- 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
Vinny thanks for this. As I read it and I have always believed in the judges interpretation, that residency is not considered to have been broken if a new leave was obtained abroad whilst there was existing leave and the applicant returned before the 6 months anniversary kicks in. Good news and I plan to use this next month.vinny wrote:See also Updated (14/05/2008) Long Residence 'continuous residence' interpretation Determination Details. I guess that they may take the position that leave to enter/remain as a tourist lapses (20) after leaving the UK.
Wow, is it as long ago as 2000? How time flies.John wrote:Mr Rusty, I think that is a correct interpretation. But it does beg the question, as we move forward in time, whether the "new visa regime", I think it started in October 2000, would have made a difference? That is, if the OP's facts were all moved forward in time, so arrived in say 2001 rather than 1998, and making the application in 2011, not 2008, whether the conclusion would have been the same?
Personally I do not think it would be the same, if the visitor visa was "Mult" .... multi-entry. That is, there would still have been a valid visitor visa, even after leaving the UK.
Cut_here, obviously disappointing to you, but it could have been far worse! That is, they could have simply rejected the application, leaving you to reapply, and re-pay, in a couple of months time. So I am going to say .... great ..... you will get your ILR in a couple of months.
Yes, I think that's what it says. And if somebody initially comes with a visit visa issued since October 2000 (the "new visa regime" referred to above by John), and then obtains a further visa before the first one expires it's arguable that the visit visa counts as part of the 10 years' leave, for the reasons I have already stated.jes2jes wrote:Mr Rusty, John, Vinny & others:
Did any of you get the chance to read the determination? If you did, is my understanding in the above post right: Residency is considered continuous if leave did not expire before a new leave was obtained abroad if the absence (6 months and total 18 months) was not breached.
Thanks.
I did have residence and not visitors visa. I switched from one category to the other (WHM to Student) at that period but did that abroad with almost 14 months remaining on the WHM visa.tvt wrote:Only periods of "residence" count for the 10 year ILR. Being in the UK in a visitor's capacity does not amount to residence. You did not reside in the UK you had merely visited it.
Thank you very much. I can now sleep in peace without any worry of this. I cannot bear another year of wait. As a precaution, I would be sending along a copy of the determination and also an email response I received from BIA earlier this year confirming that this is not a break in residency.Mr Rusty wrote:Yes, I think that's what it says. And if somebody initially comes with a visit visa issued since October 2000 (the "new visa regime" referred to above by John), and then obtains a further visa before the first one expires it's arguable that the visit visa counts as part of the 10 years' leave, for the reasons I have already stated.jes2jes wrote:Mr Rusty, John, Vinny & others:
Did any of you get the chance to read the determination? If you did, is my understanding in the above post right: Residency is considered continuous if leave did not expire before a new leave was obtained abroad if the absence (6 months and total 18 months) was not breached.
Thanks.
I think it would be impossible to get ILR on the basis of a series of overlapping visit visas, because if someone was spending so much time here as not to breach the periods of absence provisions, at some stage an ECO would refuse because the applicant was clearly not a visitor.
Well yes, and I remember it well, for the following reason. My own wife got her spouse visa.... then just for one year (not two years) ... in March 2001 .... and I remember at the time being very surprised by the format of the "Entry Clearance". I say that because I had not spotted that the "new visa regime" had come into force, prior to the visa being granted. So I was expecting her to be issued with the old-style "permission to proceed to the UK" visa, with the actual spouse visa issued on arrival.Mr Rusty wrote:Wow, is it as long ago as 2000? How time flies.
Sorry, yes, you're right.INSIDER wrote:Mr Rusty,
A visit visa does NOT constitute or confer continuing leave.
See this post below:RAJ2007 wrote:Jes2jes,
I am in similar situation like u. Let us know what's the outcome of your application for ILR.