Actually, a very bad news for Tier 1 general holders

[ukswus]

UKBA cannot be serious when they say that, retrospectively, no unpaid leave is allowed specifically for Tier 1 General. Even Tier 2 general, who are tied to a specific employer, have 60 day grace period between jobs which they can spend anywhere they want. And let's not forget the cost of Tier 1 General visa in relation to all other immigration categories.

To argue they can do to us whatever they want, just because "rules can change at any time", is plain cynical and inhumane.

[DiamondBA]

IMHO, but by requiring such evidences UKBA is collecting documents from immigrants, which later could be used against immigrants.

Never forget question about deception on getting leave to enter or remain, mentioned in all forms. More papers from immigrant, more "food" for different sort of investigations.

Rules are not saying that continuous residence would break in case of absences, only if there are more than 180 days in every calendar year prior to ILR, but they are making evidences are mandatory.

Of course, originally, T1(G) wasn't introduced for people who will be working hard without vacations (that's what finally we see with new "minor" changes in rules) to get their 95-100 points on extension and then the same for ILR, this was category for people, who must benefit UK economy.

[stevenxi]

It's TOTALLY against human rights. You can't visit family if you don't have a job.

[nadnet]

It's TOTALLY against human rights. You can't visit family if you don't have a job.

...unless they are dieing...

[hsmpilr]

It's TOTALLY against human rights. You can't visit family if you don't have a job.

...unless they are dieing...

and if you are in a job you are allowed to relax _only_ if you are paid ... if you are not paid then you cannot enjoy your life

[hsmpilr]

My question is

People who applied before Apr 6th even though entered UK at the same time as us have got their ILR despite unpaid absences. So why is this discrimination to a set of people just because they are eligible (for various reasons) just a month late than apr 2013 ?

I again strongly feel this needs to be challenged in the court.
I am really heart broken on this. Mine was a very straightforward case and now I am not eligible for ILR.

[hsmpilr]

... i thought my case was straightforward but this is really worrying now... I took 3 weeks off last yr (1 wk paid n 2 wks unpaid leave) to attend my brother's wedding... thats the only unpaid leave I've had in 6 years of working with the same employer.... is it likely to become an issue!!!!??

How sure are you that it is unpaid ? Does your payslip say that it is unpaid for that month ?

[hsmpilr]

Anyone PEO success with new form ? without the absence letters ?

[Yash001]

Anyone PEO success with new form ? without the absence letters ?

Here you go

http://www.immigrationboards.com/viewto ... c7b69f0772

And don't panic....this can be definitely challenged in the court of law....it's like I did something in past and somebody put a law in place now and say what you did in past is a not allowed by law now...If I would known while going out of country that this is not allowed then I would have made a decision accordingly but since there was no rule in place at that point of time, it can be challenged...UKBA has tried in put rules in place retrospectively but they failed like tier-1 points from 95 to 100.... HSMP judicial review and many more....

I suggest all the people of this forum who are affected by this to be bit patient...and watch ILR cases for next 2 weeks then we can decide next course of actions

[abc987]

I agree that the responses from UKBA have been convoluted and misleading to say the least. However, based on what we have seen so far case workers are not using a narrow and rigid interpretation of the rules to refuse ILR in cases which would have been obvious successes before 6 April.

I think everyone should wait to see how things pan out. If there are rejections based on the controversial interpretation of the new rules UKBA will shoot themselves in the foot. As many others have pointed out this can easily be challenged in court. If it helps, the text from the judgement of the HSMP judicial review makes it amply clear that such retrospective rule changes are likely to be thrown out by the court:

Justice Sir George Newman, in our 8th April 2008 Judicial Review judgement observed “I find that the terms of the scheme, properly interpreted in context and read with the guidance and the rules, contain a clear representation, made by the defendant, that once a migrant had embarked on the scheme he would enjoy the benefits of the scheme according to the terms prevailing at the date he joined.” The Judgment concluded “In the circumstances, I am satisfied that the terms of the original scheme should be honoured and that there is no good reason why those already on the scheme shall not enjoy the benefits of it as originally offered to them. Good administration and straightforward dealing with the public require it. Not to restrain the impact of the changes would, in my judgment, give rise to conspicuous unfairness and an abuse of power.”

