- 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
Do you get any right of appeal ? Or asked to leave country.carlmax2009 wrote:Hi all
I am a software programmer working in UK under PSW. I applied for Tier 1 general last month and got refused. I got 10 year ban in my passprt. Please help me. Does it mean I can't travel to any EU nation or australia or USA or canada?
Please help me.. I am very upset. I haven't used any deception and they said employer verification failed.I contacted my HR and she said she didn't get any call from HO.
No I dont have right to appeal. I am not very worried about the 10 yr ban but my worry is can i get into any other europe country or australia or us or canada?gotcha wrote:Do you get any right of appeal ? Or asked to leave country.carlmax2009 wrote:Hi all
I am a software programmer working in UK under PSW. I applied for Tier 1 general last month and got refused. I got 10 year ban in my passprt. Please help me. Does it mean I can't travel to any EU nation or australia or USA or canada?
Please help me.. I am very upset. I haven't used any deception and they said employer verification failed.I contacted my HR and she said she didn't get any call from HO.
If yes, contact good immigration lawyer.
Yes, you can get in to other countries provided you satisfy their criteria.carlmax2009 wrote: No I dont have right to appeal. I am not very worried about the 10 yr ban but my worry is can i get into any other europe country or australia or us or canada?
carlmax2009 wrote:I am a genuine employee and i am going to meet some lawyers next week..my visa expires only on march 2010 so hopefully i can do something on this...i am planning to go to australia after 2011 so i m bit worried whehther they might reject my visa coz uk put 10 yrs ban on me..
That's the UKBA's position, I think (and therein lies the problem). I infer that the OP has been caught up in the aftermath of this case: http://www.ait.gov.uk/Public/Upload/j22 ... kistan.docghulbhai wrote:he's a fraud.
lol that reminded me of Alucard from Hellsing.innocentdevil wrote:WHAT DOES IT SAY ON YOUR REJECTION LETTER. CAN YOU NOT UNDERSTAND WHAT THIS MEANS. IF YOU WANT HELP YOU SHOULD EXPLAIN EVERYTHING CLEARLY. I THINK YOU ARE HIDING SOMETHING AND YOU KNOW WHY YOUR VISA WAS REJECTED.
This is a bit like forensic medicine ! The quote above may be *the* critical piece of information, so here's my best guess: The OP went to CCL (Cambridge College of Learning), gained a postgraduate diploma in business management or IT (perhaps the latter, since the OP is a 'software programmer'), and then went on to get the PSW visa on the back of that PGDip.carlmax2009 wrote:i did my studies from CCL....
Hmmm it was lacking the zooming camera shots on the application in Negative with some dramatic music.....gordon wrote:This is a bit like forensic medicine ! The quote above may be *the* critical piece of information, so here's my best guess: The OP went to CCL (Cambridge College of Learning), gained a postgraduate diploma in business management or IT (perhaps the latter, since the OP is a 'software programmer'), and then went on to get the PSW visa on the back of that PGDip.carlmax2009 wrote:i did my studies from CCL....
CCL was later determined by UKBA to have issued bogus qualifications, namely those in business management and IT (cf UKAIT 00031 from June this year, link above). The UKBA has thereafter refused applications from people from that college who did one of those two courses, and further has applied a deception-related ban on those who used either qualification to obtain leave to remain (e.g. PSW). With that decision now in place, the OP's application to switch from PSW to Tier 1 (General) would then have put him in the firing line.
It was a bit of a red herring when the OP mentioned the deception and the problem with employer verification in the same sentence, but I don't think the two were connected. The caseworker's inability to verify earnings/employment is a relatively minor problem that (a) seems most unlikely to result in a ban, and (b) was entirely overridden by the false representation of the qualification.
Do I get a gold star for making up a plausible scenario ?