#Administrative Review

[lexlawuk]

Judicial Review: Pre-Action Protocol

Embarking on the journey of challenging a decision made by the Home Office can be a complex and daunting endeavour. Whether it’s about obtaining entry clearance, leave to remain, or settlement rights, individuals often find themselves entangled in legal intricacies. Understanding the Pre-Action Protocol is crucial in navigating this process smoothly. This protocol, enshrined within the Civil…

[uk-visa-updates]

Understanding Your Options After UK Visa Refusal

If your UK visa application has been refused, don't panic. You have several avenues to explore, each with its own process and considerations.

However, it's crucial to remember that navigating the post-refusal process can be complex. Seeking professional guidance from an immigration lawyer or solicitor who specializes in UK visas is highly recommended.

They can help you understand your options, assess your chances of success, and provide tailored advice specific to your circumstances.

Here are the 04 main options available to you:

1. Administrative Review:

An administrative review is a process where you request the UK Visas and Immigration (UKVI) to review the decision made on your visa application. This option is available if you believe there was a mistake in the decision or if your application was not properly considered. It's important to note that administrative reviews focus on procedural errors rather than reassessing your eligibility for the visa.

Process:

Submit a request for administrative review within a specified timeframe (usually within 28 days of receiving the refusal decision).

You cannot submit new evidence or information during the administrative review process.

The review will be conducted by a different immigration officer who will reconsider your application based on the information available at the time of the original decision.

2. Appeal to First Tier Tribunal:

If your visa application has been refused and you believe the decision was incorrect, you have the option to appeal to the First Tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber). This avenue allows for a thorough review of your case by an independent judge.

Process:

Lodge your appeal with the First Tier Tribunal within a specified timeframe (usually within 14 or 28 days of receiving the refusal decision, depending on whether you are inside or outside the UK).

Appeals can be lodged online or by post, and you may be required to attend a hearing where you can present your case in person.

The judge will assess your appeal based on the evidence provided and relevant immigration laws and regulations.

3. Judicial Review:

If you believe there has been a legal error in the decision-making process or that the decision was unlawful, you can seek a judicial review of the refusal decision. This option involves asking the court to review the lawfulness of the decision-making process rather than the decision itself.

Process:

Apply for permission to seek a judicial review within a specified timeframe (usually within three months of receiving the refusal decision).

Judicial reviews are complex legal proceedings and typically require the assistance of a solicitor or barrister specializing in immigration law.

The court will assess whether the decision-making process was lawful and may overturn the refusal decision if it finds legal errors.

4. Re-apply:

If your visa application has been refused and you believe you can address the reasons for refusal, you have the option to reapply for the visa. This option allows you to submit a fresh application with updated information or additional evidence to strengthen your case.

Process:

Before reapplying, carefully review the reasons for the previous refusal and take steps to address any deficiencies in your application.

Pay the visa application fee again and submit a new application form along with any required supporting documents.

Be honest and transparent in your new application, addressing any concerns raised in the previous refusal decision.

Choosing the Right Option:

Each option has its own advantages, challenges, and implications. It's essential to carefully consider your individual circumstances, the reasons for the refusal, and seek professional advice if needed before deciding which option to pursue.

Remember, while facing a visa refusal can be disheartening, exploring these options can provide avenues for reconsideration and potentially securing your UK visa in the future.

Conclusion:

Do not get disheartened if you received a refusal on your UK visa; there is still a chance to get it right the next time. It is always advised that the applicant seeks professional help before making any visa application by themselves because the UK’s immigration laws can be difficult to navigate, and mistakes in the application form result in refusals and sometimes, denial of entry for up to 10 years.

The SmartMove2UK is a UK Visa Refusal Appeal or Reapply Consultant in India and their UK-qualified immigration solicitor and lawyers are well-versed in all matters concerning UK Visa Refusals. They have filed many reviews and appeals for their clients, who were then able to travel to the UK without any worries.

Speak to their UK Visa Expert today!

[dontmeantobepoliticalbut]

Salaried employees who work long hours for low pay aren’t finding much sympathy among Republicans on Capitol Hill.

