Refused on 10 years working rights basis.

Hello
Is there anyone who has been refused for Naturalisation on the basis of working more hours than permitted e.g. during student visa working more than 20 hours.
Thanks

Haven't seen a single case so far on this forum...

It's a breach of immigration conditions (245ZW(c)(iii), 245ZY(c)(iii)) and fails the Good Character requirements.

You were lucky not to have been subject to removal.

vinny wrote:
You were lucky not to have been subject to removal.

Vinny,

Just wondering, how did you assume that OP is in breach of his immgration status. His query suggest no such thing. Also, his signature states he got an approval.

Apologies. Instead of 'you', I should have stated:

Such a person was lucky not to have been subject to removal.

vinny wrote:It's a breach of immigration conditions (245ZW(c)(iii), 245ZY(c)(iii)) and fails the Good Character requirements.

You were lucky not to have been subject to removal.

It will also depend on whether it was in term or out of term, and whether there was evidence of this, and if the UKVI has refused on this basis.

OP's question seems hypothetical.

Yes. Thanks, Obie.

prem_singh123 wrote:Hello
Is there anyone who has been refused for Naturalisation on the basis of working more hours than permitted e.g. during student visa working more than 20 hours.
Thanks

Example of refusal apparently due to excess hours worked by a student:
http://www.immigrationboards.com/britis ... 94338.html

aragon wrote:Vinny,

Just wondering, how did you assume that OP is in breach of his immgration status. His query suggest no such thing. Also, his signature states he got an approval.

The OP's approval was accompanied by a BRP, suggesting that the approval was for ILR. That is confirmed by a cursory glance at his post history.

His question was about the implications for naturalisation. While he does ask the question without stating that it is on his own behalf, he also does not state that it is for another person or an academic question, thus leading one to the suggestion if not conclusion that it is implicitly about himself.

From the OP's post , there is no evidence that the BRP in question is for ILR.

There is a consensus that it may be an hypothetical question or that the OP is enquiring about another person.

Vinny has correctly acknowledged that a breach of ones student visa condition in that manner is likely to have resulted in immediate and automatic curtailment, and i agree with that.

Therefore it is likely as CASa stated that it is for someone else, or probably as i stated, an hypothetical question.

I fail to see any justifiable reason for reopening this matter.

I think it may be appropriate for us to let sleeping dogs lie.