- FAQ
- Login
- Register
- Call Workpermit.com for a paid service +44 (0)344-991-9222
ESC
Welcome to immigrationboards.com!
Moderators: Casa, John, ChetanOjha, archigabe, CR001, push, JAJ, ca.funke, Amber, zimba, vinny, Obie, EUsmileWEallsmile, batleykhan, meself2, geriatrix
You cannot take a legal action against HO for delaying a decisionddeshaval wrote: ↑Mon Oct 23, 2017 1:23 pmThanks for you response.
But I was told to go to solicitor and he can file JR as home office is taking longer to decide. They will file JR on basis that home office is taking more time and ask them to make decision.
is that true? or I can only go for JR when decision is made?
OP has applied for an out-of-time application under SET(O) not SET(LR)
You are very correct, thanks for pointing that out, my mind went away from the changes that they did, which provide for a new application for Long residence application.
No problem.Obie wrote: ↑Mon Oct 23, 2017 5:39 pmYou are very correct, thanks for pointing that out, my mind went away from the changes that they did, which provide for a new application for Long residence application.
The second application was not out of time, as it was made under 28 days of the Section 3C coming to an end.
zimba88 wrote: ↑Mon Oct 23, 2017 7:34 pmNo problem.Obie wrote: ↑Mon Oct 23, 2017 5:39 pmYou are very correct, thanks for pointing that out, my mind went away from the changes that they did, which provide for a new application for Long residence application.
The second application was not out of time, as it was made under 28 days of the Section 3C coming to an end.
However the application was indeed made out of time. An application sent within 28 days grace period (14 days under current rules) is not an intime application and will not extend section 3C and therefore the applicant is not considered a lawful resident since June 2016, hence a SET(LR) application is not possible. Such period of overstaying however will be ignored only if he regularises his status which means his current SET(O) must eventually succeed. This will render any future ILR application such as SET(LR) redundant.
Can you kindly point me to the rule that says such application is considered in-time ? Almost all the HO guides say that an application is only in-time if the applicant had valid leave when applied. Also does that mean such period will count towards lawful stay for example under SET(LR) ?!Obie wrote: ↑Mon Oct 23, 2017 7:58 pmI accept that he application will not invoke Section 3C, but it cannot be described as out of time, as the rules in place consider an application made within 28 days of Section 3C expiring, to be treated as in time, therefore within the framework of the rules, the application was in time, although section 3c is not engaged.
That is very true. It seems Section 3C never got engaged during AR and the period between 6th April 2016 and 7th June 2016 is more than 28 days. This means the current pending SET(O) application fall for automatic refusal, no ?!Obie wrote: ↑Mon Oct 23, 2017 7:58 pmI believe he may well be out of time but for a reason which is different from yours.
OP extant leave was valid at the time before he lodged the administrative review and at the time the Home Office refused him. He ought to have put in a new application after that to engage Section 3C, as the law has changed to make it clear that if a person's application is refused before their leave expires but they are given an appeal right or an admin review rights, then section 3C will not be engaged. So there may be a problem which OP or his legal advisers may not be aware of.
Thanks for your response.Obie wrote: ↑Mon Oct 23, 2017 8:46 pmMy point is that under the rules in place before the 24-11-2016, an application made within 28 days of a person's leave expiring is classified as an in-time application, for purpose of the rule. Under the Act itself the person is without leave and they are, to all intent and purposes an over stayer, but the rules provides that an application they make within 28 days will not be treated as an out of time application.
That is the simple point i am making. It is obviously the law, and i am sure it is not in dispute, that during that 28 days, section 3C is not engaged and the person is without leave.
I hope you understand my point.