GOP lawmakers filed a resolution in Congress on Wednesday that would block the Labor Department from extending overtime protections to millions of salaried workers, a key workplace reform pursued by President Joe Biden.

Under federal law, only certain workers have a right to time-and-a-half pay when they work more than 40 hours in a week. Currently, salaried workers must earn less than $35,568 per year to be automatically entitled to the overtime pay.

A new rule from the Labor Department, finalized in April, would raise that salary threshold to $58,656 per year, bringing an estimated 4 million additional workers under the law’s protection. Employers would then have to pay those workers a premium when they work additional hours, whereas now they don’t have to pay them anything at all for that time.

But the GOP lawmakers have filed what’s known as a “resolution of disapproval” under the Congressional Review Act, which, if passed and signed into law, would nullify the reform.

Rep. Tim Walberg (R-Mich.) sponsored the resolution in the GOP-controlled House. Forty Republican colleagues have joined him as co-sponsors as of Friday. No Democrats have signed on to the legislation.

GOP Sen. Mike Braun (Ind.) is leading the companion legislation in the Senate, where Democrats hold a threadbare majority.

Republicans have used the Congressional Review Act to kill progressive reforms before, most notably at the end of Barack Obama’s presidency.

This particular effort has slim chances of succeeding, since the legislation would face a Biden veto threat if it managed to pass both chambers. And regardless of the maneuvers in Washington, Biden’s overtime reforms face the possibility of being blocked in federal court. But the resolution still helps show where both parties stand on a key economic issue — worker pay — in an election year.

Business groups have come out strongly against Biden’s overtime rule and have opposed similar reforms for years, claiming they would force employers to cut jobs. But giving more employees overtime protections is popular among voters, much like the idea of raising the minimum wage.

The Labor Department estimates the reform would transfer $1.5 billion a year from employers to employees in the form of higher wages. The benefits would go disproportionately to workers who are women and people of color, according to an analysis from the Economic Policy Institute, a left-leaning think tank.

But Walberg called the overtime changes “burdensome” in a statement and claimed it would lead to inflation.

“Small businesses, nonprofits, and colleges across America will now be looking at bottom lines, and then make the tough decisions to lay off valuable staff or force salaried workers into hourly positions,” he said.

Braun argued that overtime decisions should be left to the bosses. “If the free market sets the price of labor, opportunity and prosperity are the result,” he said.

Overtime protections in the U.S. stretch back to the Great Depression, when the right to time-and-a-half pay was first enshrined in law. The idea was to prevent employers from overworking their employees, and to spread more work around during a time of high unemployment. If a company would have to pay a premium to work someone overtime, the thinking went, then the employer might choose to hire another worker to cover the additional hours.

But the law has gone long stretches without being updated, and so fewer employees as a share of the broader workforce now enjoy overtime rights compared with decades ago.

The Labor Department said when it announced the proposed reforms that it was trying to rectify “outdated and out-of-sync rules” that leave many low-paid salaried employees — retail store managers in particular — working lots of extra hours with nothing to show for it.

[quaranmine]

On Wednesday before I gave my presentation I confessed to a new employee that I was worried it would be too long and she brightly told me her life hack was to just let AI rewrite things for her. She said I should put in all my talking points and ask ChatGPT to give me a five minute exactly presentation. I was like....how is the most polite possible way (since this is a new colleague I shouldn't get off on the wrong foot with) that I can express that I will Not be taking this advice. Ever. I told her that I didn't think we were allowed to use ChatGPT at this job (we most certainly are not, it is a nightmare for any type of protected information) and also that I prefer to write all of my own work. Despite my best efforts the last part of that was still passive aggressive, lol.

Something about being a writer makes it so that it's almost offensive to me for someone to suggest I use AI to do my work instead? Like, the day I reach the point where I let AI write something for me is the day y'all need to be checking me for brain damage because clearly I'm losing it

[deadpresidents]

I am absolutely not joking when I tell you that one of the main reasons I started this blog way back in 2008 (yes...SIXTEEN YEARS AGO) was because I thought: "Maybe I should post some of these random articles I've written about Franklin Pierce in case there are other people like me."

