Post
by muzakhaa » Fri Jun 12, 2015 10:24 am
Hi All,
I have been posting on this forum about the worries as a student and working more hours. First of all I must salute to those who remember their past 10 years working hours and history. Being a normal humanbeing including the caseworker himself wouldnt remember the working hours or hourly rate or even the start date end date of the oldest employment history.
As this topic has been discussed several times. Please read the following.
Must-read for anyone applying for citizenship in 2015: Home Office published their responce to the Chief Inspector's criticism of naturalisation casework, which received so much media coverage before Christmas.
(4) That some applicants who have "poor immigration history" and particularly "history of non-compliance with immigration rules, illegal working etc" were given citizenship. This is a ridiculous complaint of course, as people who are given citizenship at that stage already have permanent residence and so all their prior immigration history problems will have been resolved at ILR stage.
****However HO now says that
(a) where people have history of illegal residence, overstaying, illegal working that will, if within qualifying period, mean that they will not meet the residence requirements, Previously, it would have been possible to meet party of qualifying period with irregular residence, plus of course there are people who violate rules inadvertedly, for instance who filed an application for extension and it was rejected as invalid, or whose asylum claims were denied unjustly and who were later granted DL. These people will all have to wait longer. Those where immigration non-compliance was historic, it will have impact on their character suitability profile.
(b) new risk profile system will be develop to target some naturalisation applicants for character suitability interviews. historic non-compliance with immigration rules will cause applicant to be so targeted ******
(5) that, in cases where deception was later "detected" that had been successfull on original application and citizenship was granted , decisions have been often made afterwards to not pursue cancellation or deprivation of citizenship, allegedly out of embarassment --as Vine thinks -- that HO had been originally deceived. The real reason of course may lay in that HO has most often no proof of any kind of such deception in most cases, and certainly not enough to sustain a major action such as de-naturalisation.
***HO now says they will return to these cases and pursue deprivation. This is quite major, as many people involved in "these cases" may potentially have no idea, especially if allegations were made anonymously against them or inferred from public domain etc etc. ****[/b]