- FAQ
- Login
- Register
- Call Workpermit.com for a paid service +44 (0)344-991-9222
Immigration, work visa and work permit discussion board
ESC
Welcome to immigrationboards.com!
Moderators: Casa, archigabe, CR001, push, JAJ, ca.funke, Amber, zimba, vinny, Obie, EUsmileWEallsmile, batleykhan, meself2, geriatrix, John, ChetanOjha, Administrator
This is the first question to ask.SYH wrote:why does the HO have her passport ?
Who knows? getting tired of pulling teeth.Mr Rusty wrote:I don't quite understand what has happened here.
This lady came 3 years ago with a visa (for 1 year?) and submitted an application via a college. So what happened to that application? If only the college's address was supplied, the grant/refusal would have been sent to the college, along with the passport.
Unfortunately a good number of unscrupulous colleges retain their students' passports against non-payment of fees, which they are not entitled to do. But then again, sometimes the students never show up at the college because they haven't got the dosh which they know will be requested.
It is much more likely that the college has the passport, not the Home Office.
The highlighted is a question i've been dying to get an answer to, myself! Obviously, the lady's passport would not be sent to the airport without an IS151A stamp. So does this mean an automatic 10 years ban also?kjillman wrote:Thanks for the info. So can I get this right, as my fiancee will be leaving the UK voluntary and will have her one way ticket back home she should only get a 1 year ban even if she gets an IS151A form in her passport?We cannot leave until after April, any ideas about saying she lost her passport to the Mauritian embassy, would they give her a document to travel on if she had her own ticket and then when we get there and get married apply for a new passport in my name? Hoping you can help.
The answer is on Transpodia and I am pasting it here:Twin wrote:The highlighted is a question i've been dying to get an answer to, myself! Obviously, the lady's passport would not be sent to the airport without an IS151A stamp. So does this mean an automatic 10 years ban also?kjillman wrote:Thanks for the info. So can I get this right, as my fiancee will be leaving the UK voluntary and will have her one way ticket back home she should only get a 1 year ban even if she gets an IS151A form in her passport?We cannot leave until after April, any ideas about saying she lost her passport to the Mauritian embassy, would they give her a document to travel on if she had her own ticket and then when we get there and get married apply for a new passport in my name? Hoping you can help.
If that is the case, then one should advise all overstayers not to attempt regularising their status in the UK.
What is the difference between an IS151 received after an application has been refused and one issued at an airport?
HC321 is a group of changes to the immigration rules approved by Parliament in February 2008. The explanation accompanying the new rules says in part...
The General Grounds for Refusal are being amended to provide for the mandatory refusal of applications in which deception is used. They are also being amended so that previous breaches of the UK’s immigration laws will be taken into account in a consistent manner.
Heretofore, the UK has generally been lenient on overstayers who return to their country and submit a fresh application for entry clearance, especially in cases for settlement under the Family Formation/Reunion Program me. HC321 is an end to that era. The new rules call for mandatory refusals for those who have overstayed. This means that caseworkers and ECO's are now required by law to refuse applicants who have previously overstayed.
The above wording, "...taken into account in a consistent manner..." introduces the set of formulae that will be used to evaluate applications. The formulae are as follows...
One year if, following their breach, they left the UK voluntarily at their own expense;
Five years if, following their breach, they left the UK voluntarily at public expense; and
Ten years if they were removed or deported from the UK following their breach.
These rules apply to anyone who has overstayed more than 28 days. The explanation goes on to indicate that further changes to the rules are in the pipeline...
Where migrants have left the UK at public expense, we will also require them to repay the cost of their departure, once we have introduced primary legislation that allows us to do.
The rules are explicit that these provisions govern applications for entry clearance only. It is conjecture at this point how in-country applications from overstayers will be handled.
Interpretation of the 10 year ban is problematic because it includes the phrase "...were removed...". The Immigration Service has been monitoring various UK exit points for almost two years now. In cases where an overstayer leaving the UK voluntarily has been caught at an exit control, they have been served with an IS151 form. This is a removal notice, and a strict interpretation of the above wording informs us that the individual would be subject to a 10 year ban whereas had they not been caught, only the 1 year ban would take effect had they not been caught. However, ILPA made this comment indicating that despite the service of an IS151, the overstayer would be treated as having voluntarily left the UK...
[The government] maintain that if you are served with IS151A at the port when making a voluntary departure that merely records your status. It is an error to serve an IS151B although they acknowledge that it has happened. [The government] say that 'the system' can distinguish whether enforcement removed you or whether the departure was voluntary. [ILPA] say - how do you evidence that without dispute to an ECO? It appears to be their intention that even if an IS 151A has been served; you will not be treated as removed and will not face a 10 year ban if you make a voluntary departure...
