Latest news with #HeatherScott
The Guardian
a day ago
- Health
- The Guardian
Canadian who could not renew visa due to mental health crisis faces UK ban
The Home Office is threatening to ban a Canadian academic from the UK after she was unable to renew her visa in time during a mental health crisis. Dr Heather Scott has lived in Britain since she came in 2011 on a study visa. The renowned academic, whose area of research relates to Victorian cemeteries including Highgate, Brompton and Abney Park, is required to be based in London. She has successfully renewed her visa seven times in the past. But in 2022, she became seriously mentally ill. She was hospitalised for 13 weeks and was unable to engage with the visa renewal system as a result of being so unwell. She overstayed for 46 days before her family in Canada could make an application for further leave to remain on her behalf. Since then she has been trying to resolve her visa situation for three years with no success, despite submitting extensive documentary evidence to the Home Office about the medical emergency she experienced. 'I am deeply concerned about the effects this will have on my research and employment and on my quality of life and continued recovery,' Scott told the Guardian. 'This feels like a penalty for an infraction that was outside of my control. It does not seem right that I should be punished for having an illness.' Her mental health has improved and she has resumed her academic research. She has lodged an appeal on human rights grounds, but if it is unsuccessful she is facing a ban from the UK. An application she made in 2024 for leave to remain was refused on the grounds that she was medically stable and could return to Canada. Scott said: 'My case highlights the issue of the Home Office applying policy in a way that is actually at odds with their own and Prime Minister Starmer's priority of attracting and retaining highly qualified professionals within the UK's research and employment sectors. It also highlights the hostility of the current climate regarding mental illness.' In its refusal letter, the Home Office said that indefinite leave to remain was 'a privilege, not an automatic entitlement'. Officials added: 'A mere wish, desire or preference to live in the UK does not amount to an exceptional circumstance.' They said the fact she was prevented from applying in time to renew her visa due to being 'acutely ill' also did not amount to an exceptional circumstance. Sign up to First Edition Our morning email breaks down the key stories of the day, telling you what's happening and why it matters after newsletter promotion Scott's solicitor, Muhunthan Paramesvaran of Wilson Solicitors, said: 'This is an exceptional case and the Home Office's decision is wrong in my view. She has spent 10 years here lawfully and had it not been for her mental health issues she would have been able to sit the life in the UK test and would have been granted indefinite leave to remain. 'The Home Office has discretion to grant indefinite leave to remain outside the rules. Their refusal to do so has had a devastating impact on her. She has had to put her life on hold.' A Home Office spokesperson said: 'All visa applications are carefully considered on their individual merits in accordance with the immigration rules.'
The Guardian
a day ago
- Health
- The Guardian
Canadian who could not renew visa due to mental health crisis faces UK ban
The Home Office is threatening to ban a Canadian academic from the UK after she was unable to renew her visa in time during a mental health crisis. Dr Heather Scott has lived in Britain since she came in 2011 on a study visa. The renowned academic, whose area of research relates to Victorian cemeteries including Highgate, Brompton and Abney Park, is required to be based in London. She has successfully renewed her visa seven times in the past. But in 2022, she became seriously mentally ill. She was hospitalised for 13 weeks and was unable to engage with the visa renewal system as a result of being so unwell. She overstayed for 46 days before her family in Canada could make an application for further leave to remain on her behalf. Since then she has been trying to resolve her visa situation for three years with no success, despite submitting extensive documentary evidence to the Home Office about the medical emergency she experienced. 'I am deeply concerned about the effects this will have on my research and employment and on my quality of life and continued recovery,' Scott told the Guardian. 'This feels like a penalty for an infraction that was outside of my control. It does not seem right that I should be punished for having an illness.' Her mental health has improved and she has resumed her academic research. She has lodged an appeal on human rights grounds, but if it is unsuccessful she is facing a ban from the UK. An application she made in 2024 for leave to remain was refused on the grounds that she was medically stable and could return to Canada. Scott said: 'My case highlights the issue of the Home Office applying policy in a way that is actually at odds with their own and Prime Minister Starmer's priority of attracting and retaining highly qualified professionals within the UK's research and employment sectors. It also highlights the hostility of the current climate regarding mental illness.' In its refusal letter, the Home Office said that indefinite leave to remain was 'a privilege, not an automatic entitlement'. Officials added: 'A mere wish, desire or preference to live in the UK does not amount to an exceptional circumstance.' They said the fact she was prevented from applying in time to renew her visa due to being 'acutely ill' also did not amount to an exceptional circumstance. Sign up to First Edition Our morning email breaks down the key stories of the day, telling you what's happening and why it matters after newsletter promotion Scott's solicitor, Muhunthan Paramesvaran of Wilson Solicitors, said: 'This is an exceptional case and the Home Office's decision is wrong in my view. She has spent 10 years here lawfully and had it not been for her mental health issues she would have been able to sit the life in the UK test and would have been granted indefinite leave to remain. 'The Home Office has discretion to grant indefinite leave to remain outside the rules. Their refusal to do so has had a devastating impact on her. She has had to put her life on hold.' A Home Office spokesperson said: 'All visa applications are carefully considered on their individual merits in accordance with the immigration rules.'