[syed_ILR]

Anyone PEO success with new form ? without the absence letters ?

Here you go

http://www.immigrationboards.com/viewto ... c7b69f0772

And don't panic....this can be definitely challenged in the court of law....it's like I did something in past and somebody put a law in place now and say what you did in past is a not allowed by law now...If I would known while going out of country that this is not allowed then I would have made a decision accordingly but since there was no rule in place at that point of time, it can be challenged...UKBA has tried in put rules in place retrospectively but they failed like tier-1 points from 95 to 100.... HSMP judicial review and many more....

I suggest all the people of this forum who are affected by this to be bit patient...and watch ILR cases for next 2 weeks then we can decide next course of actions

Lol that link is from last month

[Yash001]

Anyone PEO success with new form ? without the absence letters ?

Here you go

http://www.immigrationboards.com/viewto ... c7b69f0772

And don't panic....this can be definitely challenged in the court of law....it's like I did something in past and somebody put a law in place now and say what you did in past is a not allowed by law now...If I would known while going out of country that this is not allowed then I would have made a decision accordingly but since there was no rule in place at that point of time, it can be challenged...UKBA has tried in put rules in place retrospectively but they failed like tier-1 points from 95 to 100.... HSMP judicial review and many more....

I suggest all the people of this forum who are affected by this to be bit patient...and watch ILR cases for next 2 weeks then we can decide next course of actions

Lol that link is from last month

Sorry buddy ...i too got caught in this...

[Yash001]

I agree that the responses from UKBA have been convoluted and misleading to say the least. However, based on what we have seen so far case workers are not using a narrow and rigid interpretation of the rules to refuse ILR in cases which would have been obvious successes before 6 April.

I think everyone should wait to see how things pan out. If there are rejections based on the controversial interpretation of the new rules UKBA will shoot themselves in the foot. As many others have pointed out this can easily be challenged in court. If it helps, the text from the judgement of the HSMP judicial review makes it amply clear that such retrospective rule changes are likely to be thrown out by the court:

Justice Sir George Newman, in our 8th April 2008 Judicial Review judgement observed “I find that the terms of the scheme, properly interpreted in context and read with the guidance and the rules, contain a clear representation, made by the defendant, that once a migrant had embarked on the scheme he would enjoy the benefits of the scheme according to the terms prevailing at the date he joined.” The Judgment concluded “In the circumstances, I am satisfied that the terms of the original scheme should be honoured and that there is no good reason why those already on the scheme shall not enjoy the benefits of it as originally offered to them. Good administration and straightforward dealing with the public require it. Not to restrain the impact of the changes would, in my judgment, give rise to conspicuous unfairness and an abuse of power.”

Could not agree more than this...let's be patient...as this could not solved overnight...we have a battle to fight ..so save your energy for future !!!...

and all the responses which we have received so far from UKBA on the queries posted by us is based on some individual in UKBA who is just trying to interpret rules in certain way and put us in a panic mode....so I would say we should stop sending queries as this would made them aware of our worries and they might come-up with some different rule again...so we should not get caught in this....

[hsmpilr]

This looks promising. But still vague. Why must we be in the mercy of CW's mood ? if they had a rough day will they just ask for the letter to annoy us ?
I somehow throughout feel that UKBA owes us an explanation of the INTENT behind the new rule. Why is the reason this is applied in retrospect.

[hsmpilr]

I agree that the responses from UKBA have been convoluted and misleading to say the least. However, based on what we have seen so far case workers are not using a narrow and rigid interpretation of the rules to refuse ILR in cases which would have been obvious successes before 6 April.

