14 years long residency/SEGS/WP

[OL7MAX]

Anyone has the right to buy an IPOD, not everyone has the right to be in the UK.

Actually, the analogy seems to have gone over your head. Let me explain: Just as I have a right to get the iPod I paid for I have a right to get the service I paid for. Even if the HO answer is "No." I didn't pay to get stay, I paid for my application to be assessed based on some rules. If you aren't doing that assessing you're like the iPod seller who's not delivering (except that he can be locked up and you can keep giving pathetic excuses).

Your (SIC) lucky to have been allowed to say (SIC) in the UK

No, I'm not. I'm unlucky that I was stuck here. Don't flatter yourself. Compared to many places in the world the UK is a crap place to live. It's safer than Nigeria, and cooler than Dubai, but it's not my first country of choice. Never was.

So as you seem to be so knowledgeable of Immigration, what would you do?

I don't claim to be knowledgeable. That's an arrogrance I'll leave for civil servants. But, I do have an answer as to what I'd do: I'd sack some, and employ a lot more. But you could have worked that out from my previous posts.

[JamesC]

You'll just have to sit tight i'm afraid. i'm not trying to insult you. You have paid for a service and you will get one. You're are just going to have to wait.

Again, there isn't enough staff in any department to deal with the amount of applications received. it's not just the 1/2 million outstanding from people who have been refused and are subject to enforcement, it's also the applications made by people every day. They get priority as they are not in breach.

The legacy work is going to take 5 years to clear according to the Minister, although yours wont be that long.

Sit tight, and don't blame people you've never met. Your succumbing to the 'oh no, not civil servants' myth. They work hard and are not to blame.

Good luck,

J

[jes2jes]

James C wrote:

I work for the Home Office so obviously know more than you (none of the usual civil servant Rhetoric, thanks!).

Thanks for being part of this forum if your claim above is true and although I know a lot of IND staff and other government agencies use this site for information, you are the first to say so I believe.

I was wondering why you are answering posts on this thread at this time of day. You could use the time to sort out the numerous applications pending (OR you are on Leave or also on strike?) and check the boards when you get home.

Just mine two cents for you mate!

[JamesC]

Okay well unless there is anything constructive to say, keep please keep your 2 cents.

I'm on leave for your info.

J

[jes2jes]

Okay well unless there is anything constructive to say, keep please keep your 2 cents.

I'm on leave for your info.

J

Well James, thanks for the clarification and making my pockets 2 cents richer. Unfortunately, it does not mean much in today's England

Can you tell me (this is a bit off topic), are there any grounds in granting ILR apart from compassionate circumstances on the 10 year concession for less than that period? Can you apply a year earlier? What about naturalisation, is there anything in the rules which allows for consideration outside the rules too?

Since you are the expert. Thanks James C and enjoy your time away from Reed's HO.

[OL7MAX]

Sit tight, and don't blame people you've never met. Your (sic) succumbing to the 'oh no, not civil servants' myth. They work hard and are not to blame.

I have no doubt that there are some excellent people who happen to be civil servants. I'm sure that some civil servants work very hard. You may be a very nice chap yourself. But I also have good reason to believe that the HO is in a mess, has thousands of incompetents, even more layabouts (compare sick leave rates), and is a department worth condemning and throwing away (not fit for purpose).

[Christophe]

But I also have good reason to believe that the HO is in a mess, has thousands of incompetents, even more layabouts (compare sick leave rates), and is a department worth condemning and throwing away (not fit for purpose).

While all of that may well be true, it is also true that people can often be only as competent as they are 'allowed' to be by the constraints of the system that they're working in. Although I personally have not 'suffered' at the hands of the IND, friends who have been asylum seekers have and have been subjected to the most appalling delays and bureaucratic incompetence - a level of incompetence that would never be tolerated in business and that, quite frankly, has made me ashamed to be British, especially since it is people's lives that are affected (and not just their iPOD purchases, for example!).

Nevertheless, I think that it is wrong - as well as probably supremely unhelpful - to take out one's frustrations on an individual person, especially when that person is not in his or her employment role. (And no, I am not a civil servant!)

[OL7MAX]

I have no grouse with JamesC. As I've stated, he may be a smashing chap. That said, I see no reason to moderate criticism of the Home Office just because one of their employees happens to be present.