Quite frankly, I didn't think that there were, but I'm happy that I was wrong. And shocked to find out over those sixteen years (!!!) that there were actually tens of thousands of people interested in reading my random stuff about Franklin Pierce. I just happened to branch out and talk about other Presidents too.

But since we're talking about him tonight, in case anybody wants to go back, I might as well share links to some of those pieces about Franklin Pierce:

•Pierce Bicentennial Essay Originally written for the New Hampshire Historical Society's website celebrating Pierce's 200th birthday in 2004 •"When tears and toil and conflict will be unknown" When former President Pierce wrote a moving letter to President Abraham Lincoln following the death of Lincoln's son, Willie -- a tragedy that Pierce also experienced as President. •"After the White House what is there to do but drink?" •"Franklin Pierce and the Consequences of Ambition" •"In Concord: The Friendship of Pierce and Hawthorne" A piece about the lifelong friendship between Franklin Pierce and author Nathaniel Hawthorne -- and friendship that endured controversy and lasted until Hawthorne's death while on holiday with former President Pierce. •My 2011 review of Peter A. Wallner's two-volume biography of President Pierce -- Franklin Pierce: New Hampshire's Favorite Son (2004) and Franklin Pierce: Martyr for the Union (2007) -- which is the definitive modern biography about Franklin Pierce's life and times.

[tavsianus]

Why can't something be utopian? Why can't a made-up race of people and their communities be idealistic? Why does everything have to be "realistic"? Why is hurting and killing each other, being mistrustful, having ulterior motives, getting into conflicts that harm one another, and being selfish, etc seen as that?

Not everything has to be "down-to-earth" or "dark and brooding". Its okay to dream about a world where most things are near-perfect. Sometimes things can be black and white or right and wrong and that's okay. Sometimes antagonists are just that, the enemy to be defeated in the story, and it doesn't matter if they have a "reason" or a "cause" for what they are doing because, at the end of the day, they're still causing damage and you don't really have to see their side to know that.

Its okay to have a "basic" or "already used" storyline. Most of the movies have that so its universal and understandable to a larger consumer. You're telling me you never found a book/movie you enjoyed so much that you didn't search for another that had the similar elements to feed your obsession? Just because something is similar to something else doesn't make it bad or "unworthy".

Yes, this is about James Cameron's Avatar. The story isn't about Humanity vs. The Na'vi.

It's about a cooperation (RDA) who hurts a planet and its habitants and tries to milk it dry until there's nothing else they can take because they want to make money no matter the consequences since it won't be them who will be affected by it. And there's nothing that can change that (even if there are individuals in there that think otherwise [Ex: Grace Augustine, Norm Spellman, etc.. ]).

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Sophie Lawton at MMFA:

Project 2025 director Paul Dans told the Australian Financial Review that he thinks a second Trump administration “will adopt” many of the initiative’s radical right-wing proposals. He also suggested that even if Donald Trump loses, Project 2025’s ideas would live on through the conservative establishment. 

Project 2025 is an effort by conservative think tank the Heritage Foundation to plan policy ideas and staffing for the next conservative presidential administration

Project 2025 director Paul Dans told the Australian Financial Review that a 2nd Trump Administration would likely adopt a majority of Project 2025's policy recommendations in some form. Also, Dans noted that even if Trump loses, its influence in determining conservative policymaking will remain.

[wrenhavenriver]

i got offered the job for that interview from last week c:

[maulfucker]

Phantom Menace college au where Padme is an exchange student and Qui-Gon is a professor and Obi-Wan is his assistant and at the end Maul gets Qui-Gon fired so Obi-Wan pushes him down some stairs the next time they meet on campus

[inconsistently--consistent]

Book Review: Artemis by Andy Weir

Reccomend: 7/10

It was good. I had a harder time sticking with this one than The Martian or Project Hail Mary. After a while I did get to that "want to do nothing but read this" point.

Plot: 9/10

Slow start but once I was in it it felt like a Sue Grafton Mystery mixed with Andy Weir's trademark style.

Creativity: 8/10

I probably shouldn't have read this one last. It is very creative but compared to Andy Weir's other books not as creative. I liked the more commentary aspects of the book. On subjects such as how economies work, organized crime, and what do we owe each other?