I think everyone should wait to see how things pan out. If there are rejections based on the controversial interpretation of the new rules UKBA will shoot themselves in the foot. As many others have pointed out this can easily be challenged in court. If it helps, the text from the judgement of the HSMP judicial review makes it amply clear that such retrospective rule changes are likely to be thrown out by the court:

Justice Sir George Newman, in our 8th April 2008 Judicial Review judgement observed “I find that the terms of the scheme, properly interpreted in context and read with the guidance and the rules, contain a clear representation, made by the defendant, that once a migrant had embarked on the scheme he would enjoy the benefits of the scheme according to the terms prevailing at the date he joined.” The Judgment concluded “In the circumstances, I am satisfied that the terms of the original scheme should be honoured and that there is no good reason why those already on the scheme shall not enjoy the benefits of it as originally offered to them. Good administration and straightforward dealing with the public require it. Not to restrain the impact of the changes would, in my judgment, give rise to conspicuous unfairness and an abuse of power.”

I love the way it is said. Yes just imposing rules is abuse of power. UKBA has to be fair and just and not lure people into UK and later throw them off by making up some rule restrictions after the benefits have already been enjoyed.

[ldbright]

I don't think they have to be fair to us, that is the problem.

I agree that the responses from UKBA have been convoluted and misleading to say the least. However, based on what we have seen so far case workers are not using a narrow and rigid interpretation of the rules to refuse ILR in cases which would have been obvious successes before 6 April.

I think everyone should wait to see how things pan out. If there are rejections based on the controversial interpretation of the new rules UKBA will shoot themselves in the foot. As many others have pointed out this can easily be challenged in court. If it helps, the text from the judgement of the HSMP judicial review makes it amply clear that such retrospective rule changes are likely to be thrown out by the court:

Justice Sir George Newman, in our 8th April 2008 Judicial Review judgement observed “I find that the terms of the scheme, properly interpreted in context and read with the guidance and the rules, contain a clear representation, made by the defendant, that once a migrant had embarked on the scheme he would enjoy the benefits of the scheme according to the terms prevailing at the date he joined.” The Judgment concluded “In the circumstances, I am satisfied that the terms of the original scheme should be honoured and that there is no good reason why those already on the scheme shall not enjoy the benefits of it as originally offered to them. Good administration and straightforward dealing with the public require it. Not to restrain the impact of the changes would, in my judgment, give rise to conspicuous unfairness and an abuse of power.”

I love the way it is said. Yes just imposing rules is abuse of power. UKBA has to be fair and just and not lure people into UK and later throw them off by making up some rule restrictions after the benefits have already been enjoyed.

[RAW]

Hello Everyone... ok it seems I may be the first one to share my PEO appointment experience I had today for my successful SET(O) ILR application at Sheffield..... last two days were one of most distressing days for me .... n specifically this message thread exponentially increased my stress level...... yesterday I even tried to cancel my appointment due to fear of rejection because the burden of providing proof of my first absence....

First of all my timeline

1st EC as HSMP on 20th Aug 2007 for two years
Got LTR extension as Tier1-gen on 20th Aug 2009 for three year
Got further LTR Extension as Tier1-gen on 14th May 2012 till for two years

My 1st entry in UK on this HSMP EC was 11th December 2007 but I left UK after just 4 weeks on 7th January 2008 (reason: family issues) came back after 170 days on 25th June 2008. Got into employment in UK on 15th July 2008 and still with the same employer.

Following are my all absences from UK

7th Jan 2008 to 25th June 2008 (170 Days) -- (Family issues - was not in employment in UK)
19th Dec 2008 to 7th Jan 2009 (19 Days) -- Paid Leave
27th Nov 2008 to 3rd Jan 2010 (37 Days) -- Paid Leave
25th Aug 2010 to 19th Sept 2010 (25 Days)-- Paid Leave
11th Mar 2011 to 9th April 2011 (29 Days) -- Paid Leave till 1st Apr 2011 and from 2nd was off sick and was unable to travel back

When I started filling up my form and gathering all the relevant documents ... I thought my case was very straight forward... but as I said earlier.... more I read this thread more distressed I became since I had no documentary proof for my 1st absence and even for the sick leaves I had during my last absence.....

