CC
Mr Morris
Miss Dews
Mr Page
Mr Miller
Mr Morris, HKD, FCO
HOME OFFICE
QUEEN ANNE S GATE
LONDON SWIH 9AT
104
PARLIAMENTARY UNDER
SECRETARY OF STATE
Dear Ronald,
Da
ch
Immys polyfele
115/11
HKD 341 2/15/
RECEIVED
DES
INDEX
1 ́ NOV 1990
FICEN
PA
9 November 1990
و
Mr Hayretti Надан
e pa.
Mr Lloyd dishes is
out!
When we met on 3 October you raised the recent changes in the Immigration Rules relating to returning residents and, in particular, the case of Mr Au Yeung.
As I explained then the small changes to the rules on returning residents made earlier this year merely restate the long established meaning of the provisions. The changes do not affect the position of people ordinarily resident here who wish to resume their residence after a temporary absence. The criticisms which have been made by some immigration practitioners and pressure groups appear to reflect a general misunderstanding of the arrangements.
The main amendment to paragraph 58 of the Rules makes explicit the requirement that a person can only qualify for admission as a returning resident if he is seeking admission for settlement. There is nothing new about this. Paragraph 58 provides for people "to be admitted for settlement" and a person cannot be admitted for settlement under this or any other provision of the Rules if he does not intend to settle. "Settled" is defined by the Immigration Act 1971 in terms of ordinary residence; and this in turn has been interpreted by the courts to mean that the person must be habitually and normally resident here, apart from temporary or occasional absences of short duration.
The Rules relating to returning residents, as the name itself implies, are intended to allow persons resident in this country to resume their residence after an absence of up to two years: they are not and have never been intended to entitle people resident overseas to maintain settled status in the UK by paying short visits to this country once every two years. The whole issue was considered at some length by the High Court in ex. parte Tolba in 1987, which is the leading judicial authority on the rules relating to returning residents, and which confirmed this interpretation of the provisions. The Rules Change was intended to remove any possible ambiguity from the wording of the provision so that a casual reader would be immediately aware of what it meant. The Change has not affected current practice which remains in line with the Court's interpretation of the provision.