- 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
So what you're saying is that they have only rejected the FLR and that they would consider a fresh application made outside UK in a different perspective?Kayalami wrote:If she gets a fresh WP she should be ok to get a WP visa back home and return on that. HSMP is the best option though.
Yes, absolutely. Just obtain a visa under the WP and return.coyote wrote: So what you're saying is that they have only rejected the FLR and that they would consider a fresh application made outside UK in a different perspective?
Student visa will not be granted. Only CLS visas can be obtained.This is somewhat similar to the case I'd described in a different thread albeit for a student.
IMHO something is a bit strange here. Does her 3 year permit free visa prohibit paid employment? Work Permits are made independently and anyone can obtain it in the UK, out of the UK or regardless of the immigration status in the UK. If she is still within her 3 year visa, she has the leave to remain and whether or not she obtained the WP, makes no difference unless her visa lays certain restrictions and she was in breach of those. In her permit free visa allows employment without restrictions, she will simply be viewed as someone who has not used their WP and should be ok to obtain another WP and apply for FLR(IED) on the basis of the WP.dhananjaydesai wrote: What everyone, us and employer failed to take into consideration that the work permit would cancel any previous visa, no matter what time the previous visa was valid until.
This is irrelevant as far as her immigration status is concerned.This is how the UK treat a highly skilled person, who ignorantly overstayed. Was in employment. Paid taxes every month. Never claimed benefits etc.
This is why I think something is a bit dodgy here... I would assume they were admitting her in on the basis of her 3 year permit employment visa. But I do not know many of the conditions attached to the permit free employment visas. Perhaps someone else will advise better.And gave the immigration officials FOUR chances during each trip out and back to the UK, for some immigration official to point out the visa had expired.................
They never take any responsibility even if that was their fault.They take no responsibility that they are at fault, they didnt update records, did not offer clear advice on what one visa does to another.
They DID admit her back on the basis of the visa expiring in June 2006.This is why I think something is a bit dodgy here... I would assume they were admitting her in on the basis of her 3 year permit employment visa. But I do not know many of the conditions attached to the permit free employment visas. Perhaps someone else will advise better.
Sorry I am confused. Did she obtain Leave to Remain for 4 months or for 3 years, as a permit free immigrant? Permit free leave to remain is a stamp in the passport, isn't it, issued by IND. Work Permit is a paper issued by Work Permits (UK) saying that the person has been approved and must now obtain Further Leave to Remain (IED) from the IND.dhananjaydesai wrote: the 3 year permit free visa was specific for hospital work only. it allows paid employment but as a doctor ONLY.
the work permit was necessary during a four month period of the 3 year job (as earlier, same hospital, same workload etc)
So, her employment at the hospital considered as employment in immigration sense?the workpermit did state that she could not commence work unless she had leave to remain under another category which would allow employment (viz Permit free Training which was already in force)
Fair enough. If employment under WP is terminated, it will invalidate the Leave to Remain and the immigrant must leave the UK within 28 days or apply for another WP attached to another employer.it did NOT state that it would automatically cause any other leave to remain to cease
the only small print that was on the visa endorsement states that ".....person does not change employment...."
So she was perfectly within her current Leave to Remain and could have asked her hospital to apply for WP at any time and then switch to the Further Leave to Remain (Immigration Employment Document).the fact is that the employment did not change, only that the remaining 32 months of the post were suitable for permit free training, and hence did not require an extension of work permit.
It was not change of circumstances, was it? She has been working for the same employer, hasn't she?they have refused FLR on the basis of the above fact: that she did not inform them of a change of employment! or a change of circumstances.
Why should have they not admitted her??? She had a valid visa before June 2006 and could go out and come back in as she pleases. Why should have they barred her, I do not understand?They DID admit her back on the basis of the visa expiring in June 2006.
Home Officer states "we cannot comment at what happened at the ports"
so basically they allowed in a person who should not have been allowed in
The word "bizarre" is straight on. I think there must have been some massive confusion occurred between yourselves and the IND. And I am still confused, too...even a solicitor i spoke to said the case was 'bizarre' and 'unique'
she had leave under PFT (permit free training) for 36 months.Sorry I am confused. Did she obtain Leave to Remain for 4 months or for 3 years, as a permit free immigrant? Permit free leave to remain is a stamp in the passport, isn't it, issued by IND. Work Permit is a paper issued by Work Permits (UK) saying that the person has been approved and must now obtain Further Leave to Remain (IED) from the IND.
im not sure what you mean, jeff. PFT and any time on a PFT does not count towards stay in the country. eg 15 years on PFT would not mean that she could apply for ILR- they would not be counted. if she had 15 years of WP, they would count towards ILRSo, her employment at the hospital considered as employment in immigration sense?
But her work never terminated! she did not have to sign any other contract through the remainder of her post.Fair enough. If employment under WP is terminated, it will invalidate the Leave to Remain and the immigrant must leave the UK within 28 days or apply for another WP attached to another employer.
Correct.It was not change of circumstances, was it? She has been working for the same employer, hasn't she?
the HO did not update their records.Why should have they not admitted her??? She had a valid visa before June 2006 and could go out and come back in as she pleases. Why should have they barred her, I do not understand?
Why did she need it?she ALSO had a WP for the first 4 months of the 36. this WP was issued one month after PFT.
So why did she feel she had to apply for a WP, also?PFT expired in June 06 (issued in June 03)
Because PFT IS the LTR itself and it has nothing to do with the WP. She could have switched to LTR under WP from PFT at any time by: 1) getting her hospital to apply for WP to Work Permits (UK) and 2) Sending her passport to the IND and obtaining FLR (IED) under the WP. FLR(IED) would have cancelled her PFT and she would have been classed as an immigrant under WP category.strange thing was, home officials said, no need to reapply for FLR on the basis of the WP as she already had the PFT covering her.
Does it not, really? I do not believe so. On WP the qualifying period for ILR is not 15 years but 4 years (now 5) only. In any other categories, the qualifying period is 10 years, in "illegal" category is 14 years.PFT and any time on a PFT does not count towards stay in the country. eg 15 years on PFT would not mean that she could apply for ILR- they would not be counted.
If she has spent here continuously 15 years in any category including being illegal, she would have been eligible to apply for ILR.if she had 15 years of WP, they would count towards ILR
In this case, she could have switched to WP category in June 2006 before her PFT visa expired or at any time between 2003 and 2006. Has she done this? What happened in fact?But her work never terminated! she did not have to sign any other contract through the remainder of her post.
What have they not updated? They classed her on PFT and that's why she was being admitted to the UK.the HO did not update their records.
apologies, i randomly filled in a time period- not to be taken seriouslyDoes it not, really? I do not believe so. On WP the qualifying period for ILR is not 15 years but 4 years (now 5) only. In any other categories, the qualifying period is 10 years, in "illegal" category is 14 years.
agreed. the home office advised that she need not apply for FLR (IED) on the very basis of the PFT which was issued earlierBecause PFT IS the LTR itself and it has nothing to do with the WP. She could have switched to LTR under WP from PFT at any time by: 1) getting her hospital to apply for WP to Work Permits (UK) and 2) Sending her passport to the IND and obtaining FLR (IED) under the WP. FLR(IED) would have cancelled her PFT and she would have been classed as an immigrant under WP category.
This is why it appears a wrong rule and paragraph has been used to justify the decision. This does not come as a surprise when it comes to quality of decision making at the IND.British wrote: Jeff - you opinion is she has not overstayed since June 2003, but if you look at Dhan's replies, you will see that he is saying that the HO did say she has overstayed on her WP visa.