However, I decided to wrote a personal statement for these two absences explaining reasons and confirmed that I cannot provide any documentary proof for either of these. For other paid leave my HR were only able to confirm last two sets of paid leaves but not the first two due to change of HR system, which they acknowledged in an email. I attached this acknowledgement email with my application.

Overall processing for my application at Sheffield PEO took less than 3hrs which includes getting initial token, submitting application, payment of fee, Biometrics enrolment, caseworker introducing herself and explaining about my application and handing over decision letter after half n hour.

However, since all other aspects of application was very straight forward, caseworker only mentioned about my absences while she 1st introduced herself... and said that she has gone through my personal statement and she has considered it and its fine and not an issue.... and then confirmed that she will take around 45 mins to an hour to complete my case ... if I want I can go out.... but I opted not to and she kindly replied that she will try to finish it earlier then.... and yes she handed over her decision in half n hour.... a great sigh of relief.....

[syed_ILR]

Hello Everyone... ok it seems I may be the first one to share my PEO appointment experience I had today for my successful SET(O) ILR application at Sheffield..... last two days were one of most distressing days for me .... n specifically this message thread exponentially increased my stress level...... yesterday I even tried to cancel my appointment due to fear of rejection because the burden of providing proof of my first absence....

First of all my timeline

1st EC as HSMP on 20th Aug 2007 for two years
Got LTR extension as Tier1-gen on 20th Aug 2009 for three year
Got further LTR Extension as Tier1-gen on 14th May 2012 till for two years

My 1st entry in UK on this HSMP EC was 11th December 2007 but I left UK after just 4 weeks on 7th January 2008 (reason: family issues) came back after 170 days on 25th June 2008. Got into employment in UK on 15th July 2008 and still with the same employer.

Following are my all absences from UK

7th Jan 2008 to 25th June 2008 (170 Days) -- (Family issues - was not in employment in UK)
19th Dec 2008 to 7th Jan 2009 (19 Days) -- Paid Leave
27th Nov 2008 to 3rd Jan 2010 (37 Days) -- Paid Leave
25th Aug 2010 to 19th Sept 2010 (25 Days)-- Paid Leave
11th Mar 2011 to 9th April 2011 (29 Days) -- Paid Leave till 1st Apr 2011 and from 2nd was off sick and was unable to travel back

When I started filling up my form and gathering all the relevant documents ... I thought my case was very straight forward... but as I said earlier.... more I read this thread more distressed I became since I had no documentary proof for my 1st absence and even for the sick leaves I had during my last absence.....

However, I decided to wrote a personal statement for these two absences explaining reasons and confirmed that I cannot provide any documentary proof for either of these. For other paid leave my HR were only able to confirm last two sets of paid leaves but not the first two due to change of HR system, which they acknowledged in an email. I attached this acknowledgement email with my application.

Overall processing for my application at Sheffield PEO took less than 3hrs which includes getting initial token, submitting application, payment of fee, Biometrics enrolment, caseworker introducing herself and explaining about my application and handing over decision letter after half n hour.

However, since all other aspects of application was very straight forward, caseworker only mentioned about my absences while she 1st introduced herself... and said that she has gone through my personal statement and she has considered it and its fine and not an issue.... and then confirmed that she will take around 45 mins to an hour to complete my case ... if I want I can go out.... but I opted not to and she kindly replied that she will try to finish it earlier then.... and yes she handed over her decision in half n hour.... a great sigh of relief.....

First of all congrats mate and thanks for sharing ur experience

lol my case is exactly like urs..u have given all of us some hope ::D

[ldbright]

What if you are a contractor using an umbrella company with daily rate?

I do get holiday pay every month but as I am paid by day, if I get out of the country for holiday. I won't be paid the daily rate but I still get monthly holiday pay, and it is shown on my payslip even on the month I took holidays. I was with the same client using same unbrella company for 4 years.

My question is, does my leave still count as paid holidays? Please can someone kindly helping answer the question.

Many Thanks!

