ILR(Long Residence) eligibility concerning Exceptional Assurance

[TPTPTPTP]

It seems they will not count the time spent towards the 10 years

Can I take it as "having EA in the past does not reset the continuous residence but the EA period won't be counted towards the qualifying period"?

It seems to be the case as per the new rules where you need to build up 10 years of lawful residence and some periods (e.g those covered under paragraph 39E) are not included. The breaks in your continuous lawful residence seem to be different

Sorry, I don't understand. There was no gap in my continuous residence except the EA period (it will be covered under the new 39E as HC590 indicates), all my previous visa applications were made in time (before the expiry date). I received the EA on 25/10/2021 while my leave at the time of receiving the EA was due to expired on 08/11/2021, I made an SWV application on 15/12/2021 and it was subsequently successful and valid from 14/01/20222, the EA expired on 17/01/2022. I cannot see the breaks in my continuous residence if they are going to disregard the EA.

[zimba]

Any time spent under EA period is a gap in lawful residence as I already covered this many many times. The new rules do NOT apply to your application either as you already applied and the new rules do not apply. I already explained where the gap is and what could possibly go wrong in your case. This will be up to the UKVI to decide as the treatment of your EA period is not clear as per the rules in place

[TPTPTPTP]

Any time spent under EA period is a gap in lawful residence as I already covered this many many times. The new rules do NOT apply to your application either as you already applied and the new rules do not apply. I already explained where the gap is and what could possibly go wrong in your case. This will be up to the UKVI to decide as the treatment of your EA period is not clear as per the rules in place

Thanks, I see what you mean. I was wondering if they would use the new rules to treat my application as there was nothing in the existing rules can be applied to my case (that's what I've been seeking clarifications for). Is it worth submitting a new ILR application after the 4th April but before the 10th April so the new 39E can be applied to the EA issue in my case while I don't need to have follow the new Appendix Long Residence (takes effect on 11th April if my memory is correct) to hold the current leave for at least 12 months?

[zimba]

No, they won't use the new rules. They may choose to treat the EA as disregarded and may even count that period but again there is no guarantee as they made it clear that EA was not intended to grant any lawful residence or leave. My suggestion is to wait and see

[TPTPTPTP]

No, they won't use the new rules. They may choose to treat the EA as disregarded and may even count that period but again there is no guarantee as they made it clear that EA was not intended to grant any lawful residence or leave. My suggestion is to wait and see

Thank you, zimba. I have one more query, unrelated to the EA. As I've been residing alone, I am entitled to the 25% Single Occupancy Discount for my current residence. Is this discount included in the Council Tax Reduction Schemes outlined in the Public Funds: Caseworker Guidance? If so, would any discount I've already received need to be repaid to the City Council? Will the UKVI inform me if this is the case?

[zimba]

Single occupancy discount on council tax has nothing to do with public funds for the purpose of immigration and it is not considered one at all

https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... blic-funds

[TPTPTPTP]

It seems they will not count the time spent towards the 10 years

Just for your information, Coronavirus extension concession (CEC) and exceptional assurance concession: caseworker guidance, which is completely new guidance, was published earlier today and it explicitly states:

Paragraph 39E(5) of the Immigration Rules was amended so that overstaying during periods where the person held an exceptional assurance or short-term assurance will be disregarded and will not break continuous residence. This period however does not count as lawful presence.

It also states:

An applicant cannot rely on any periods with exceptional assurance or short-term assurance to count towards the qualifying period for settlement on any route.

[lala97]

Any time spent under EA period is a gap in lawful residence as I already covered this many many times. The new rules do NOT apply to your application either as you already applied and the new rules do not apply. I already explained where the gap is and what could possibly go wrong in your case. This will be up to the UKVI to decide as the treatment of your EA period is not clear as per the rules in place

I think you are wrong given that most applications with this gap or scenario have been placed on hold and awaiting guidance from the government based on the correspondence from home office. I think the new rules will apply for old applications which were placed on hold

[zimba]

Any time spent under EA period is a gap in lawful residence as I already covered this many many times. The new rules do NOT apply to your application either as you already applied and the new rules do not apply. I already explained where the gap is and what could possibly go wrong in your case. This will be up to the UKVI to decide as the treatment of your EA period is not clear as per the rules in place

I think you are wrong given that most applications with this gap or scenario have been placed on hold and awaiting guidance from the government based on the correspondence from home office. I think the new rules will apply for old applications which were placed on hold

The OP applied before the introduction of new rules changes. So the new rules will NOT apply to old applications as that is not how things work. It is possible that UKVI very likely use the same approach for the EA period but that is yet to be discovered. That means such applications are held until the OP has enough lawful residence for ILR.

Note that given the new rule changes, getting ILR under long residence much much harder as NO period of overstaying is tolerated or counted at all even under paragraph 39E (unlike the old rules)

[lala97]

Any time spent under EA period is a gap in lawful residence as I already covered this many many times. The new rules do NOT apply to your application either as you already applied and the new rules do not apply. I already explained where the gap is and what could possibly go wrong in your case. This will be up to the UKVI to decide as the treatment of your EA period is not clear as per the rules in place

I think you are wrong given that most applications with this gap or scenario have been placed on hold and awaiting guidance from the government based on the correspondence from home office. I think the new rules will apply for old applications which were placed on hold

The OP applied before the introduction of new rules changes. So the new rules will NOT apply to old applications as that is not how things work. It is possible that UKVI very likely use the same approach for the EA period but that is yet to be discovered. That means such applications are held until the OP has enough lawful residence for ILR.

Note that given the new rule changes, getting ILR under long residence much much harder as NO period of overstaying is tolerated or counted at all even under paragraph 39E (unlike the old rules)

I had this issue and applied before the new rules were made. My application was placed on hold pending the new rules and it has been granted. The covid overstay was the only issue with my application

[TPTPTPTP]

My ILR was granted on 18/04. I think the UKVI is applying the new rules to the old applications as some of them submitted before April 2024 were refused because the UKVI did not count their EA periods towards the qualifying period. I submitted my application after 10 years and 120 days, although my EA period is around 2 months, using the new rules does not make a difference. Additionally, I got the super priority service fee refunded after filing a complaint to the UKVI.