[necrotic-nightshade]

I can't tell if it makes me feel better or worse that I wasn't the only person who was failed and fucked over by the administration of my old school.

I'm glad I dropped out. And I'm glad I can finally say I was right about those cunts.

[deadpresidents]

President James Garfield observes the Inaugural Parade on Pennsylvania Avenue from a reviewing stand temporarily erected in front of the White House, March 4, 1881.

The procession of soldiers marching in the parade -- led by commanding General William Tecumseh Sherman -- to celebrate President Garfield's Inauguration was believed to be the largest collection of troops in Washington, D.C. since the Grand Review of the Armies in May 1865 which commemorated the Union victory in the Civil War.

[the-technicolor-whiscash]

I think what I found most interesting about Oppenheimer other than obviously the plot was the fact it was broken into such a defined three-act story structure like it was buildup, Los Alamos, and then aftermath and I think it would almost benefit from being a three part miniseries (with each part being an hour long) because of that. The length of the film lends itself to being broken up for viewing even though seeing it all in one sitting is definitely valuable as you put all the parts together to create this whole story.

I feel like the beginning was more almost experimental than the end with the like quick cuts to imagery of atoms I actually really liked that and I wished they’d kept it up because it added a lot to the visuals, rather than it just being a bunch of guys in grey suits talking. It also added to the like ideas of quantum physics and made it feel more tangible to the viewer cause like, I know basic stuff about quantum physics because I had to take physics for geology but most people won’t because they have no need for it, so providing a visual however abstract helps to bridge that understanding for the viewer and helps you to understand the scientific weight of what was being discussed here.

I think the cast was exceptional, Cillian Murphy was obviously the headliner and did a phenomenal job (I think he’s just a good actor in general) but the other actors also did very well and I was surprised how much I enjoyed Robert Downey Jr’s performance given that I had only ever seen him as iron man which is uh. Perhaps not representative of his proper acting talent.

Some of the film was slightly confusing if you didn’t comprehend why certain things were happening like the fact they were flip-flopping between the hearing, the other hearing (in black and white), and the actual story of his career was jarring at the beginning and it felt like at times they forgot about it, particularly during the second act.

Frankly I wish they had shown real footage of the aftermath of the bombs. It was a real, horrific thing that destroyed the lives of hundreds of thousands of people that America should feel guilty about. We should see it and wonder how on earth it was thought justified in the first place. All acts of war are terrible, but these bombs were the worst weapons of mass destruction ever created, and they were used on civilians. Everyone who took part in creating and administering them has blood on their hands. The viewer should know what we did. Should understand it through more than just words. Words only go so far.

Anyway I also liked the sound design because like ok. I’ve seen a rocket launch before. There’s a moment where you see it, you watch it lift off, and then a time later comes the sound. It rolls in like thunder after the crack of lightning, waves of force passing through the molecules of the air. You can feel it in your sternum, in your lungs. You’re waiting for it. You don’t know exactly when it will come, but you know you will feel it. They did a good job representing that with the explosions. You see the blast, you see the fireball consume the air around it. And you wait. There is a moment of deadly silence. Then a deafening roar.

All in all I’m glad I saw it in theaters because watching it at home truly doesn’t do it justice. I do not think it should have had the media circus connecting it with Barbie I think especially looking back on it it was tone-deaf to the lives lost in the tragedy of the atomic bombs. But it was a good movie, well made. It reminds you of what a good movie can be, how it can make you feel, good or bad. 9/10.

[dontmeantobepoliticalbut]

On June 29, 2023, Governor J.B. Pritzker signed House Bills 579 and 2296 into law, enacting sweeping changes to Illinois health insurance law that grants the Illinois Department of Insurance (IDOI) expanded regulatory powers. These bills will have significant impacts on consumers and health insurers beginning as soon as 2025.

