10 years Long Residence excess absence due to pandemic

[krishnakumarg]

My spouse becomes eligible for ILR under the 10-year Long residence category in September 2024. However, there has been a recent big break in the natural continuous residence due to personal & pandemic reasons, as explained below.

• She departed UK on 05 Feb 2020 to home country, India, to spend time with family due to miscarriage after fertility treatment, with the intention of returning to the UK after 59 days i.e. around early April 2020

Quite unexpectedly, both India and UK went into pandemic-related lockdowns in March 2020, with India suspending all scheduled international passenger flights indefinitely. In August 2020, India commenced a repatriation flight program executed in several phases. I was stuck in the UK and could travel back only in Nov 2020, and intended to spend 3 months taking care of elderly family in India. I was working remotely at my UK employer until early 2021. In April 2021, India was put on the red list, and both of us scrambled back somehow to return to the UK. So,

• Returned to the UK on 09 May 2021

So, a single absence period of 459 days. As per UKVI rules, In normal circumstances, this breaks the continuous residence requirements, since a single absence cannot exceed 180 days for the 10-year LR route.

I infer possible exemptions through clauses CR2.3 (b) & (c) of the UKVI immigration rules: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/immigration ... -residence

The question is, does the home office provide a concession for this specific circumstance? We have the NHS doctor's note for the miscarriage and hospital records for the fertility treatment, while pandemic-related travel disruptions are well known, obviously.

[zimba]

Unlikely. The absence requirement is quite strict and discretion is rarely exercised. You may choose to try but it is up to UKVI to decide to whether exercise discretion or not.

[krishnakumarg]

Unlikely. The absence requirement is quite strict and discretion is rarely exercised. You may choose to try but it is up to UKVI to decide to whether exercise discretion or not.

Even if means no international flights were operating due to a global pandemic? How could she have flown back with flight suspensions?

[CR001]

There were flights and repatriations flights, which you stated in another topic she chose not to avail of. She made a conscious choice not to return.

India suspended all international flights until late July 2020 and started flying rescue missions. My wife didn't want to use them due to the unknown nature of the pandemic back then and the question of flying

You are grasping at straws here. She has no quick route to ilr other than what has already been explained in your other gtv dependent topic.

uk-tier-1-exceptional-talent-visas/what ... 19875.html

[krishnakumarg]

There were flights and repatriations flights, which you stated in another topic she chose not to avail of. She made a conscious choice not to return.

India suspended all international flights until late July 2020 and started flying rescue missions. My wife didn't want to use them due to the unknown nature of the pandemic back then and the question of flying

You are grasping at straws here. She has no quick route to ilr other than what has already been explained in your other gtv dependent topic.

uk-tier-1-exceptional-talent-visas/what ... 19875.html

Agree. The repatriation flights were not intended as regular passenger flights. The ministry of civil aviation strictly classifies them as a humanitarian flight that is primarily intended to bring back stranded Indians back home. The UK Home Office's travel guidance explicitly recognised this (in their country-specific travel pages during the pandemic). Getting onboard one of these flights weren't easy, at least during the initial stages of the rescue mission. I waited for a full 2 months before I got a flight to India in November 2020. Plus, the pandemic was a large unknown at that point. Agreed, it is a conscious decision, but largely a rational one, which I did hope the UKVI had to accept.

The same laws that of continuous residence that existed before the pandemic cannot be applied carte blanche during a pandemic (when global travel was disrupted heavily).

[krishnakumarg]

She has no quick route to ilr other than what has already been explained in your other gtv dependent topic.

I think the 10-year Long Residence route in Sep 2023 might be viable if Home Office recognises the travel related difficulties and the absence can be justified citing the global pandemic and flight disruptions.

[CR001]

Many retuned from India and red list countries, even flying via other countries. UKVI is fully aware of non direct routes that were available

She has a very weak argument for exceeding the 180 days single absence limit for long residence ilr. She is more than double over the permitted limit.

[krishnakumarg]

Many retuned from India and red list countries, even flying via other countries. UKVI is fully aware of non direct routes that were available

She has a very weak argument for exceeding the 180 days single absence limit for long residence ilr. She is more than double over the permitted limit.

Yes, many returned. And a few did catch Covid that may be indirectly or directly attributed to travel, though the majority did not.

The pandemic was a large unknown during its initial stages. Those who did travel might have done so for not losing their employment abroad. It can be argued that the socially responsible thing to do was not to travel (otherwise, err.... regular/scheduled flights would have been operating?).

We got an earful for nearly 15 minutes from the border force officer at Heathrow for returning from a red list country. The UKVI can't have both ways, telling off people strongly at the Heathrow border not to travel, while denying future applications on the same basis. The officer said things like "We've imposed the rules so that you don't travel. I know you can pay for Hotel quarantine etc and blow off 1750 pounds, but we expect you not to come into this country, and obey the rules here. One phone call is all it takes for your BRP to be taken away. etc."

So, you actively discourage (the word is 'ban') people from travelling, but you expect them to have travelled back (saying the UKVI is aware of other means of reaching back here). That's equivocation.

And finally, CR2.3(b) explicitly makes provisions for pandemic-related absence. I am genuinely curious to know why the moderators think a formally published official immigration rule is not applicable here? Nobody can seriously expect to adhere to 180 days absence in a war, a humanitarian crisis or a pandemic as UKVI rightly acknowledge.

[CR001]

And finally, CR2.3(b) explicitly makes provisions for pandemic-related absence.

This immigration rule is relevant to the 5 year PBS and work routes and not long residence ILR.

Immigration rule 276A is relevant to long residence ILR