SET(M) when to apply

[MrGamgee]

Hi

I am preparing for the future for when I have to apply for SET(M) and I have come across this question on the form:

"Do you or your partner have any physical or mental conditions which require at home personal care or
medical assistance?"

Once I tick 'Yes' it says this:

"You will have to provide a headed letter from a medical practitioner who holds either an NHS consultant role, or who appears in the Specialist Register of the General Medical Council. The letter must provide a private practice or hospital address and include full details of any medical conditions you or your partner have."

The above then comes up on the documents list on the application form (the same question does not do this on FLR(M)).

The reason I'm confused is because my British partner does have a condition which requires care and medical assistance every now and then but we do not have an NHS consultant and no medical practitioner in the Specialist Register. We always ticked "Yes" on this question on previous FLR(M) applications and it never came up with having to supply a letter.

My question is why is this on SET(M) and is this required? Can we be refused for not supplying any letter for my British partner as we don't have an NHS consultant who can do this? We do meet the rules on everything as we did on previous FLR(M) applications.

[MrGamgee]

I forgot to mention that her conditions are handled by a GP but not someone who is on the specialist register. She was discharged from her consultant years ago.

[zimba]

The online form should not be viewed as if you are making a 'full personal disclosure'. I understand that this is not obvious but all the questions asked on the form are in fact used to compile the required evidence list as per immigration rules for your route. Only answer YES if you need to request an exemption, on medical grounds, from the Appendix KoLL requirements (Knowledge of language and life):

See: indefinite-leave-to-remain/medical-repo ... 67239.html

[MrGamgee]

The online form should not be viewed as if you are making a 'full personal disclosure'. Your answers are in fact used to evaluate the required evidence as per immigration rules for your route. Only answer YES if you need to request an exemption, on medical grounds, from the Appendix KoLL requirements (Knowledge of language and life):

See: indefinite-leave-to-remain/medical-repo ... 67239.html

Thank you Zumba for your reply. I do appreciate your help. I have seen that there is a separate section for claiming exemption from KoLL which has its own evidence section. I am not claiming any exemption and I still ticked that I would have passed the KoLL test. This question im referring to is also asked in the exact same way in FLR(M) but does not come up with the evidence requirement. If I have ticked 'Yes' previously but now tick 'No' could that be held against me?
I do know my British partner does require care and medical assistance due to certain conditions but at the same time we don't have an NHS consultant anymore. Why SET(M) adds this to the list of documentation while FLR(M) does not? What could happen if we cannot supply such a letter but still choose to tick 'Yes'?

[zimba]

FLR(M) is a different form. Just answer NO as you are NOT requesting an exemption. The evidence is obviously only required if you ARE in fact seeking any medical exemption. If you are not making any medical exemption of any sort, then such evidence is NOT required. As I said do not treat the questions as personal full disclosure. If you answer YES, then the online system thinks you are in fact making a request for a medical exemption and so includes this evidence in the list.

[MrGamgee]

FLR(M) is a different form. Just answer NO as you are NOT requesting an exemption. The evidence is obviously only required if you ARE in fact seeking any medical exemption. If you are not making any medical exemption of any sort, then such evidence is NOT required. As I said do not treat the questions as personal full disclosure

Would this not be classed as a discrepancy as in fact my partner does have a medical condition and we have declared it previously? Would ticking 'Yes' and adding a note to say we are not claiming an exemption and do not have an NHS consultant anymore be more honest/truthful? I'm just nervous because it feels like we are in a predicament now.

[MrGamgee]

It is also not just asking me if I have a condition but asking about my partner as well if she has a physical or mental condition and so this is not relevant for an exemption for KoLL as my partner is settled and is British? Makes me so confused as KoLL has its own question for exemption which we tick 'No' on as I am not exempt.

[zimba]

You are overthinking this for no reason. This is the advice given to hundreds of others. Answer No. You have not used a medical exemption before that now you are changing your story and hence your eligibility.