House Bill 579

H.B. 579 added a new Section 1405-50 to the Illinois Insurance Code and amended certain other provisions of the Insurance Code dealing with Illinois’ health insurance exchange (commonly called the marketplace). This Bill requires IDOI to move the state marketplace from the federal platform to a purely state-based and operated exchange by plan year 2026. The Governor and the sponsors of the bill have said that establishing a state-based exchange will enable Illinois consumers to enroll in Affordable Care Act or Medicaid plans in the same place, take advantage of more enrollment windows than the federal exchange offers, and insulate Illinois health insurance consumers from potential changes to the federal marketplace system and related federal policies. The new system directly addresses recent history where federal funding for organizations that help consumers was significantly reduced and the number of annual enrollment days was cut approximately in half.

House Bill 2296

H.B. 2296 enacted deeper changes to IDOI’s regulatory authority and contained changes that have a much more significant direct impact on Illinois health insurers. Chief among the changes is a requirement that health insurers file rates annually starting in 2025 for plan year 2026, and the granting of new authority to the IDOI, also starting in 2025, to review and approve or disapprove all future individual, large employer, and small group health insurance rate changes. The newly amended statutes also require IDOI to post all filed health insurance rates and summaries on its website, including a justification for any rate increase or decrease (with certain required information). There will also be a 30-day public comment period for all proposed rate changes and IDOI is required to post all comments on its website. IDOI is required to take into account the public comments as well as actuarial justifications for the proposed rate changes in approving or disapproving the change. Rate disapprovals may be appealed and are subject to judicial review under the State Administrative Review Law. There are certain exceptions to this new statutory approval scheme. Finally, H.B. 2296 requires IDOI to report to the Governor and General Assembly annually on health insurance coverage, affordability, and cost trends.

The Bottom Line: Health Insurers Should Start Preparing Now

These recent developments in Illinois insurance law impose significant affirmative compliance requirements on health insurers in Illinois and invite significant additional public and governmental review and contribution into health insurance rate changes. The Illinois health insurance industry should expect IDOI to issue related guidance and implement related rules and regulations regarding the coming changes over the next 1-3 years. Illinois health insurers would be well-advised to consult with insurance regulatory counsel as they begin preparing for the new rate filing and approval process before its impact is felt in 2025.

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

By: Bernard Lane

Published: Sep 6, 2023

America’s drug regulator, the FDA, has been asked to take urgent action on the unapproved use of hormone suppression drugs to block the natural but unwanted puberty of transgender-identifying children.

“Although this use has not been approved by the [Food and Drug Administration], the FDA must not turn its back on the potential harm to children,” says a citizen petition filed with the agency.

“Despite the widespread—and rapidly growing—use of these drugs in this population [of children with the distress of gender dysphoria], and despite serious known and potential risks from these drugs, this use has never been evaluated for safety and effectiveness by the FDA.”

The petitioners include child and adolescent psychiatrist Dr Miriam Grossman, paediatric endorcinologist Dr Quentin van Meter and the groups Genspect, Detrans Help, FAIR in Medicine and the Gender Dysphoria Alliance.

The webpage hosting the petition is open to public comment. The FDA acknowledged receipt of the petition on September 5.

“Puberty blockers, or gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonists, are a class of drugs that are FDA-approved for treating certain cancers, endometriosis, and, in pediatric populations, central precocious puberty. Brand name puberty blockers include Lupron Depot-PED, Supprelin LA, Fensolvi, Synarel, and Triptodur. These drugs suppress the release of sex-specific hormones—testosterone in males and estrogen in females. When given to children in the early stages of puberty, they delay sex-related changes normal to adolescent development, such as deepening voice in males and breast development in females.”—citizen’s petition to the FDA, September 2023

The petitioners urge the FDA to—

• commission the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) to undertake a transparent and unbiased systematic review of the evidence for trans puberty blocker drugs • issue requests for long-term registry studies of the children given trans puberty blockers, given that long-term data “is critically important and sorely missing” • create a webpage disclosing the known and potential risks of off-label puberty blockade to “help to counter widespread confusion and misinformation about this use”

“Many in the medical profession and the media continue to represent the off-label use of puberty blockers as ‘well established’ and ‘lifesaving’,” the petition says.

“While the FDA has taken an aggressive stance against medical misinformation in other contexts, it has done nothing to counter these misrepresentations.

“What is most concerning is that, because puberty blockers are not FDA-approved in children with gender dysphoria, there is no demonstrated benefit of the drugs to justify these risks.

