- 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
http://www.ait.gov.uk/Public/Upload/j21 ... itizen.docMr Gill relied upon and developed the points made in the grounds and in his supplementary note. He argued that all was needed was for a person in the appellant’s position to have leave at the point of departure and leave at the point of return, and that they did not have to have the same leave continuing to cover both periods.
This would answer all the questions you have posted above since the appellant was in a similar situation as yours. I found this last night trawling through all the determinations (1200+ last night ).00031_ukait_2006_os_hongkong
But I thought you knew of this already. In your previous post under ten yr ILR confusion you, I and vinny made reference to this case.jes2jes wrote: I found this last night trawling through all the determinations (1200+ last night ).
.
Is visa expiring abroad still of any relevance in light of the emboldend above and the decision in TT? Thats what I want to get to the bottom of.jes2jes wrote:William,
I knew of this case but I have not read it for a long time. The highlighted portion is what caught my eye. The only thing is that, your leave expired whilst you were abroad
jes2jes wrote:Well, good people, I told you I will come back and here I am.
I sent the following email to BIA (some omitted of course):
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
Your comments are of course welcome.
NB: I have fired another email since they did not send the policy document with their response.
Cheers!
-: and accordingly I think the TT judgement is limited to those in that particular circumstance.She has, on both occasions which are in issue before us, obtained further leave before the previous leave expired.
John,John wrote:Many congratulations jes2jes! A great result.
But let's just summarise the TT case, as I see it. The Home Office argued that because TT returned to the UK with a different valid visa to the one that she had left on, there had been a break in the continuity. However the QC acting for TT showed that because TT had applied for a new visa abroad before the expiry of the old visa, there was in fact continuity, even though different visas were in force on departure and on return.
So the TT judgement is great, and of much help to those that apply abroad for a new visa before their old visa expires ... but does not, as I see it, assist at all where the visa ran out while the person was abroad, and there was a period of time before the new visa was applied for.
As I see it, the TT finding is some sort of overseas version of Section 3C, the legislation that works in the UK where someone applies for a new visa before the expiry of the old one, thereby ensuring that they don't become an overstayer even if the stated expiry date on the old visa has passed.
As I see it, the TT finding is some sort of overseas version of Section 3C, the legislation that works in the UK where someone applies for a new visa before the expiry of the old one, thereby ensuring that they don't become an overstayer even if the stated expiry date on the old visa has passed
I read that also and thanks for pointing that out. Is it not the case that that was just her specific situation which fell within the correct interpretation of continuous residence?John wrote:In 23 of the judgement it states :-
She has, on both occasions which are in issue before us, obtained further leave before the previous leave expired.
I think I would prefer to say that the judges were merely ruling on the circumstances of TT, and effectively not making a comment upon those in different circumstances.The judge was merely describing her situation not stating a requirement.
Sure I understand, we are just discussing and I appreciate your thoughts.John wrote:So William Blake, I am not saying that your conclusion is wrong. But I am saying that I don't think the decision in the case of TT helps.The judge was merely describing her situation not stating a requirement.