- 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
4.11. The evidence specified for the purposes of paragraph 2.2(iii) and 2.2(iv) (academic qualification recognised by UK NARIC) is:
(a) a certificate issued by the relevant institution confirming the award of the academic qualification and showing:
(i) the applicant's name,
(ii) the title of the award,
(iii) the date of the award,
(iv) the name of the awarding institution, and,
(v) for paragraph 2.2 (iii) that the qualification was taught in English
or,
(b) where an applicant has not, at the date of application, formally graduated or no longer has his or her certificate and is unable to obtain a duplicate certificate:
(i) an original academic reference from the institution awarding the academic qualification that:
(aa) is on official letter headed paper,
(bb) shows the applicant's name,
(cc) shows the title of the award,
(dd) confirms that the qualification was taught in English,
(ee) states when the academic qualification was (or as the case may be, will be) awarded,
and
(ff) confirms that the institution is unable to issue a duplicate certificate of award or (as the case may be in respect of an applicant who has not yet graduated) the date on which the certificate will be issued.
or
(ii) an original academic transcript that;
(aa) is on official letter headed paper,
(bb) shows the applicant's name,
(cc) shows the name of the academic institution,
(dd) shows the course title,
(ee) confirms that the qualification was taught in English, and,
(ff) confirms the award given.
I think they have screwed up their documentation. For instance for 2.2 iv why would they need a letter from university when it talks about NARIC ela. The letter part should have been for 2.2v. And in the so called revised seto guidance they have given an old link (dated aug 15) which talks about pre oct 28 rules. The whole thing is a mess now.The proofs explained are for 2.2(iii) and 2.2(iv), but actually we need confirmation for 2.2(v), which is missing in that section.