Bear in mind that when this alleged Home Office employee first entered this thread he demonstrated extreme ignorance about 14 year applicants, and handed out some blanket insults. I could have given him a much harder time about that.

[Jeff Albright]

You may have had exceptional reasons for overstaying your visa, but did you have to set up a business, have 3 kids and get married in the knowledge that you were here illegally. I think not.

I don't think you can be always right here, James. In my case, for example, the chicken up occurred on the part of IND resulting in me being branded an overstayer. It is clear from my file, from my CID, etc. The IND failed for many years to communicate with my reps or myself despite having all my contact details necessary to communicate with me and despite my reps calling them to enquire on the progress and sending letters but receiving, what it turned out to be in the end, wrong and inaccurate information.
So, what would be in your opinion, shall I just sit in the corner and wait for IND to make a decision without having any right to work, to study, to form a family? Does the IND's system that allowed those blunders deprive me of all my rights (human rights) all of the sudden?
I accept that if I had knowingly overstayed, then I would have agreed with you. However, the Section 10 of 2002 Act does not, for some reason, distinguish between the people who knowingly breached the law or those who were victims of a completely disorganised administrative system. Why? Who has written those rules?!

Now about marriages while on "unsettled" status. As yo are aware, there are many Tribunal cases when HOPOs try to put this point across to the appellants basing on the Mahmood test. But where is it written (please give the the reference) that prior to 2004 the registry offices had the statutory requirement to check the immigration backgrounds of the couples who were giving their notices? There was no such a rule until 2004. When I got married in 2002 and my status was still undecided, I had no knowledge about this requirement and at that point, I was not familiar with the immigration rules and none of my representatives advised me accordingly.
Why, providing it was illegal, the Registry never pointed this out to me or asked for appropriate documentation??
So how can you possibly blame people for getting married in the knowledge that they were illegal or had no status if there was no such requirement in the law!

[Christophe]

I have no grouse with JamesC. As I've stated, he may be a smashing chap. That said, I see no reason to moderate criticism of the Home Office just because one of their employees happens to be present.

No, that is fair enough!

[tammi]

I have received my file back from subject access request and I have a few questions

1. On the case search printout is shows ---- case type -long residency(14 years):outcome - 'void - Inappriopriate application'
What does this mean??

2. it also shows--- Case referred to IS for removal - Jan 2005. What does it mean?


3. Also I was served with form APP 104B.... how does this affect my application

4. I would also appreciate any idea on where to go from here.

Thank you

[SYH]

Hi Tammi
I was alarmed to read you were not working
Why is that?
If you were working before, there was no reason to stop despite your application

[tammi]

I was made redundant from my last job. Since then, I've been unable to find another job due to lack of evidence to produce.......despite any assurrance that i give to prospective employers.

I would appreciate any comment, advice , etc re my problem

thanks you

[SYH]

Well if you received benefits, it would seem to me because you are entitled to them, which as corollary means you are allowed to work.
In general the rule is if you were allowed to work previously, just because you put an application in does not mean you must stop working, your status is tolled until there is a new decision. You have to help yourself out in getting the proper documentation to convince employers if they prefer to err on the side of prudent. I dont think the HO wants you availing of public fund if you dont need to

[Jeff Albright]

1. On the case search printout is shows ---- case type -long residency(14 years):outcome - 'void - Inappriopriate application'
What does this mean??

It is difficult to tell why they voided your application without having any further information. It could be that your 14 years continuous residence period was broken at some point when they were trying to find you and serve you with removal papers. Is there any evidence on file that you were ever served these forms? Are there any copies of IS151A or IS151B on file?
It could be that it was a simple error on their part. They should really have noted it down why they voided your application. Can you read which department has minuted the file?

2. it also shows--- Case referred to IS for removal - Jan 2005. What does it mean?

I gather this means exactly that, because they voided your application, they then made you subject to removal. They probably referred it to Border Control and Enforcement, which is the department that is in the total mess and where files can sit for decades without action. Is there any indication where exactly it was referred to or have they blacked it all out from the copy of your file?

3. Also I was served with form APP 104B.... how does this affect my application

I am not sure what this form is about. Have you got a copy?

4. I would also appreciate any idea on where to go from here.

You need to find out why your application has been voided first, the reasons, which department minuted your file and where it was then sent to. There should be some printouts from the Warehouse computer system at the end from where you can find out where your file was held before it was sent to Subject Access Bureau. You can send me a ppm and give this information on the last location of your file.