
Exeter family's relief after immigration row 'victory'
The boys' father, Hugo, who has indefinite leave to remain in the UK, had appealed for the same visa for his sons.A Home Office email addressed to primary school pupil Guilherme in June said: "I am satisfied that there are no serious or compelling reasons to grant you settlement."I am satisfied that you could return to Brazil and continue your education in Brazil where you would have the option to attend an English-speaking school."Speaking before the Home Office reconsidered her family's case, the boys' mother, Ana, said: "In the beginning it was like the floor just opened for me - I couldn't understand what it meant".She said her sons told her they did not want to go to Brazil and they wanted to keep their friends at a school they enjoyed.Ana said: "We pay taxes every month and we do everything correctly and then suddenly we have this with our children - the most precious thing in our lives."It just makes you feel like nothing."
Hugo and Ana separated in 2022 and they said the separation - and their different stages in the immigration process - had led to the issues with the Home Office.The family arrived in the UK in 2019 with Hugo on a skilled worker visa due to his job as a a senior lecturer in computer science at the University of Exeter.In 2024 he was granted indefinite leave to remain.Ana gained a skilled worker visa in 2022 after starting work as a nurse at the Royal Devon and Exeter Hospital but will only be eligible for indefinite leave to remain after five years.The original Home Office email said both parents should be granted settlement at the same time, or be settled or a British citizen, unless one parent has sole responsibility for the children.
The Home Office said it would refund the cost of the original visa applications - about £3,000 per child - and allow a new application for both children as dependants of a skilled worker.Hugo spoke of his huge relief at the decision but said changes needed to be made.He said the experience had been "mentally draining and exhausting" but he and his family were now "excited for the future".He added: "The most appalling issue was the fact they wrote a very tough and somewhat threatening letter to a young child."The other issue is their rules don't seem to be fit for purpose in a scenario where you have different family arrangements."
Steve Race, the Labour MP for Exeter, argued the family's case with the Home Office and said there were "lessons to be learned" from the family's situation."When you've got cases that are slightly more nuanced, slightly more complicated, the Home Office needs to have processes in place to make sure they do look at what's going on with the family in the round and they don't put families through this process with all of the fear, stress and concern this has meant," he said.Race said the country needed "safe and secure borders" but also needed to treat families "who are here legally and correctly" in "the right way and with respect".The Home Office declined to comment on the case or the issues raised by the MP.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The Guardian
27 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Trump administration removes 2,000 national guard troops deployed in LA
The Trump administration said it would scale down its military operation in Los Angeles with the removal of half of the national guard troops that were deployed to the area last month amid protests over the federal government's mass immigration sweeps. Pete Hegseth, the US defense secretary, ordered the release of 2,000 national guard troops, the Pentagon announced on Tuesday, significantly reducing the military presence in the city. 'Thanks to our troops who stepped up to answer the call, the lawlessness in Los Angeles is subsiding,' Sean Parnell, a Pentagon spokesperson, said in a statement. 'As such, the Secretary has ordered the release of 2,000 California National Guardsmen from the federal protection mission.' The deployment, which drew widespread outrage and condemnation, was initiated against the wishes of city leaders, including karen Bass, the mayor, and Gavin Newsom, California's governor. The president deployed the California national guard troops to Los Angeles in June to quell protests triggered by the administration's large scale immigration crackdown. In late May demonstrators took to the streets in response to the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (Ice) agents that had flooded the city, raiding workplaces and arresting people off the street. Donald Trump soon called 4,000 national guard troops into federal service and also deployed about 700 US marines in order to protect federal property and personnel, the administration said. Newsom, who said the president's actions amounted to illegal overreach and were unconstitutional, sued to stop the deployment. A US appeals court allowed Trump to retain control of California's national guard. But his decision to send troops into Los Angeles prompted a national debate about the use of the military on US soil and inflamed political tension in the country's second-most-populous city. Along with guarding federal buildings, military personnel accompanied immigration enforcement agents and other federal officials in the region. The Pentagon had defended the deployment, saying safeguarding Ice agents ensures they can do their jobs. The operations have upended life for many in the region, which has large immigrant population. One LA area mayor, a Marine veteran, described Ice activities in the area as a 'campaign of domestic terror' and 'psychological warfare' against residents. Federal immigration authorities conducted mass arrests of immigrants, showing up at parks, car washes and farms, sometimes taking US citizens into custody. Last week a federal judge ordered the Trump administration to stop indiscriminate immigration stops and arrests in seven California counties, including Los Angeles. After the withdrawal of the 2,000 military personnel from Los Angeles, 2,000 national guard troops will remain in the city along with the roughly 700 marines.