If you are an overstayer reading this, the question most likely to arise is: What are the transition arrangements? To be brief, the answer is there are no transition arrangements. The rule activates on 1 April 2008 in big bang fashion. We have urged overstayers to leave prior to 1 April.
If you are an overstayer reading this after 1 April 2008, your most likely question is: I'm done for. What incentive do I have to leave at this point? The short answer is that there are no incentives for compliance, and we at Transpondia see this as a weakness in the rules. We expect that those facing a mandatory 10 year ban will use every resource at their disposal to fight removal because for many people a 10 year ban is tantamount to a life-time ban. This reaction will clog up the court system and turn a simple rule into a nightmarishly complex one.
Others will be asking: I have family life here. Will they impose a ban that separates me from my family? The short answer is yes. We are informed that the BIA secured agreement from the EU that interference with family life can be justified under some circumstances and the new rule is informed by this.
Many economic migrants will be asking: What about inadvertent breaches (such as being transferred to a subsidiary and not knowing a new work permit was needed)? The answer is that inadvertent breaches have not been provisioned for in the new rules. The ECO has no latitude for discretion because the grounds for refusal are mandatory. We expect that pressure from employers and other large stakeholders will mitigate this shortcoming.
A much smaller population reading this article will ask: I am an overstayer who is going for the concession that grants leave to remain to those who have been here for 14 years. How does the rule affect me? The new rule affects applications for entry clearance only. Applications under the long residence concession are in-country applications.
http://www.londonelegance.com/transpond ... ay-1.shtml
Gosh! I'm still non wiser![The government] say that 'the system' can distinguish whether enforcement removed you or whether the departure was voluntary.
Transpodia, I know that it has been said that these new changes affect all entry clearance application but will it really? What happens to the 'single parent' visa where a court has ordered that access can only take place in the UK? I have asked this question before but no one seem to have an answer.transpondia wrote:A word of advice: HC321 is activating on 1 April (three weeks time), and if your fiance is not out by then she faces a mandatory ban of 1, 5 or 10 years.
If they serve her an IS151 at a UK exit control, it's a 10 year ban for applications made after 1 April 2008, otherwise it looks like in your case to be a 1 year ban.
Update article at: http://www.londonelegance.com/transpond ... ay-1.shtml
There's other articles on the net if you google hc321.
Paragraph 246 as it now stands came into force on 2 October 2000, the same day as the European Human Rights Convention was made part of English domestic law. This strongly suggests that paragraph 246 was a recognition that persons wishing to exercise rights of access to their children resident in United Kingdom should be permitted to do so pursuant to their Article 8 rights to enjoy a family or private life
[2004] UKIAT 255It is to be noted, of course, that paragraph 2 of the Rules sets down the specific requirement that the Rules should be applied in such a way as to comply with the parties’ human rights
Transpodia:transpondia wrote:The entry clearance as a single parent is subject to the same provisions as other entry clearances for periods of at least one year. I confirmed this early on. They can interfere for at least 1 year without fear of Article 8.
The in-country application for single parents was always subject to the condition that the applicant had not violated the terms of their stay.
For others following this thread, I note that jes2jes nicked the material from my site without permission and well outside the bounds of fair use. There's little I can do to prevent such abuse, but I would urge people to refer to the original URL because the material is subject to change and/or updates.
Fair enough but we seem to be forgetting that there is a court order that need to be exercised here.transpondia wrote:The entry clearance as a single parent is subject to the same provisions as other entry clearances for periods of at least one year. I confirmed this early on. They can interfere for at least 1 year without fear of Article 8.
The in-country application for single parents was always subject to the condition that the applicant had not violated the terms of their stay.
For others following this thread, I note that jes2jes nicked the material from my site without permission and well outside the bounds of fair use. There's little I can do to prevent such abuse, but I would urge people to refer to the original URL because the material is subject to change and/or updates.
Hello, please can you in simple terms break down your last paragraph? I have searched for the definition of obviate but somehow, my brain isn't grasping it in the context of your message.transpondia wrote:Update on this...
Those seeking the concession should be prepared to prove that they were pysically in the UK on 17 March at the time the concession was read to Parliament.
If you cannot establish your location for 17 March 2008, your ability to use the 1 October concession is jeopardized.
Also if you were not in the UK on 17 March at the time the concession was read, you cannot use the concession.
Lastly, Liam Byrne has stated that the sponsoring of the 1 October concession obviates the commitments made to the Joint Committee on Human Rights last February.
)
