Post
by avjones » Sat Oct 20, 2007 11:57 pm
The Immigration Rules state that:
276B. The requirements to be met by an applicant for indefinite leave to remain on the ground of long residence in the United Kingdom are that:
(i) (a) he has had at least 10 years continuous lawful residence in the United Kingdom; or
(b) he has had at least 14 years continuous residence in the United Kingdom, excluding any period spent in the United Kingdom following service of notice of liability to removal or notice of a decision to remove by way of directions under paragraphs 8 to 10A, or 12 to 14, of Schedule 2 to the Immigration Act 1971 or section 10 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 Act, or of a notice of intention to deport him from the United Kingdom; and
(ii) having regard to the public interest there are no reasons why it would be undesirable for him to be given indefinite leave to remain on the ground of long residence, taking into account his:
(a) age; and
(b) strength of connections in the United Kingdom; and
(c) personal history, including character, conduct, associations and employment record; and
(d) domestic circumstances; and
(e) previous criminal record and the nature of any offence of which the person has been convicted; and
(f) compassionate circumstances; and
(g) any representations received on the person’s behalf;
So I imagine that you have been refused under (c)?
I assume that you've never been served with a notice that "stopped the clock" for the purposes of the rules?
The IDIs (the Home Office guidance) says that:
It is important to remember that possession of the required period of continuous residence in the UK does not entitle the applicant to a grant of leave, but only to be considered for a grant. Whether leave is granted or not is a matter of judgement.
That said, the general rule is that a person who satisfies the appropriate continuous residence requirement should normally be granted ILR, unless a grant would, in all the circumstances of the case, be against the public interest.
So the default rule is that a person is granted ILR, unless it is against the public interest.
About character etc (part (c), the IDI states:
However, immigration history is relevant to the fourteen-year Rule. Clearly, it would not be appropriate to refuse leave on the grounds of conduct simply because the applicant is an overstayer or illegal entrant, as that would defeat the purpose of the Rule. However, the Rule is not intended to reward people for their success in evading, or failing to cooperate with, the immigration control. Therefore, any deliberate or blatant attempts to circumvent the control, e.g. by absconding, contracting a marriage of convenience or using false documents (this is not an exhaustive list) may well mean that it is not in the public interest to grant leave.
When you started using another name to get an NI number and bank account, was this using false documents of some kind? What form of ID did you have in this name, and how did you obtain it? If those documents were false, it does fall within the HO guidance.
I am not, and cannot, offer legal advice to particular people. I can only discuss general areas of immigration law.
People should always consider obtaining professional advice about their own particular circumstances.