Western Telegraph
38 minutes ago
- Western Telegraph
Look at increasing Scottish Government borrowing limits, MPs tell UK Government
Currently, the Government is limited to borrowing £600 million for day-to-day spending and £450 million for capital projects. But in a report from the Scottish Affairs Committee at Westminster on the fiscal arrangements north of the border, MPs pushed for the limits to be increased. The report said: 'At present, the Scottish Government's limited borrowing powers constrain its ability to manage fiscal shocks, as it is only able to borrow for resource purposes to cover forecast errors. We encourage the UK Government to consider reforming the Scottish Government's capital borrowing powers Scottish Affairs Committee report 'Capital borrowing limits are currently linked to, and grow in line with, inflation, which may not necessarily be the highest metric of growth.' It added: 'We agree with the Secretary of State that borrowing limits should be linked to the measure which offers the Scottish Government the highest level of flexibility but, crucially, we note that which metric delivers this remains undetermined. 'The UK Government should therefore publish a transparent analysis of what borrowing limits would look like based on the different metrics advised in the evidence for this inquiry. 'At the next fiscal framework review, we encourage the UK Government to consider reforming the Scottish Government's capital borrowing powers, by automatically coupling borrowing to the metric which offers the highest limit.' The report comes at the end of an inquiry by the committee which sought to gauge the effectiveness of the Barnett Formula – the measure which dictates the level of funding the UK Government sends to Scotland every year. The MPs found the measure was 'fit for purpose', although it is 'imperfect'. Scotland's Finance Secretary reiterated her Government's support for 'full fiscal autonomy' in a written submission to the committee (Jane Barlow/PA) The committee also rejected calls for the formula to shift and provide funding to Scotland based on need. Scotland, the report said, already receives more funding per head than any other country in the UK and a change in the framework could see funding cut. In written evidence to the committee, Scottish Finance Secretary Shona Robison reiterated the Scottish Government's support for full fiscal autonomy – an arrangement which would see powers over tax and spending devolved. But the committee dismissed such a move as not being a 'realistic prospect'. 'Fundamental questions remain about how full fiscal autonomy would work in practice, and whether it would be operable within the constraints of the UK's current devolution settlement,' the report said. 'Practicality aside, we do not believe that a compelling case has been made that such a change would automatically result in Scotland receiving a higher level of funding.' Ms Robison declined an invitation to appear before the committee, leading the MPs to say 'do not see how we can consider this a serious proposition, and we remain to be convinced that this proposal is desirable in principle, let alone workable in practice'. Responding to the report, Ms Robison said: 'This report rightly recognises that Scotland's finances remain largely dictated by the UK Government's spending decisions, irrespective of the impact on Scottish public services. 'That has meant Scotland has been left with a shortfall of £400 million to pay for the Chancellor's national insurance increase, and saw Scotland short-changed by more than a billion pounds over the next three years at the recent spending review. 'The decisions we have taken to ask higher earners to pay a little bit more – while most income tax payers pay less than in the rest of the UK – mean that we can support vital public services and provide free tuition, prescriptions and the Scottish child payment to help tackle child poverty.' Scottish Secretary Ian Murray said: 'The spending review provided the Scottish Government with an extra £9.1 billion, giving them a record settlement. 'People will expect that to deliver better outcomes for Scots – lower NHS waiting lists and better attainment in our schools. 'Spending per head in Scotland is around 20% higher than the rest of the UK thanks to the Barnett formula. This report confirms that it appears to be the position of the Scottish Government to scrap that formula that delivers higher funding – they should explain why they want less money for public services in Scotland. 'Their plans for full fiscal autonomy would mean a £12 billion cut in public spending for Scotland.'

