OVER 18 HSMP DEPENDANT

indianajones · Post by **indianajones** » Sat Sep 03, 2011 10:45 pm

I am due to attend the PEO with my mum on Monday and urgently require the help of moderators or other senior members please. A little background:
Mum hsmp pre nov 7 2006...I am her dependant..22 years old now....working full time....but still leaving at home with my mum. I just came across the underlying material :
http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/sitec ... iew=Binary

and have been panick stricken.....please i need urgent advise, do I resign my job first thing monday morning? does the third paragraph really require strict adherence from the case workers? Please someone should help me with this. thanks.

Post by **geriatrix** » Sat Sep 03, 2011 10:56 pm

indianajones wrote: I just came across the underlying material :
http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/sitec ... iew=Binary

You were advised about "not leading an independent life" requirement for adult dependants 5 months ago.

indianajones · Post by **indianajones** » Sat Sep 03, 2011 10:58 pm

I,ve just seen that the Section 5 above seems to be for children seeking to remain in the uk with adoptive parents..? which as it stands does not or should not apply to me....or is the position generic? to all children seeking to settle with parents? please i'm perturbed and my reasoning is now somewhat distorted.

Post by **geriatrix** » Sat Sep 03, 2011 11:09 pm

indianajones wrote:I,ve just seen that the Section 5 above seems to be for children seeking to remain in the uk with adoptive parents..?

From where / how do you get that impression? Did you read clause 1.2 and 1.3?

Read 197(iii) (to be read in conjunction with last paragraph of rule 198) and 319J(d).

indianajones · Post by **indianajones** » Sat Sep 03, 2011 11:11 pm

sushdmehta wrote:
indianajones wrote: I just came across the underlying material :
http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/sitec ... iew=Binary
You were advised about "not leading an independent life" requirement for adult dependants 5 months ago.

Yes I was sushdmehta , my understanding, given the scenarios and the case law which served as precedent was that I could keep my job.Flawed as is it might have been , what is my stand 5 months after please? we are talking remedial options now...if indeed I should not be working full time. Thanks

indianajones · Post by **indianajones** » Sat Sep 03, 2011 11:18 pm

sushdmehta wrote:
indianajones wrote:I,ve just seen that the Section 5 above seems to be for children seeking to remain in the uk with adoptive parents..?
From where / how do you get that impression? Did you read clause 1.2 and 1.3?

Read 197(iii) (to be read in conjunction with last paragraph of rule 198) and 319J(d).

From here sushdmehta http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/sitec ... iew=Binary . Ok will read the links you provided now.

Post by **geriatrix** » Sat Sep 03, 2011 11:22 pm

Reading gidoc's response in your previous topic should be useful.

In context, other than the "dependant" stamp in your passport, how are you dependent on your sponsor (mother)? Please reply in line with the requirements outlined in clause 3.

indianajones · Post by **indianajones** » Sat Sep 03, 2011 11:30 pm

sushdmehta wrote:
indianajones wrote:I,ve just seen that the Section 5 above seems to be for children seeking to remain in the uk with adoptive parents..?
From where / how do you get that impression? Did you read clause 1.2 and 1.3?

Read 197(iii) (to be read in conjunction with last paragraph of rule 198) and 319J(d).

Yous don't seem to understand my issue sushdmehta.The fact that I should not live and "independent life" is not in doubt I have seen those provisions and have concurred as to its application to me. My confusion only stems from not knowing the interpretation a case worker would give it (independent life). and whether working full time tilts the balance unfavorably. Between thanks a lot for taking your time on this.

indianajones · Post by **indianajones** » Sat Sep 03, 2011 11:36 pm

sushdmehta wrote:Reading gidoc's response in your previous topic should be useful.

In context, other than the "dependant" stamp in your passport, how are you dependent on your sponsor (mother)? Please reply in line with the requirements outlined in clause 3.

http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIAT/2007/00051.html By having been an integral part of our family unit.

indianajones · Post by **indianajones** » Sat Sep 03, 2011 11:39 pm

sushdmehta wrote:Reading gidoc's response in your previous topic should be useful.

In context, other than the "dependant" stamp in your passport, how are you dependent on your sponsor (mother)? Please reply in line with the requirements outlined in clause 3.

gidocs response is undoubtedly useful, the only twist is that I am working full time ...

Post by **geriatrix** » Sat Sep 03, 2011 11:42 pm

If you work full-time, get paid decently for it and are not dependent on your mother financially for your subsistence, then IMHO, the circumstances tilt against you - unless you can prove otherwise.

"Working" is not the only criteria that your application will be assessed on! Likewise, living with mother may not be enough to prove that you fulfil "living with parent(s)" requirements if one earns enough to be "not-financially-dependent" on parent(s).

e.g.-
Working and earning 10K may reflect the need / reason for financial dependency on someone else for accommodation, subsistence etc.
but
Working and earning 50K does/may not.