“This is why Sweden, Finland, the UK, Norway and other countries have all turned against the use of puberty blockers and other medical interventions as a front-line treatment of gender dysphoria, recognizing this use as experimental.

“The [American] public deserves the truth from its government about the potential harms of these drugs and the lack of established benefit.”

Puberty blockers are used off-label for gender dysphoria internationally, although brand names may vary from country to country.

Misinformation

“The FDA can address the misinformation surrounding the off-label use of puberty blockers in children by commissioning a systematic review of existing peer-reviewed studies by NASEM with the goal of developing an authoritative assessment of the evidence,” the petition says.

The citizen’s petition says the gender-affirmative treatment model used in the United States lacks the safeguards imposed by the Amsterdam gender clinic which in the late 1990s pioneered the use of puberty blockers followed by cross-sex hormones and surgery.

“Because of the prevalence of the affirmative model in the US, the number of children with gender dysphoria receiving puberty blockers has also risen sharply, more than doubling between 2017 and 2021,” the petition says.

“These drugs are known to interfere with bone development and fertility (when followed by cross-sex hormones) and serious concerns exist about their effect on long-term bone health and neurocognitive development.

“What is most concerning is that this [poorly understood] safety profile is currently tolerated in drugs prescribed to children for which the benefit is highly uncertain.”

The petition notes the vulnerability of dysphoric children, who have “higher rates of other psychological and developmental conditions, including autism, eating disorders and depression.”

“US District Court judges have been asked to compel the FDA to reveal what it knows about the off-label use of puberty blocker drugs by gender clinicians.”—news report, Gender Clinic News, 16 March 2023

This week’s citizen petition also calls upon the FDA to warn drug companies and health providers of the consequences of unlawful promotion of puberty blockers for children with dysphoria.

“Puberty blockers have been marketed directly to teenagers with promotions that characterize the drugs as a safe way to ‘put puberty on hold,’ without disclosing any of the required risk information,” the petition says.

“For example, a Planned Parenthood ad that first aired in 2022 depicts two cartoon teenagers speaking directly to potential users, stating—

‘[p]uberty blockers are safe and can give you more time to figure out what feels right for you, your body, and your gender identity,’ and ‘[y]our gender identity is real. You should be the one to decide what changes you want to make to your body’

The petition says, “Pharmaceutical companies that promote their drugs for off-label uses have paid multi-million-dollar settlements to avoid civil and criminal judgments.

“But the potential for harm to users doesn’t depend on who runs the ad: off-label promotions by practitioners that oversell the benefits of an off-label use and fail to disclose the risks have the same potential to deceive consumers.”

GCN has contacted the FDA for comment

==

Hopefully sanity will prevail.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Greg Owen at LGBTQ Nation:

Republicans landed a one-two punch Wednesday and Thursday in a coordinated assault on new protections for LGBTQ+ people enacted by the Biden administration. On Wednesday, attorneys general in seven red states sued the White House over expanded Title IX protections applied to the Affordable Care Act, meant to protect transgender people from medical discrimination. Then on Thursday, the Republican-led US House of Representatives voted to eliminate a clarification for the Department of Education that Title IX prohibitions on discrimination on the basis of sex apply to transgender individuals. The suit and the vote were a blow to Democrats’ efforts to counter Republicans’ assault on LGBTQ+ and trans rights, and a demonstration of the limits of Biden’s executive authority.    

“Republicans’ obsession with attacking the LGBTQI+ community — especially the transgender community — knows no bounds,” said Rep. Mark Pocan (D-WI), Chair of the Congressional Equality Caucus. The House resolution introduced by Rep. Mary Miller (R-IL) would use the Congressional Review Act to repeal the president’s new Title IX rule, “Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Sex in Education Programs or Activities Receiving Federal Financial Assistance.”   If successful, the regulations would revert to those issued by former President Trump’s Secretary of Education, Betsy DeVos, in 2020. Future administrations would be blocked from ever issuing a rule that was “substantially the same” as the Biden Administration rule, according to the Congressional Equality Caucus.

Republicans are hellbent on attacking trans (and LGBTQ+) protections that were recently enacted by the Biden Administration.