Western Telegraph
39 minutes ago
- Western Telegraph
Windrush commissioner: Apprehension and suspicion remains towards Home Office
Reverend Clive Foster, the first Windrush commissioner, has pledged to push for speedier payouts from a much-criticised compensation scheme for those affected by the scandal. Last month just ahead of announcing his appointment, immigration minister Seema Malhotra confirmed around 64 claimants had died after applying for payouts, as she set out the Government's wish to speed up 'justice'. On Wednesday, she will attend an event with Mr Foster where people affected by the scandal, which erupted in 2018 when British citizens were wrongly detained, deported or threatened with deportation despite having the right to live in Britain, will hear from the commissioner on his aims for his role. A total of 10,326 claims had been made under the scheme as of May this year, according to the latest Home Office data. The figures also showed that just over £112 million has been paid out so far, covering 3,334 claims. In an interview with the PA news agency ahead of the event, Mr Foster said he will be advocating for a 'fair, accessible and trauma-informed' compensation scheme. While some campaigners have called for the scheme to be moved out of the Home Office altogether, due to applicants' lack of trust in the department, Mr Foster appeared to disagree with such a change. He told PA: 'I think what I will be pushing for is to make sure that this compensation scheme must be seen to be fair, accessible and trauma-informed, and I will be pushing to get swifter outcomes. 'I know there's been a call for movement into another area (out of the Home Office), but I think we should be careful what we wish for. 'I think it's important that we make the scheme workable.' Asked if he felt moving it to another department might risk further delays to payouts, he said: 'I think that is a possibility.' Reverend Clive Foster, the new Windrush commissioner (Nottingham Trent University/PA) He said the Home Office would not want a situation where it has 'further 'reasons why it cannot be giving out fast decisions and compensation to people who have been terribly affected as a result of the scandal, and so this movement, I think, would inevitably cause some of that slowing down, and I think that is something that we have to be aware of'. He said he had already pressed on the minister the need for guarantees around pension losses being covered by the scheme. Ms Malhotra has previously said officials in her department are 'reviewing the current exclusion within the rules of compensation for private and occupational pensions'. Mr Foster said he will work with 'like-minded campaigners' to address problems with the scheme and 'to inform the Home Office where they're getting it right and where they're getting it wrong, without fear or favour'. Asked to describe the level of trust in the Home Office currently among those affected by the scandal, he said: 'I'm afraid I still feel that there is apprehension and some suspicion with regards to, 'is this working towards better outcomes?' 'What we need to accelerate is the actions and activities that are going to build trust. I always say 'you can't cross a bridge until you've built it.'' He said the department must show through actions rather than only words 'that there is going to be a culture change'. Mr Foster, a senior pastor at the Pilgrim Church in Nottingham and the son of parents who migrated to the UK from Jamaica in 1959, said he will 'be reaching out to communities and acting as that advocate and trusted voice, as it were, going forward'. Notting Hill Carnival takes place in August each year in west London (Jeff Moore/PA) Among his top priorities will be ensuring people are comfortable to come forward and get the correct documentation to ensure they have settled status and are not 'wrongly classified as illegal'. He said: 'People still need to feel that they can be respected and accepted to come forward without that fear of being penalised as a result of not having (the right documentation).' Meanwhile, Mr Foster said he will also be working to ensure the legacy of the Windrush generation is celebrated in the future, including through the annual Notting Hill Carnival. Campaigners last month called on the Government to step in to protect the future of the west London carnival, which they said was in jeopardy, as they asked for urgent funding to save the world-famous event. Mr Foster said carnival 'brings so much to the country, and I think that is an expression of the Windrush generation legacy'. He added: 'One of the things in my role would be to be looking to ensure that we continue to celebrate the legacy and the contribution of the Windrush generation, and carnival is one of those aspects, and I'll be happy to engage in conversations to look at that going forward.'