[tywang2006]

I will apply in two years but it is better to get the letter for the paid annual leave now from my previous employer. In case, there is some unexpected happening in two years for that company (e.g. bankrupt, it is reason to think about it due to worse and worse economy in the UK).

[snowball001]

What if you are a contractor using an umbrella company with daily rate?

I do get holiday pay every month but as I am paid by day, if I get out of the country for holiday. I won't be paid the daily rate but I still get monthly holiday pay, and it is shown on my payslip even on the month I took holidays. I was with the same client using same unbrella company for 4 years.

My question is, does my leave still count as paid holidays? Please can someone kindly helping answer the question.

Many Thanks!

When ukba mentions about 'paid annual leave', it also attaches a phrase 'if appropriate', the purpose of which was interpreted in a reply in whatdotheyknow that it is appreciated that there are people who don't have such an arrangement, e.g. Self-employed and in such case they should prove absence is related to the business.

In my opinion since there is payment arranged during the leave, then such leave can be treated as equivalent to paid annual leave.

And from the success story above (congrats!), we should relax and not to over-stress something that is not quite in the mind of frontline cw (yet). I agree that it's better not to post more questions about this 'minor' change to ukba.

[letmec2006]

So the CW is asking about absences, and she did ask for a explanation. But if there is sufficient evidence that the letter can't be provided they agree to that. So basically it goes with the discretion of the CW. they have flexibility to do whatever, to me this is absurd. Wondered to what extent they can go? Can they refuse application based on not having letter. Don't understand the unfairness of this.

[hsmpilr]

So the CW is asking about absences, and she did ask for a explanation. But if there is sufficient evidence that the letter can't be provided they agree to that. So basically it goes with the discretion of the CW. they have flexibility to do whatever, to me this is absurd. Wondered to what extent they can go? Can they refuse application based on not having letter. Don't understand the unfairness of this.

I agree. We cannot be at the mercy of a CW. The rules must dictate and we all including the CW must obey. The rules must be clear and unambiguous.

[syed_ILR]

So the CW is asking about absences, and she did ask for a explanation. But if there is sufficient evidence that the letter can't be provided they agree to that. So basically it goes with the discretion of the CW. they have flexibility to do whatever, to me this is absurd. Wondered to what extent they can go? Can they refuse application based on not having letter. Don't understand the unfairness of this.

I agree. We cannot be at the mercy of a CW. The rules must dictate and we all including the CW must obey. The rules must be clear and unambiguous.

You guys are making a mountain out of a molehill. Over stressing, over analyzing. I don't know why are you so insecure.

The guy has clearly explained you his experience. 170 flipping days of absence (without a job!!!!!!) and still got accepted! Now! if you guys are still not happy then you can never be... to be honest. He did not even have a proper evidence to show and still a personal statement was ok for the CW. I would say chillout! please and stop assuming things which are not there. If the rule was so stringent then the CW would have rejected that 170days case. I mean from my point of view its all about absences moer than 180 days..but yeah just provide a Fing God damn proof..whatever man! just write a letter..

[Yash001]

So the CW is asking about absences, and she did ask for a explanation. But if there is sufficient evidence that the letter can't be provided they agree to that. So basically it goes with the discretion of the CW. they have flexibility to do whatever, to me this is absurd. Wondered to what extent they can go? Can they refuse application based on not having letter. Don't understand the unfairness of this.

I agree. We cannot be at the mercy of a CW. The rules must dictate and we all including the CW must obey. The rules must be clear and unambiguous.

You guys are making a mountain out of a molehill. Over stressing, over analyzing. I don't know why are you so insecure.

The guy has clearly explained you his experience. 170 flipping days of absence (without a job!!!!!!) and still got accepted! Now! if you guys are still not happy then you can never be... to be honest. He did not even have a proper evidence to show and still a personal statement was ok for the CW. I would say chillout! please and stop assuming things which are not there. If the rule was so stringent then the CW would have rejected that 170days case. I mean from my point of view its all about absences moer than 180 days..but yeah just provide a Fing God damn proof..whatever man! just write a letter..

I second your statements...lets not overkill this by over analysis...