So, while I do seem to get a gist of your issue, what I am suggesting is that you "working" full-time may not be your only issue! For your application to be successful you need to prove that you are not leading an independent life (a combination of multiple criteria). And your application will be assessed on whether you fulfil the stated requirements based on the evidence(s) you provide to support your claims that you meet the prescribed requirements.

Post by **geriatrix** » Sun Sep 04, 2011 12:07 am

indianajones wrote:do I resign my job first thing monday morning?

Even if you submit a resignation letter to your employer on Monday morning before your appointment at the PEO, you will still be "employed and working full-time" until you serve the notice period (if any)!

No point!

indianajones · Post by **indianajones** » Sun Sep 04, 2011 12:09 am

Thanks a lot for your time sushdmehta, yes I work full time now, BUT only have, for a few months now, having been in full time education for the majority of our stay here.I have however remained dependant on my mum for all this years, and I still am my salary (which is good for a fresh graduate) not withstanding. My Phd will cost in excess of 30 grand and my mum will, like in most of my academic sojourns, be taking the bills.I would have to furnish them with all details I can lay my hands on.

Between I am no longer worried, can't wait for Monday

, God has whispered into my ears and calmed my nerves, he says I should go to sleep now...His angels nudge my eyes

.

Will narrate the details of how we got it, here on Monday or afterwards. Thanks all.

indianajones · Post by **indianajones** » Sun Sep 04, 2011 12:11 am

Thanks once again sushdmehta you all have been wonderful.Will definitely keep you updated.

farah · Post by **farah** » Sun Sep 04, 2011 9:30 am

As you are dependent of pre Nov 2006 HSMP participant so UKBA instruction being discussed are not applicable.

Your ILR come under Rule 198 read with 197 whereas guidance pertains to fallowing :
"This paragraph relates to the considerations referred to in Paragraphs 297(i)(f), 298(i)(d), 301(i)(c), 310(i)f), 311(i)(d) and 314(i)(c) and 319X (ii) of the Immigration Rules"

Relax

Post by **geriatrix** » Sun Sep 04, 2011 11:48 am

"Not leading an independent life" is a requirement for all dependants applying for settlement when they have attained full age.
In context, read last paragraph of rule 198 (which mentions that 197(iii) must also be fulfilled, amongst others).

sushdmehta wrote:Read 197(iii) (to be read in conjunction with last paragraph of rule 198)

The underlying "principle" of the requirement remains the same!

farah · Post by **farah** » Sun Sep 04, 2011 1:43 pm

Form SET(O) at Page 7 asks to briefly explain why one is applying for ILR. This may be a sample narration therein for you:

" Immigration Rule # 198 - Over 18 years dependent child of parents who are at the same time applying for ILR under Pre Nov.2006 HSMP ".

Take supportive documents to PEO to this effect that for most part of 5 years you were in full time studies and has just completed the degree.
Take a print out of then HSMP guidance which stated that dependents are allowed to work. Meaning thereby that merely working full time does not mean that one is leading independent life.
These are precautions otherwise I see no problem in your ILR.

farah · Post by **farah** » Wed Sep 07, 2011 7:43 am

You had promised feedback.
Now it is over due as appointment was on Monday

indianajones · Post by **indianajones** » Wed Sep 07, 2011 12:32 pm

Yes I had, still waiting for the big picture though. We went as scheduled on Monday but nothing could be done with our application because we had a bit of an oversight in calculating 5 yrs continous stay, we were short by a couple of days. Managed (only just) to get another appointment on Thursday, so I was just waiting till after Thursday. But from the one we've experienced: had a slot 30 mins after my mums, but as the case worker called hers, I went with her and explained our situation, he took my own slip to the backroom staff ( telling them nOt to bother announcing it I reckon) and was quite happy to handle both application forms only to make the discovery.

indianajones · Post by **indianajones** » Thu Sep 08, 2011 7:50 pm

Ok if you want to save time and circumvent rude staff, avoid Croydon. We finally got it today. Would try to do a narrative tomorrow. But just a few pointers, working full time doesn't matter, I also had a criminal conviction for driving with an international license in December: totally overlooked. Case worker was very nice and handled our application together. Got there 9:00 am for 11 appointment, left 15:45.

Post by **geriatrix** » Fri Sep 09, 2011 11:17 am

indianajones wrote: I also had a criminal conviction for driving with an international license in December: totally overlooked.

Not overlooked, is not a requirement. Criminality threshold does not apply for HSMP migrants (and dependants) covered by HSMP JR.

Congrats!

Immigrationboards.com: Immigration, work visa and work permit discussion board

OVER 18 HSMP DEPENDANT

OVER 18 HSMP DEPENDANT