Has anyone seen a refusal based on significantly contrived?

[Frontier Mole]

We are aware of the new rule from 15/5/2008 -

'Significantly contrived to frustrate the Immigration Rules' is where an applicant has significantly overstayed or breached their conditions and would have fallen to be refused under the old Paragraph 320(11). Applicants must not be refused for minor infringements of this rule.

Is there anyone out there that has seen a refusal based on the above?

I know it is a bit soon to ask given the volume of applications at some of the busy ECO posts. There is a good chance an application has been submitted post 15/5/2008 at a quieter post that has been refused.

Can this be made a sticky as it is likely to attract a fair degree of interest?

[Rianae]

Sorry to intrude but would overstaying on a visitors visa and working in the UK illegally for about 3 years be considered as 'Significantly contrived to frustrate the Immigration Rules'? This individual then left the UK volunterally, was not caught by immigration, but is in the process of obtaining a spouse visa based on a marriage that took place while he was in the UK illegally.

Just asking because we are waiting now, will he be subject to this new law?He left in 2006. Visa got rejected once, lost an appeal as the judge did not recognise the marriage, won the second one, but I have this bad feeling that this can be used against him..? Won the appeal in early April. Any input will be very much appreciated.

[jei2]

Frontier Mole, have a look here. Looks like we might be getting somewhere....

http://www.immigrationboards.com/viewtopic.php?p=170970

I've only had one client brave enough to venture back so far so will be looking for success rather than refusal. Will let you know.

[Frontier Mole]

jei2
Thanks for the direct to the other post, I have read it.

I was aware of that part of the UKvisas guidance, you might have noticed in other posts I have differentiated between "simple overstayers and failed asylum seekers who absconded"

I still of the mind that the door is still wide open for the ECO's to refuse on fairly minor infractions. Take "harboring an immigration offender" that can translate to providing accommodation to an overstayer, which if you think about the sponsor in the case of spouse or fiancée visa would be the normal practice. Where else would they be staying?? I guess that particular point will depend on the word "offender".

I am going to hold back on any positive view until I get some feedback on post 17/3/08 applications. Grant is good however until some refused on the basis of "significantly contrived" are seen it will be impossible to get an indication of where the interpretation is going.

I am still holding on to my view - " the wording is still as wooly as a flock of sheep"