[MrGamgee]

You are overthinking this for no reason. This is the advice given to hundreds of others. Answer No. You have not used a medical exemption before that now you are changing your story and hence your eligibility.

Thank you Zimba for your help I really do appreciate it. I am just really confused as this isn't a question asked for KoLL and is in the section for applicant and sponsor details. Answering 'Yes' on all previous applications to the same question and then now all of a sudden 'No' would seem absurd. What am I claiming an exemption for and why does the fact that my British partner having a disability change the eligibility criteria when I do meet the KoLL requirement and the form is not mentioning any exemption at this point?

[zimba]

Actually under family route rules, the ' insurmountable obstacle' is defined under Paragraph EX.1 which does NOT limit an obstacle to qualifying just to the requirements under appendix KoLL. In fact, it is quite extensive. I repeat again that the questions on the form are NOT intended as 'full disclosure'. You answer the form as per requirement under the rules.

The impact of a mental or physical disability or of a serious illness which requires ongoing medical treatment
Moving to another country may involve a period of hardship for any person as they
adjust to their new surroundings, whether or not they have a mental or physical
disability or a serious illness which requires ongoing medical treatment. But
independent medical evidence could establish that a physical or mental disability, or
a serious illness which requires ongoing medical treatment, would lead to very
serious hardship: for example, due to the lack of adequate health care in the country
where the family would be required to live. As such, in the absence of a third country
alternative, it could amount to an insurmountable obstacle to family life continuing
overseas.

See the guide: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... tances.pdf

[MrGamgee]

Hi all

My passport mentions my place of birth as my country of birth only. My birth certificate (it's in English and has an apostille stamp) mentions my place of birth as the town of my birth rather than the country. My first ever BRP had the town of birth but then the second most recent BRP has country of birth placed under Place of birth (not sure why they've done this now but it's causing me to doubt myself slightly)

The application form asks 2 questions separately; country of birth and place of birth. Would it be wrong in this context to put my place of birth as my actual town of birth as shown in my birth certificate and supply the birth certificate as evidence as well? Could this cause confusion as it's different in the passport, will this cause any issues this time or am I okay?

[AmazonianX]

Hi all

My passport mentions my place of birth as my country of birth only. My birth certificate (it's in English and has an apostille stamp) mentions my place of birth as the town of my birth rather than the country. My first ever BRP had the town of birth but then the second most recent BRP has country of birth placed under Place of birth (not sure why they've done this now but it's causing me to doubt myself slightly)

The application form asks 2 questions separately; country of birth and place of birth. Would it be wrong in this context to put my place of birth as my actual town of birth as shown in my birth certificate and supply the birth certificate as evidence as well? Could this cause confusion as it's different in the passport, will this cause any issues this time or am I okay?

It will not cause any confusion, the CW comes across this lots of times. There are still nations that indicate name of country as place of birth and not town for place of birth.
Fill the form accordingly.

[MrGamgee]

Hi all

My passport mentions my place of birth as my country of birth only. My birth certificate (it's in English and has an apostille stamp) mentions my place of birth as the town of my birth rather than the country. My first ever BRP had the town of birth but then the second most recent BRP has country of birth placed under Place of birth (not sure why they've done this now but it's causing me to doubt myself slightly)

The application form asks 2 questions separately; country of birth and place of birth. Would it be wrong in this context to put my place of birth as my actual town of birth as shown in my birth certificate and supply the birth certificate as evidence as well? Could this cause confusion as it's different in the passport, will this cause any issues this time or am I okay?

It will not cause any confusion, the CW comes across this lots of times. There are still nations that indicate name of country as place of birth and not town for place of birth.
Fill the form accordingly.

Do you think that it's more appropriate to put the country as place of birth on the application form or the town?

