Not all is lost if you claim Child benefit

[siva0123]

Hi
I have been going through the various posts regarding the Child Benefit Claims by immigrants who are having an Immigration Control on their VISA Status.

This is what I have found out from the below link

http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/sitec ... iew=Binary


Page 22 of 56 States as below

"This page lists the benefits that a person who is subject to immigration control can claim when their sponsor has signed a maintenance undertaking.
A maintenance undertaking is a written agreement given by a sponsor. It states that they will be responsible for the maintenance and accommodation of a person subject to immigration control while they are in the UK.

XXXXXXX
XXXXXX

A person who has been granted leave and whose sponsor has signed a maintenance undertaking can claim the following funds:
 Attendance allowance
 Carer’s allowance
 Child benefit
 Disability living allowance
 Severe disablement allowance
 Contribution-based employment and support allowance (ESA)
 Social fund payment."

My assumption from the above statement is that you are not breaching immigration laws if you are claiming Child Benefit even if your visa says " No recourse to Public fund " provided your visa was sponsored by your company or someone. For tier 2 immigrants this should be the case .

And going further , even if you havent got a sponsor signing this maintenance agreement , all is not lost yet .

Page 43 of 56 says

"This page tells you how to consider cases when a person who is applying for leave has received public funds.
If you have confirmed that a person has received public funds, they are not covered by an exception and it was not due to an administrative error, you must consider three points.
Does this suggest the applicant does not meet the Immigration Rules of the category they are applying under?
Most categories in the Immigration Rules require people to be able to maintain and accommodate themselves without having recourse to public funds. If an applicant has received public funds you must consider whether they could maintain and accommodate themselves if they were to immediately stop claiming those funds.
If it is clear that a person could not maintain and accommodate themselves you must consider refusing their application under the rules of the category they are applying under.
If it is obvious that a person could maintain and accommodate themselves without continuing to claim public funds, you must not refuse their application on these grounds. For example, they may have enough money available to them from elsewhere. They must stop claiming public funds because they cannot legally claim them."

So as long as you can show funds that you can maintain and accomodate yourselves , your application cant be refused ..

But please ensure you declare that in your application form as the next page has the below info

"Have they declared they are in receipt of public funds on the application form?
All application forms include a section that asks the applicant to declare whether they have received public funds.
If an applicant has received public funds that have a negative impact on their application, but not declared this on their form, you must refuse the application under paragraph 322(1A) of the Immigration Rules. This is because they have not declared a material fact when making their application. For more information, see related link: General reasons for refusing. If a person has not declared they have received public funds but they can claim these because of an exception you must not refuse under paragraph 322(1A)."


May be there might be penalties or legal actions against you for claiming public funds but I dont think any case worker will be refusing your leave to remain application if you have been true and you have declared it in your application

I might be wrong in interpreting the guidelines but I will leave it to the experts to comment

Regards
Siva

[geriatrix]

A maintenance undertaking is a written agreement given by a sponsor. It states that they will be responsible for the maintenance and accommodation of a person subject to immigration control while they are in the UK.

No Tier 2 sponsor gives an undertaking for "maintenance and accommodation" for a sponsored employee for their entire duration of stay in the UK. Some (eligible) Tier 2 sponsors may provide confirmation that "they will maintain and accommodate the applicant up to the end of your first month of employment in the UK, if required". Likewise, for a Tier 2 dependant, eligible sponsor provide the same confirmation only for the first month of stay in the UK.

Do not confuse sponsor undertaking for "maintenance and accommodation" (referred to in the policy guidance) with the Tier 2 sponsor undertaking in lieu of "maintenance funds" (900 & 600 quids) under the PBS system.

The sponsor undertaking referred to in the policy guidance (quoted) is explained here.

[siva0123]

Dear Moderator.

It may be one of my long list of unknown assumptions....

I have removed that line from my post.

I just wanted to share what I interpeted from that guideline document and get all your opinions .

So first thing I have got clarified now is about the Tier 2 Sponsorship..

And I am sure more such clarifications may be on the way that should help most of us in this forum

Regads
Siva

[Greenie]

Agree with sushdmehta. In addition the paragraph you have quoted readings maintenance undertakings specifically refers to those granted indefinite leave on the conditions of a maintenance undertaking

the section on refusals you have quoted refers to refusal on the groups that the applicant is unable to maintain themselves without recourse to public funds however it goes on to refer to refusal on the grounds that the applicant has breached a condition of their leave by claiming the benefits, and this can happen regardless of whether the applicant can maintain themselves without recourse to public funds. It does explain that applications shouldn't be refused if the funds were received due to administrative error however.

[Greenie]

It makes it rather confusing when posts are edited once replies are received as it makes it harder for anyone reading the thread to make sense of the replies.

[siva0123]

Greenie

I am not convinced that the pargraph is only for Indefinite leave to remain cases as my assumption is that by default ILR candidates are entitled for public funds right ?


Also does HMRC approving Child benefit for people who have explicitly mentioned in their CB application form that they are controled by Immigraton rules will be counted as administrative error ?

Regards
Siva

[siva0123]

It makes it rather confusing when posts are edited once replies are received as it makes it harder for anyone reading the thread to make sense of the replies.

Inserted that line back as greenie's point makes sense...

[Greenie]

Greenie

I am not convinced that the pargraph is only for Indefinite leave to remain cases as my assumption is that by default ILR candidates are entitled for public funds right ?


Also does HMRC approving Child benefit for people who have explicitly mentioned in their CB application form that they are controled by Immigraton rules will be counted as administrative error ?

Regards
Siva

your assumption is incorrect -elderly or otherwise dependent relatives over 18 (not spouses) are granted indefinite leave subject to a maintenance undertaking and thus cannot claim most benefits for 5 years, as set out in the document.

I don't know what would be considered an admin error. One would hope that it would include the scenario you mention.