Here it goes:
Case Synopsis:
His previous leave to remain was a PSW visa expired on the 16 July 2009. He was initially on IGS and switched to PSW - transitional arrangements... had been in the UK for 5 continuous years on Student Visa / PSW combined (NO BREACH OF IMMIGRATION RULES AT ANY POINT IN TIME). He had a Master Degree from a Public Funded University previously (2007).
He was offered a Scholarship / Studentship from an International Organisation which is also operates in the UK to undertake a research studies on a Socio-Medical Topic.... the initial stage of the Studentship was to obtain a Masters Qualification which would then be extended for a full PhD Qualification after completing the Masters.
The Designated MSc Programme was starting on 8 October 2009 whilst his visa was expiring in July 2009; however he was required to undertake some summer research projects in the local community for the Research Organisation - which was part of the terms and condition of the Contract and that research was also a background/ study for his current Programme and to enable him obtain a PhD funding on the same project on completion.
All these were detailed in his sponsorship letter.
1. He applied for a Tier 4 (Student -Adult) visa on the 16 of July 2009. Got an acknowledge letter dated 17/07/2009 for receipt of payment and case passed to a case working unit.
2. He received another letter on the 27/07/09 requested that a mandatory question was omitted... this mandatory question as the letter noted was a PAGE 9 of the APPLICATION FORM which only requires him to write down his First and Last Name.
3. He sent the missing PAGE as instructed immediately .....
4. He received instruction for a BIOMETRIC details on 05/08/09
5. He started his Research Degree on the 08/10/09 and had been going to lectures since...
6. He received a letter dated 19/10/2009 and received on 22/10/2009 refusing his application with no right of Appeal!
DECISION AND REASONS:
1. There is a more than 1 month gap between the end of the current leave which expired on 16/07/09 and the start date of the Course : 08/10/09
2. Maintenance was given a zero points - though the case worker acknowledge official sponsorship letter from the research organisation.
ACTION:
1. NO RIGHT OF APPEAL WAS GIVEN AS THE CASE WORKER ASSUMED AN OUT OF TIME APPLICATION due to the Minor Omission.
His Documents and Passport had been forwarded to the LOCAl ENFORCEMENT UNIT. and he is required to contact them the latest 5pm today (02/11/2009) to arrange his REMOVAL....
Applicant Reaction to the Action (Decision) taken by the HO above:
1. The applicant felt there should have been a RIGHT OF APPEAL due to the fact that the PAGE 9 omitted from the Application (though a mandatory question - was indeed a minor ommision / error - as it only requires HIS FULL NAME; however this was easily traceable and the Case Worker was able to write to Him using his full Name on the Address without any problem - infact the Letter obtained from the HO requesting for this amendment was infact written using his full Name. So what effect did that make on the application as they were able to address him properly without any hussle.... moreover this was not his first application , so perhaps all his details are firmly secured on their file and his passport indicates he had not been called by any other name.
I believe not quite long, the HO issued a statement instructing their Case Workers to treat minor omission/errors as normal, and actually using the applicants initial application date .... If the Case Worker had used common sense on this instance as it obvious only the applicant's name was missing on a particular page, which they themselves was able to use the applicant's full name to write to him to add this missing page....surprisingly they sent all the applicant's supporting documents back but withhold the Payment Fees, why should they the assume then that 03/08/2009 as the date of Application instead of the 16/07/2009 of which they had sent earlier acknowledge of receipt dated 17/07/2009?
2. The Applicant felt that the Case Worker decision for given points on Maintenance Funds was inappropriate - he was not given a point for Maintenance Funds for the reason being that he has not provided Bank Statements is contradictory to PAGE 25 (ITEM 131. of the Guidance Notes on Official Sponsorship) - it sates that:
"In all circumstances a student who is being given Official Sponsorship must provide:
A Letter of confirmation from his/her Official Financial Sponsor on official letter-headed paper or stationery of the Organisation of the official Sponsor; and have the official stamp of that Organisation on it. The letter should show:
*the student's or their parent(s)/legal guardian name;
*the name and contact details of the official financial sponsor;
*the length of the sponsorship; and
*the amount of money the sponsor is giving to the student or a statement that the student's Official financial sponsor will cover all of his/fees and living costs.
The Applicant had therefore supplied information as required from the Guidance Notes - as indicated and that he is fully sponsored to cover his fees and living costs, and this is the exact statement/letter he obtained from his Official Financial Sponsor as it is clearly required from the HO website (on Guidance Notes).
Why should the HO refuse his application on zero points for maintenance for not supplying his Bank Statements as the guidance notes had made it clear what documents are needed to show Official Financial Sponsorship? and the fact that he is not self-funded and that His Official Financial Sponsor is on the Recognised list of Financial Sponsors of the host institution (University) who would invoice the Financial Sponsor and not the Applicant.
3. The Applicant felt there was compelling reasons to have remained in the UK beyond the Stipulated One Month Gap - he explained his circumstance in a detailed letter showing that he was not applying out of ignorance - he gave his reasons above already elaborated in my initial introductory as purported to this fact.
I sincerely believe that the reason for tighter immigration controls is not for the UK alienating itself from the International Community but rather to enhance our interest and attract the best talents whilst safeguarding our fragile Borders- I believe for this reason certain application are granted on individual unique situation or interests.
Hence common sense should have been used due to the Fact that the Applicant assumed to have started his research programme (MA Research ) as at the time of the Refusal Notice (19/10/2009) since the Course was proposed to have started on 08/10/2009.... so on this ground, what effect do the "One Month Gap plays" ?
Moreover the Applicant emphatically made it clear with the full awareness of this clause and put his compelling reasons in writing as to what he would be doing during those gap periods, his reasons, the necessity and why? all these provided .... shouldn't some common sense prevail under these circumstances ...
Well this is the Dilemna and the discussion, your able thoughts and opinions would be deeply appreciated and it would really help our 'brother' .....
NB: PLEASE FORGIVE ME FOR THIS LENGTHY PIECE... my only attempt was to give you a broader picture and it isnt to show I am an expert of the law, afterall if I am an expert or Authority , I wouldn't have bothered you for your life-changing opinion.
Many thanks.
Luvn.
Code: Select all
Code: Select all