Yahoo
14-02-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Anti-SLAPP bill heads to Idaho House with bipartisan support
Rep. Heather Scott, R-Blanchard, speaks from the House floor at the Statehouse in Boise on Nov. 15, 2021. (Otto Kitsinger for Idaho Capital Sun) A bill that its sponsors say is designed to protect free speech and public participation from frivolous lawsuits is heading to the floor of the Idaho House of Representatives with bipartisan support. Late Thursday afternoon, the House Judiciary, Rules and Administration Committee voted unanimously to send Senate Bill 1001 to the House floor with a recommendation to pass it. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX Rep. Heather Scott, a Blanchard Republican who presented the bill Thursday at the Idaho State Capitol in Boise, described Senate Bill 1001 as a tool designed to fight strategic lawsuits against public participation, or SLAPP lawsuits. If passed into law, the bill would create a new anti-SLAPP motion that people could file if they are subject to a frivolous lawsuit. The anti-SLAPP motion would place a stay, or a freeze, on the case and allow a judge to quickly dismiss frivolous lawsuits that are filed without merit without having to go through a lengthy, drawn out legal case. In such cases, the winning party would also be able to recover court costs and attorney fees. 'These lawsuits can take years to defend and cost tens of thousands of dollars because they're really not designed to win,' Scott told legislators Thursday. 'They're designed to intimidate, distract, bankrupt or punish free speech.' On the other hand, if the judge reviewing an anti-SLAPP motion finds there is merit to the lawsuit, the case would be allowed to continue. Everyone who spoke during a public hearing on the bill on Thursday supported it, including the Idaho Association of Commerce and Industry, representatives of the Uniform Law Commission and Driggs resident Dirk Leasure, who said the need to protect Idahoans from frivolous lawsuits is 'an American democracy issue.' CONTACT US The bill was sponsored by Sen. Brian Lenney, R-Nampa, and Scott, who are two of the most conservative members of the Idaho Legislature. House Minority Leader Ilana Rubel, a Boise Democrat, thanked Lenney and Scott for bringing the bill forward on Thursday, saying the bill has been badly needed for years. 'This is something I had hoped we could pass for probably 10 years now, and I never thought it would happen. I'm so excited that we're here,' Rubel said. Senate Bill 1001 heads next to the Idaho House for consideration, where it could be taken up and voted on next week. The Idaho Senate already voted 32-1 to pass the bill on Jan. 27. If a majority of members of the Idaho House vote to pass Senate Bill 1001, it would then be sent to Gov. Brad Little's desk for final consideration. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Yahoo
12-02-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Bill to limit which types of flags can be flown on government properties advances to Idaho House
Idaho House State Affairs Committee chairman Brent Crane, R-Nampa, listens to Rep. Heather Scott, R-Blanchard, introduce a new bill at the Jan. 7, 2025, meeting of the committee at the Idaho Statehouse in Boise. (Pat Sutphin for the Idaho Capital Sun) A bill to limit the kinds of flags a government entity can use on its property is moving forward to the floor of the Idaho House of Representatives. On Wednesday, the Idaho House State Affairs Committee held a hearing on House Bill 96, sponsored by Rep. Heather Scott, R-Blanchard. According to the bill, municipalities, counties, special districts or any other political subdivisions or 'governmental instrumentalities' would be limited from using bills that are not: The U.S. flag The official flag of a governmental entity Official flags of any state in the U.S. Official flags of any military branches and units of the U.S. The POW/MIA flag Official flags of Native American tribes The committee voted to advance the bill to the floor with a recommendation that it pass. The committee's two Democrats, Rep. Todd Achilles, D-Boise, and a substitute for Rep. Brooke Green, D-Boise, voted against the motion. The House may vote on it in the coming days or weeks of the legislative session. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Yahoo
29-01-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Idaho House calls on Supreme Court to undo same-sex marriage ruling
The Idaho House passed a Republican-backed resolution on Monday urging the Supreme Court to reconsider the legality of same-sex marriage. All of Idaho's Democratic House members opposed the nonbinding resolution, as did 15 Republicans. It passed 46-24. 'Christians across the nation are being targeted,' said state Rep. Heather Scott (R), who sponsored the measure. House Minority Leader Ilana Rubel (D) said she voted against the resolution because it harms 'good people.' 'It's deeply upsetting to some of those folks, and it makes them not want to live here,' Rubel told the Idaho Capital Sun. 'These are good people. These are good, law-abiding people who are feeling like their Legislature doesn't want them here and doesn't want them to be able to live the full rights that everybody else can.' State legislators argue the opposite in the resolution, claiming the 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges Supreme Court ruling upholding same-sex marriage was made 'in complete contravention of their own state constitutions and the will of their voters, thus undermining the civil liberties of those states' residents and voters.' Idaho voters passed an amendment to their state constitution in 2006 affirming that legal marriage was only between a man and a woman. The Supreme Court does not overturn its previous rulings absent a new case presenting a legal challenge. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
