Immigrationboards.com

The new trend in ILR tax issue refusal is that HO is using among other grounds Section 322 (5) for refusal rather than 322(1A), 322(2),322(2A), which specifically deals with deception when dealing with other government agencies.

Is this because HO understand deception ground will not work once applicant has amended the tax return.

Section 322 (5) states the following;

"When caseworkers consider it is undesirable to
let an applicant, applying for leave to remain, stay because of their character, behaviour or
associations or they are a threat to national security.

The main types of cases you need to consider for refusal under paragraph 322(5) or referral
to other teams are those that involve criminality, a threat to national security, war crimes or
travel bans.
A person does not need to have been convicted of a criminal offence for this provision to
apply. When deciding whether to refuse under this category, the key thing to consider is if
there is reliable evidence to support a decision that the person’s behaviour calls into
question their character and/or conduct and/or their associations to the extent that it is
undesirable to allow them to enter or remain in the UK. This may include cases where a
migrant has entered, attempted to enter or facilitated a sham marriage to evade immigration
control"

This seems very stretched and outrageous to classify people with error in their tax history to be either national security threat or intend to evade immigration control.

If someone been law abiding through out the entire stay in UK, which would be nearly 5 year for most tier 1 (general) applicants, paid their taxes and doing professional jobs; how can HO classify them under this category?

Any one who has/going JR route, how you solicitors approaching refusal ground? It seems silly to be that this ground is used in the first place. Looks like HO is treading on thin ice here.

Yes Tax deception is not a National Security threat, but it is a criminal offence.
And it can be considered a National Security threat too, if they say the tax deception is for money laundering.
So illegal gain of money can be technically put into serious crime bracket. It all depends on the case worker on how to view this and govt. is under pressure to reduce immigration numbers and are tightening the rules and how it is implemented.

sunny_sunny wrote:Yes Tax deception is not a National Security threat, but it is a criminal offence.
And it can be considered a National Security threat too, if they say the tax deception is for money laundering.
So illegal gain of money can be technically put into serious crime bracket. It all depends on the case worker on how to view this and govt. is under pressure to reduce immigration numbers and are tightening the rules and how it is implemented.

Agree with sunny_sunny here. Given the fact that there are considerable applicants on this forum itself who have made errors in filing tax (un-intentional or otherwise) it does not surprise me that HO are using this as an excuse. Although if someone goes all the way to JR after making tax ammendments and get the visa. in which case HO have pretty much ensured that any individuals not paying correct taxes are now doing so. Even if it were only pennies they have made X amount back that they were probably not going to.

Sibu wrote:The new trend in ILR tax issue refusal is that HO is using among other grounds Section 322 (5) for refusal rather than 322(1A), 322(2),322(2A), which specifically deals with deception when dealing with other government agencies.

Is this because HO understand deception ground will not work once applicant has amended the tax return.

Section 322 (5) states the following;

"When caseworkers consider it is undesirable to
let an applicant, applying for leave to remain, stay because of their character, behaviour or
associations or they are a threat to national security.

The main types of cases you need to consider for refusal under paragraph 322(5) or referral
to other teams are those that involve criminality, a threat to national security, war crimes or
travel bans.
A person does not need to have been convicted of a criminal offence for this provision to
apply. When deciding whether to refuse under this category, the key thing to consider is if
there is reliable evidence to support a decision that the person’s behaviour calls into
question their character and/or conduct and/or their associations to the extent that it is
undesirable to allow them to enter or remain in the UK. This may include cases where a
migrant has entered, attempted to enter or facilitated a sham marriage to evade immigration
control"

This seems very stretched and outrageous to classify people with error in their tax history to be either national security threat or intend to evade immigration control.

If someone been law abiding through out the entire stay in UK, which would be nearly 5 year for most tier 1 (general) applicants, paid their taxes and doing professional jobs; how can HO classify them under this category?

Any one who has/going JR route, how you solicitors approaching refusal ground? It seems silly to be that this ground is used in the first place. Looks like HO is treading on thin ice here.

Hi,

But even afeter amending Tax returns HO is refusing lots of ILR applications than what is solution for this ?

Is there any point in going for re-application ?

Aju