ESC

Click the "allow" button if you want to receive important news and updates from immigrationboards.com


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

Welcome to immigrationboards.com!

Login Register Do not show

Section 82 of the nationality, immigration and asylum 2001

General UK immigration & work permits; don't post job search or family related topics!

Please use this section of the board if there is no specific section for your query.

Moderators: Casa, John, ChetanOjha, archigabe, CR001, push, JAJ, ca.funke, Amber, zimba, vinny, Obie, EUsmileWEallsmile, batleykhan, meself2, geriatrix, Administrator

Locked
Salahben86
Newly Registered
Posts: 14
Joined: Thu Jan 09, 2014 5:14 pm

Section 82 of the nationality, immigration and asylum 2001

Post by Salahben86 » Tue Jul 11, 2017 5:41 pm

Could someone please explain this to me..

I received a decision from the HO as following:
Rights of appeal: You can not appeal this decision(1)
(1) in the footer (This decision is not an appealable decision under section 82 of the nationality, immigration and asylum 2002

But the home office made a huge mistake .... I claimed asylum in march 2011 and was granted HP (1st aug 2011 - 30th July 2012) and I made an in-time application for further leave. The home office have now made a decision june 2017, which I had to fight for since my in-time application.
the decision as as following:

''You made a claim for asylum on 19th july 2012. This has been carefully considered however it has been refused. A decision has been made to grant you HP. Your Claim was decided on 8th June 2017

So, it sounds as if I didnt have to wait over 3.5 years for a decision to be made, then appeal to FTT (was dismissed) then appeal to UTT (which allowed my appeal: 1-The appeal is allowed with ref to articale 15(c) of Qualification Directive. 2-The appeal is allowed on human rights grounds (under the rule and with ref to Artical 8 ECHR)


I am so confused my self about the journey I had to take in my life .... Please help explaining this decision as I was already advised by the CAAU to right back to the implementation Unit and to the judge.

Thanks

Locked