- FAQ
- Login
- Register
- Call Workpermit.com for a paid service +44 (0)344-991-9222
ESC
Welcome to immigrationboards.com!
Moderators: Casa, Amber, archigabe, batleykhan, ca.funke, ChetanOjha, EUsmileWEallsmile, JAJ, John, Obie, push, geriatrix, vinny, CR001, zimba, meself2, Administrator
I for one do understand completely where the loophole/argument lies and think that a good solicitor or a lawyer who understands the meaning of the bold part of the statement below, as pointed out by paulp, makes the whole world of difference between a refusal and a continuous residence.VictoriaS wrote:Like I said, I have had refusals on this point. Unless it is challenged at JR, it will stand with the interpretation I have given. I'm not sure what the argument is about.
Victoria
Yes! But even they are not above the law! If they do not follow it and gives no right to appeal, there should and must be a legal way to challenge them, especially in a case where the law is as clear as it is in this case. We have seen less clear cases being won on technicalities . There might be a need for a JR, the effort strenuous and maybe costly, but even a half competent lawyer could make the judge see the side of the story that we want to be seen. It should be worth it in the end.VictoriaS wrote: You are making the mistake of applying logic to the Home Office, and you are suggesting that they only apply the law lawfully...we know this is not true!!!.
Thanks for this. Because they do not see logic, it is always good to have it in black and white. I have done this before by sending an email to clarify an issue and when it was time, I included the email response and it worked.Docterror wrote:I for one do understand completely where the loophole/argument lies and think that a good solicitor or a lawyer who understands the meaning of the bold part of the statement below, as pointed out by paulp, makes the whole world of difference between a refusal and a continuous residence.VictoriaS wrote:Like I said, I have had refusals on this point. Unless it is challenged at JR, it will stand with the interpretation I have given. I'm not sure what the argument is about.
Victoria
"A person who leaves the UK when one period of leave expires , and comes back with a fresh grant of leave, will not be resuming his continuous residence, but will instead be starting a new period of
residence in the UK."
If one can argue that the continuity is broken only if the visa expires and since it has not expired before the client entered on the next one, how the hell can the continuity be broken?(Do not know how to put it in lawyer terms.)
Had to put it in simple English to shut you up!
Their Response:Dear Sir/madam:
I would be grateful if you could offer me clarification concerning the Immigration Rules under Paragraphs 276A-276D concerning the Long Residence Rule (Chapter 18 - Long Residency).
The IDI on Long Residency States and I quote:
2.1.3 Time Spent Out of the United Kingdom
"To benefit from this, an applicant must have current leave covering the whole of the period spent out of the country and will have been readmitted, on return from his absence, to continue that period of existing leave. A person, who leaves the UK when one period of leave expires, and comes back with a fresh grant of leave, will not beresuming his continuous residence, but will instead be starting a new period of residence in the UK (Emphasis mine).
This is my question:
The rule emphasis that a person who leaves the UK when one period of leave expires and comes back with a fresh grant of leave will not be resuming his continuous residence, but will instead be starting a new period of residency in the UK. Now what of the case where I had an existing leave which had not expired and entered with a new leave within a few weeks whist maintaining residency in the UK for theshort period abroad? Does this constitute a break in continuous residency or not? If it does or it does not, can you please explain?
Well, come now Victoria. I was right and I was on the spot for the money I want to tell the OP as I said earlier in the thread that, you would be fine so long as your leave did not expire before the new EC was issued.Dear xxx,
Thank you for your enquiry.
Please be advised of the following: "Continuity shall not be considered to have been broken where an applicant is absent from the United Kingdom for a period of 6 months or less at any one time, provided that the applicant has existing limitedleave to enter or remain upon his departure and return". Therefore, provided there was no break from your leave to remain in the UK up until your new visa was granted (your new leave to enter), there is no break in continuous residence.
Yours sincerely
xxxxxxxxxxxx
Managed Migration
Border & Immigration Agency
It is good news and I have filed it away for my records since it applies to me for ILR next couple of months. I am trying for them to send me the policy docs. They came back with a reference to the IDI on chapter 18 and I told them that it does not state what the CW stated. I am awaiting this and I will post accordingly.Docterror wrote:jes2jes, that is wonderful a response to recieve and quite honestly one I did not expect from the HO. It means that they too agree with our point of view which is quite fantastic.
Why is the Home Office so strict on these points ? What is this directive supposed to achieve?VictoriaS wrote:If someone has left the UK whilst on one visa, ie a working holidaymaker, and re-entered on another, ie a student, then this will constitute a break in residency and the application will be refused. There seems to be no discretion on this.
Victoria