Employers will be required to prioritise recruiting international care workers already in England before recruiting from overseas.
Would you like to work with us?
We currently have some job openings, so please have a look at our careers.
Upper Tribunal Dismisses Appeal In Hysaj v Secretary Of State For The Home Department DC/00035/2018
The Upper Tribunal has promulgated its long-awaited judgment in the case of Hysaj v Secretary of State for the Home Department DC/00035/2018. The Appellant appealed to the Upper Tribunal against a decision of the First-tier Tribunal (“FTT”) dated 26 October 2018. Following a 3 day hearing in November 2019 and January 2020, the Upper Tribunal upheld the FTT’s decision, finding that it contained no material errors of law. The FTT had dismissed the Appellant’s appeal against a decision of the Secretary of State to deprive him of his British citizenship, under section 40(3) of the British Nationality Act 1981.
Peer Review Award: Category 1, Excellence
We are pleased to confirm that following our first Peer Review Audit undertaken during the month of September 2019 by the Legal Aid Agency and Ministry of Justice, Oliver & Hasani Solicitors received confirmation today that we were awarded – Category 1, Excellence – rating in Immigration and Asylum Advise and Assistance.
Naim Hasani shortlisted for Human Rights Lawyer of the Year at Law Society Excellence Awards 2018
Original article: Duncan Lewis | Naim Hasani Shortlisted for…
Law corrected on British citizenship and identity fraud
Extraordinarily, the Home Office sought to have these appeals allowed by consent despite the fact that Dinjan Hysaj and Agron Bakijasi had fraudulently deceived the authorities in obtaining ILR.
R (on the application of AAA and others) (Respondents/Cross Appellants) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Appellant/Cross Respondent)
The Supreme Court is asked to decide the following legal questions: Did the Divisional Court apply the wrong test when determining whether removal to Rwanda would breach article 3? If the Divisional Court applied the right test, was the Court of Appeal entitled to interfere with its conclusion that Rwanda was a safe third country?