[Ticktack]

Hi all

My passport mentions my place of birth as my country of birth only. My birth certificate (it's in English and has an apostille stamp) mentions my place of birth as the town of my birth rather than the country. My first ever BRP had the town of birth but then the second most recent BRP has country of birth placed under Place of birth (not sure why they've done this now but it's causing me to doubt myself slightly)

The application form asks 2 questions separately; country of birth and place of birth. Would it be wrong in this context to put my place of birth as my actual town of birth as shown in my birth certificate and supply the birth certificate as evidence as well? Could this cause confusion as it's different in the passport, will this cause any issues this time or am I okay?

It will not cause any confusion, the CW comes across this lots of times. There are still nations that indicate name of country as place of birth and not town for place of birth.
Fill the form accordingly.

Do you think that it's more appropriate to put the country as place of birth on the application form or the town?

Whichever one you feel should be the correct one. Different countries, different rules.

[MrGamgee]

Hi all

My passport mentions my place of birth as my country of birth only. My birth certificate (it's in English and has an apostille stamp) mentions my place of birth as the town of my birth rather than the country. My first ever BRP had the town of birth but then the second most recent BRP has country of birth placed under Place of birth (not sure why they've done this now but it's causing me to doubt myself slightly)

The application form asks 2 questions separately; country of birth and place of birth. Would it be wrong in this context to put my place of birth as my actual town of birth as shown in my birth certificate and supply the birth certificate as evidence as well? Could this cause confusion as it's different in the passport, will this cause any issues this time or am I okay?

It will not cause any confusion, the CW comes across this lots of times. There are still nations that indicate name of country as place of birth and not town for place of birth.
Fill the form accordingly.

Do you think that it's more appropriate to put the country as place of birth on the application form or the town?

Whichever one you feel should be the correct one. Different countries, different rules.

Thank you for this. So you don't think I'd be penalised for putting in the town as shown on my birth certificate?

The application form says put the town/village/city you were born in as shown on your passport, however, as previously stated my passport does not mention my town of birth (only country) whereas my birth certificate it does. Would I be justified in putting the town rather than the country on place of birth? It wouldn't cause issues? Sorry for the repeated questions I'm just quite anxious about it.

[lolo2]

You're overthinking this!

As an example, my passport mentions neither the country nor the town where I was born but the state (where several towns are located). During my ILR application I came across these questions and I responded what they're asking.

Country of birth: country
Place of birth: town (not the state as in the passport)

My application was approved with no issues.

A birth certificate is not required to verify this. UKVI suggests in some of their guidances that we should refrain from submitting more documents that are required for an immigration application because they don't have any impact on the outcome.

[MrGamgee]

You're overthinking this!

As an example, my passport mentions neither the country nor the town where I was born but the state (where several towns are located). During my ILR application I came across these questions and I responded what they're asking.

Country of birth: country
Place of birth: town (not the state as in the passport)

My application was approved with no issues.

A birth certificate is not required to verify this. UKVI suggests in some of their guidances that we should refrain from submitting more documents that are required for an immigration application because they don't have any impact on the outcome.

Thank you for your input I much appreciate this as it helped me ease my anxiety. When you did the Life in the UK test did you have to do the same thing when it asked for city/town of birth? Did you have any issues when checked before you set the exam?

[lolo2]

That's not an issue at all.

[MrGamgee]

Hi all

I have a couple questions (including hypothetical ones just to understand the process). I am on the 5 year route and I will be eligible for ILR in August 2024, and my visa expires in October 2024.

1. What are the advantages and disadvantages of applying early in August 2024 using super priority?
2. If I apply in August 2024 and for some reason I am refused incorrectly before my visa expires, if I reapply instead of appealing will that cause me to lose the right of in country appeal in case the second application is refused? Am I right in thinking that because if I don't take advantage of in country appeal rights I would lose it if I reapply?
3. Following the answers to question 1 and 2, am I better off applying in October before my visa expires and book the biometric appointment to be after my visa expires so I am covered under section 3C and in case I am refused I can take advantage of the appeal rights?

Sorry for the very specific questions, I'm just trying to see if I should apply early using super priority or if I should wait until just before my visa expires so I can take advantage of section 3C and appeal rights in case of an issue of some sort?

