- 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
No wonder you are worried if you think that UKBA have no discretion. Clearly they do have discretion.It is utterly ridiculous. There is no discretion on the part of UKBA.
Are you saying that people applying for a school job are treated as having unspent convictions? Because if that is what you are saying, I can assure you that is not the case.These people will be treated as having unspent convictions, for all immigration purpose.
With respect I think you are confusing two points. Firstly the new legislation includes an ability a request for information about all convictions, including spent convictions. But it does not force them to ask any particular question. They will still have full discretion about how they draft the questions on their various applications form. It is just that the scope of those questions will be permitted to be slightly wider than previously.There is no discretion in the language of the legislation itself. It simply provides an exemption from the rules for immigration purpose. I am not a mind reader, so unsure UKBA will provide one in its guidance to its caseworker.
There is no phrase in the wording of the legislation that indicates a discretion will be conferred on UKBA.
Before you put words into my mouth, remember I am an immigrant to this country also. I have worked the majority of my 25 year IT career in countries other than my birth - I was born in Canada.legit2011 wrote: just for the sake of one mishap/conviction...
I know where you are coming from...if you (immigrants) dont like it then tuff...
Firstly, ignorance of the law is no excuse.legit2011 wrote: I do not want to believe that people would intentionally go against any law or policy......
We are discussing a piece of legislation and its potential effect on the lives of people.settled_now wrote:Oh, now I see...there was a little "mishap" regarding drink driving:
http://immigrationboards.com/viewtopic. ... highlight=
So what you're saying is that was not intentionally against any law or policy?! Ok.legit2011 wrote: I do not want to believe that people would intentionally go against any law or policy......
Drink driving is sufficient to have you barred from entry to quite a few countries and denied settlement in many more.
I am sorry but links to the private sites are not good enough for the purpose of this discussion. To prove something please use "gov.uk" links.settled_now wrote:Maybe this will ease some minds in regards to minor traffic violations:
"Technically any conviction in a court of a criminal offence is a criminal record. In practice, however, many motoring offences are not deemed to be crimes for criminal record purposes"
http://www.inbrief.co.uk/court-judgemen ... ecords.htm
...
...!
Furthermore, failure to provide details of any motoring offence which was dealt with in court may result in refusal of the application.Fixed penalty notices will not normally be taken in to account, unless you have had more than one fixed penalty notice in the last 12 months. In that case you may wish to wait to make your application until you have no more than one fixed penalty notice in the 12 month period before applying.
As you can see road traffic offences, which dealt with in court, are "criminal enough" for UKBA.You must give details of all unspent criminal convictions. This includes road traffic offences but not fixed penalty notices (such as speeding or parking tickets) unless they were given in court.
-Thanks so much for your response.John wrote:The crux of the matter! Could you now kindly produce a link to the relevant "current UKBA law"? And I do mean "law", not guidance to UKBA staff.According to current UKBA law, applicants with unspent conviction are barred to apply for ILR or naturalization.
Could you not kindly write to your MP now before the bill is passed so they can raise the questions as it stands this passage has got many vague clauses open to wide interpretion.John wrote:Did I deny that? It depends upon the conviction, and how long ago it was. For example, someone applying for a job in a school who was convicted of a child molestation offence many years ago, they would be unlikely even to get short-listed. And for UKBA say a conviction for armed robbery, even many years ago, would raise serious doubts in their mind.
Again, we need to see the detailed instructions to be given to UKBA staff, and again I shall write to my MP at the appropriate time, prompting him to question Ministers about that.