine the outcome of an application had to be set out in

the Immigration Rules themselves in order to be valid.

It now seems clear that any provisions contained in the Policy

Guidance which impose a substantive criterion for eligibility

for admission or leave to remain must be subjected to

parliamentary scrutiny.46

CONCLUSION

It is opined that while the concept of a points-based system

has its virtues, the mannerism of implementation reveals that

it lacks flexibility, transparency and accountability47. The

pursuit of objectivity, however laudable, is perhaps destined

to be futile if it relies primarily on the formulation of

rules rather than intelligent decision-making.48

44 [2011]EWCA Civ 681; [2012] UKSC 33; [2012] 1 W.L.R.220845 [2012] EWCA Civ 51; [2012] Imm.A.R.56346 Joe Middleton, Turbulent times for the points based system, J.I.A.N.L. 2010, 24(4), 355-36347 Gina Clayton, Immigration and Asylum Law, (5th Edition, Oxford, 2012) 379

48 Ibid n2, para 241


In general, stakeholders are of the view that the Points-Based

System was rolled out in great haste. In so doing, the

Government missed and is still missing the opportunity to

design and implement the very best immigration system in the

world. ILPA members report a lack of confidence in the system

inferred from the constant flow of publications, changes,

amendments and corrections, which consequently is unsettling

for applicants and those advising them. 49

After seven years of introducing the PBS, it is arguable that

the complexities, vagaries and constant amendments to the rule

represent more than initial difficulties but reflects

fundamental problems with the ethos and structure of the PBS50,

which was supposed to be a model of simplicity and

transparency.51

49 Ibid n29, para 1950 Ibid n251 Ibid n6


RESEARCH NOTE

A research was done on what system was in place before theintroduction of the points based system. In this case,research results from both the Home Office, Immigration LegalAdvisers and Independent Bodies were used.

Difficulties encounter with topic: The Points-Based System isa fairly new system, as such, finding adequate materials tosubstantiate one’s line of argument was a bit difficult. Thetextbooks in the library were mostly outdated and thereforeirrelevant. This is simply due to the constant change inImmigration Rules for the PBS.

Another problem encountered was summarisation. The PointsBased System being a complex one had so many requirements andsub-requirements. It became problematic trying to compressthese information into a 3000 word essay without illustratingusing the requirements.

Academic materials were most helpful, even though it could beobserved from their contents that they too struggled withkeeping up to date with the changes. The sources of materialinclude:

JCWI, HJT, ILPA, Westlaw, Journal of Immigration and Asylumand Nationality Law and Textbooks from authors like IanMacdonald and Gina Clayton.

I went about the essay by focusing mainly on the principles asoutlined in the topic. That is, clarity, user-friendliness andtransparency of the PBS.

In my view, this essay might lack sufficient caselaw toillustrate the line of argument follow. This is not surprisingbecause the Home Office constantly locks up every loopholethat gave rise to a caselaw in favour of applicants. Forexample, the Home Office decided to implement changes to the


flexibility rule and Pankina case and this resulted in seriesof refusals afterwards.


REFERENCES

Books

Gina Clayton, Immigration and Asylum Law, 5th Edition,

Edited by Duran Seddon, JCWI, Guide to the Points-Based System, Joint Council for the

Welfare of Immigrants 2011, pg 1-2

OISC Level 1 update, An Introduction to Immigration Law and Practice in the U.K., JCWI, (March 2014) 103

JCWI Training Manual, OISC 2/IAAS 1 – Update, March 2013

JCWI Training Manual, OISC 1/IAAS 1 – Update, March 2014

CasesFu v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2010] EWHC 2922 (Admin)

Rodriguez (flexibility policy) [2013] UKUT 00042(IAC)

Secretary of State for the Home Department v Rodriguez [2014] EWCA Civ 2

Alam v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] EWCA Civ 960

Shahzad (s.85A: commencement) Pakistan [2012] UKUT 81 (IAC)

Home Department v Pankina [2010] EWCA Civ 719

English UK Ltd, R (on the application of) v Secretary of Statefor the Home Department [2010] EWHC 1726

R (on the application of JCWI) v SSHD [2010] EWHC 3524


Alvl v SSHD [2011]EWCA Civ 681; [2012] UKSC 33; [2012] 1 W.L.R.2208

Regina (New London College Ltd) v SSHD [2012] EWCA Civ 51; [2012] Imm.A.R.563

Journals

Middleton, J, Turbulent times for the points based system, J.I.A.N.L. 2010, 24(4), 355-363

Wray, H. E. "The points based system: a blunt instrument?." Journal of Immigration Asylum and Nationality Law 23.3 (2009): 231-251.

Symonds, S., “Points-based system appeals and new evidence.” J.I.A.N.L. 2011, 25(3), 215-216

Devine, L, ‘Is the new highly skilled migrant programme “fit for purpose”?’ JIANL, 2007, 21(2), 90-108

Duheric, D., Employment and immigration: the points based system three years on..., Employment Law Bulletin, 2012, pg1

Devine L., “Not So Good Migrations: The New UK Points Based System Has Poor Vibrations for Immigration”

International Law Commentary Emerging Issues 4825 (2010)

Wellman, C. H. "Immigration and Freedom of Association." Ethics 119.1 (2008): 109-141.

Website and Blogs

<http://www.gherson.com/immigration/> assessed 14 April 2014<http://www.freemovement.org.uk/ > assessed 20 April 2014

Papers

http://www.freemovement.org.uk/

http://www.gherson.com/immigration/


Migration Advisory Committee Report, ‘Skilled Shortage Sensible – Review of Methodology’ March 2010

Home Office, Controlling our borders: Making migration work for Britain- Five year strategy for asylum and immigration Cm 6472, February 2005 pp 5-6.

ILPA Submission to the Home Affairs Committee Enquiry into Managed Migration: the Points Based System para 11; 2008

Home Office, Research Report 22 – Users’ views of the Points-Based System: January 2009

Home Office, Research Report 49 – Users’ views of the Points-Based System: January 2011

Home Office, Selective Admission: Making Migration Work for Britain, July 2005

Home Office A Points-Based System: Making Migration Work for Britain Cm 6741, March 2006, p 12.

JCWI, The points-based system: Can it really make labour migration work for Britain? A Critique of the PBS, November 2006

Home Office, Points-based system: evidential flexibility

ILPA, Submission to the Home Affairs Committee Enquiry into Managed Migration: the Points Based System, July 2008

Public Accounts Committee Report, Immigration: the Points Based System – Work Routes, 17 May 2011

Home Affairs Committee, Managing Migration: The Points Based System, 15 July 2009, HC 217-I, 2008-09

Statement of Changes in Immigration Rules, Cm 8423, Published 19 July 2012

New Statement of Changes to the Immigration Rules, HC 565 Statement of Changes to the Immigration Rules, HC 1138


Statement of Changes to the Immigration Rules HC 382

Legislation

Immigration Rules: Part 6A [last amended 6 April 2014]

Section 85A(4)(a), 2002 Act.

Section 85A(4)(b), 2002 Act.

Section 85A(4)(c), 2002 Act.

Section 85A(4)(d), 2002 Act.

A Critical Review of the UK Immigration Points-Based System

Documents

Transcript of A Critical Review of the UK Immigration Points-Based System