[zimba]

1. You apply when eligible for ILR. There is no advantage in delaying your application.
2. If your application is refused before visa expiry, then you must apply again before expiry in order to benefit from section 3C protection.
3. I am not sure what you are talking about here. Section 3C has nothing to do with the right to appeal. Section 3C simply extends your visa if you have a pending application beyond expiry, until a decision is made and the decision is concluded. Apply as early as you can using super priority.

[MrGamgee]

1. You apply when eligible for ILR. There is no advantage in delaying your application.
2. If your application is refused before visa expiry, then you must apply again before expiry in order to benefit from section 3C protection.
3. I am not sure what you are talking about here. Section 3C has nothing to do with the right to appeal. Section 3C simply extends your visa if you have a pending application beyond expiry, until a decision is made and the decision is concluded. Apply as early as you can using super priority.

Thank you for taking the time to respond to my questions. Perhaps I should have made it clearer. What I am talking about is a very specific hypothetical scenario in case I apply using super priority before the expiry date of my visa and then (hypothetically) I get refused due to a mistake of some sort but still get offered in-country appeal rights which I can't take advantage of due to not benefiting from section 3C. Does the act of reapplying cause me to lose the right of appeal in case I get refused again (hypothetically)?

In other words, imagine I was refused the first SET(M) application, and then I make another in-time application rather than appeal (due to not benefiting from section 3C) and then the application is refused again but this time it's refused after the visa expired which means I would be on section 3C. Does this mean there would be no right of in country appeal because the first application was refused and the right of appeal was not taken advantage of? I'm assessing whether there are disadvantages of applying using super priority such as potentially losing the right to an in country appeal in case 2 consecutive applications are refused.

[zimba]

Again, who told you that Section 3C and your right to appeal are somehow related ????

[MrGamgee]

Again, who told you that Section 3C and your right to appeal are somehow related ????

I am not suggesting that they are related whatsoever, however, I am aware of the fact that the right of an in country appeal can be given even if you are NOT on section 3C which as far as I'm aware is not a good idea to use because you would become an overstayer? My question then is, would not using your right of appeal the first time cause you to lose it in case you are refused again the second time? This is a valid question.

It has nothing to do with section 3C directly, but it does have something to do with it indirectly in the sense that having the right of in country appeal whilst not on section 3C means if you do appeal, you would become an overstayer, therefore, the option to appeal would not be a good idea and my follow up question is, does this mean a second refusal would mean there is no right of appeal?

[zimba]

You are correct that if you have no Section 3C to begin with, then a subsequent appeal will not give you Section 3C protection if your visa expires. However, you do not lose your right of appeal later. I am not sure how you arrived at that conclusion. The right of appeal does not depend on whether you have section 3C or not or whether you used it before or not. The decision of any application that entitles you to an appeal can be appealed.

Also even if you are refused before October and decide to appeal, without section 3C, you will be in a much better situation. That allows you to apply for a new application before visa expiry and avoid becoming an overstayer while pursuing the appeal in parallel. That is not possible for most people when you have section 3C.

[MrGamgee]

You are correct that if you have no Section 3C to begin with, then a subsequent appeal will not give you Section 3C protection if your visa expires. However, you do not lose your right of appeal later. I am not sure how you arrived at that conclusion. The right of appeal does not depend on whether you have section 3C or not or whether you used it before or not. The decision of any application that entitles you to an appeal can be appealed.

Also even if you are refused before October and decide to appeal, without section 3C, you will be in a much better situation. That allows you to apply for a new application before visa expiry and avoid becoming an overstayer while pursuing the appeal in parallel. That is not possible for most people when you have section 3C.

The reason I thought it might be the case is because of this guidance and Paragraph 353 of the immigration rules:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... appeal.pdf

Page 10 states that further submissions that do not amount to a fresh claim do not give the right of appeal. Page 20 talks more about further submissions.

Page 10 also does mention that an appeal has to be withdrawn to submit a fresh application? In which case what you mentioned could be incorrect? You can't have an ongoing appeal and a new application simultaneously?