- 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
abcd1 wrote:I got following response from HO regarding my question when I shall be eligible for ILR
=============================
For all employment related categories of entry to the UK, the
qualifying
period for settlement ("Indefinite Leave to Remain") will change from
four
to five years on 3rd April 2006. For applications submitted on or after
3rd
April 2006, the applicant will need to have completed the five year
qualifying period.
There is no set amount of time you can remain out of the UK, however
absences will be taken into consideration by the caseworker and an
extension maybe granted rather than settlement, to make up the 5 years.
Any short absences due to paid leave or business trips are acceptable.
The Home Office must be satisfied that the applicant has spent a
continuous period of 5 years in approved employment.
In order to apply you will need the application form: SET(O) which is
available to request by calling: 0870 241 0645, or it can be downloaded
from: www.ind.homeoffice.gov.uk.
=============================
Now I request you to note the bold lines! Previously it was offically mentioned that 3 months gap is acceptable. I know many people has got ILR with 8-9 months gap as well. But the point is that, if you have say 7 months gap, they may grant you 7 months extension to make up 60 months. So, does it mean that if somebody has gaps, he need to be in UK physically 60 months before getting ILR?
Really confusing???
Non-retrospective is a major principle in English lawReally good news and great progress from another forum. One of member has met solicitor today and please find the following information.
Time: 12:00~13:00 Tue, 28 Mar. 06
Attendee: Louis, G******y
Topic: Legal Advising about extending ILR qualifying years from 4 to 5
Minutes:
1. Mr G******y H*****g is the senior immigration caseworker of Barnet Law Centre. Before working for law centre, he was a charted barrister. Barnet Law Centre is part of community legal service sponsored by Barnet council.
2. By English law, any new policy/law must be reviewed and consulted by public. As far as the adviser knew, many immigration organizations expressed serious concerns about the changes but Home Office still decided to push the 4->5 regardless any critics. “The home office consulted us because they had to do so by law, but they never listen actually”. There is no way to make them change minds in fact.
3. Home Office has to sustain themselves by income from passport application fees and visa application fees, so they intend to enlarge qualifying period to make more money from that. Many unexposed reasons/trade-offs make immigrants harder.
4. Immigration law is particularly unfair part in whole English law, because only affected persons are immigrants…
5. The deadline of suing is within 3 months after refused decision made from Home Office.
6. If any person wins in Court, this case can be directly applied to others with similar situation. (One wins, all wins)
7. Non-retrospective is a major principle in English law. If the barrister can prove the change is retrospective, he/she will definitely win in the court. But Home Office can argue that the application for ILR is a different application for work permit/HSMP, so the 4 to 5 years change to current WP/HSMP holders is not retrospective at all. Only judge can make the final decision.
8. Louis got an immigrant-specific solicitor’s phone number and would try to have a talk with them t
supertiger wrote:I think should be ok as we are all genuinely seeking some support nothing wrong with that. If you have any concerns can just reply to HO and copy to MP, show the "copy to" on the letter send to HO. But they normally reply generally, did you raise any points to make them dig into yr file?
you are right, mate.Globetrotter wrote:>>I believe the rule has a negative impact on the existing employment related category visa holders since we were under the impression that I was eligible to apply for indefinite leave to remain after 4 years. I have planned my life and my family’s lives around this and as a result we are anxious about the changes and its effects on us. <<
It should read either
I believe the rule has a negative impact on the existing employment related category visa holders since I was under the impression that I was eligible to apply for indefinite leave to remain after 4 years. I have planned my life and my family’s lives around this and as a result we are anxious about the changes and its effects on us.
or
I believe the rule has a negative impact on the existing employment related category visa holders since we were under the impression that we were eligible to apply for indefinite leave to remain after 4 years. I have planned my life and my family’s lives around this and as a result we are anxious about the changes and its effects on us.
Take your pick, the original does not sound quite right.
Cheers,
GT
I used the same link and got my reply in less than a week I guess. They will send you email in two weeks after you wrote a letter asking if your MP replied to you.supertiger wrote:I wrote to my MP through http://www.writetothem.com 2 weeks ago but haven;t got reply while many got reply within 1 week... has anyone used that link? or shall I send another through other links? I thought they are the same but maybe not quite...
supertiger wrote:I wrote to my MP through http://www.writetothem.com 2 weeks ago but haven;t got reply while many got reply within 1 week... has anyone used that link? or shall I send another through other links? I thought they are the same but maybe not quite...