Frou01 wrote: ↑Sat May 30, 2020 9:34 pm
beaujam90 wrote: ↑Sat May 30, 2020 8:55 pm
Frou01 wrote: ↑Sat May 30, 2020 8:28 pm
jpl wrote: ↑Sat May 30, 2020 7:12 pm
First of all, congratulations to everyone who have gotten their citizenship applications approved!
Based on what the Home Office have said it seems they're arguing that CSI has always been a requirement for citizenship, and that they're just clarifying this requirement. Following from that logic, there would be no first date from which the new requirements apply - because they have "always" applied.
It's possible the caseworkers are exercising a larger degree of discretion for applications that were handed in before the new sections on EU Settlement Scheme and CSI were added to the guidance. If that's the case, I do hope the Home Office will be willing to look past the CSI requirement also for future citizenship applications.
I’m in the situation where I applied two weeks before the new guidance, but my documents requirement changed exactly that day mentioning CSI.
I can see from my download the day before the wording was still the old one.
I completed my application in January, but had to wait to submit the application on the day I had Settled Status for full 12 months, which is their requirement.
I think I have been extremely unlucky with the timing.
In that case can anyone advice me if I already should explain in my cover letter why I didn’t have CSI or rather wait until they would require the documents?
If you had you Settled status say 23/01/2019 you should have applied for BC on 23/01/2020
Thank you for your kind reply and examples.
I received Settled Status on 1st May 2019 and could only apply beginning May.
Do you have an example for the case someone has been an Au Pair or a carer?
You employment must be genuine and effective. If you had a contract with the family when you were working as au-pair there could be a chance that that work counts as exercising TR.
I have found this :
''''' Work can be part-time, short-term, casual or seasonal and still allow a person to meet the definition (see the Court of Appeal case Mohamed Barry v The London Borough of Southwark [2008] EWCA Civ 1440 at para 28) and it has been held that two students who worked as part time waiters in restaurants for less than 20 hours a week during their studies, and an au pair who worked between 15 and 25 hours a week, could meet the definition of worker (see R (on the application of Ezgi Payir, Burhan Akyuz, and Birol Ozturk) v Secretary of State for the Home Department, 24 January 2008 (C-294/06))''''
I also pasted this for you:
The decision regarding whether work is 'genuine and effective' is based on European case law, and is assessed on a case-by-case basis.
The decision maker should consider the following:
Whether the work was regular or intermittent (regular work will be favoured)
The period of employment (in general longer periods would be favoured. However a short period of work with long hours that was terminated unexpectedly might also be perceived favourably)
The intended period of employment at the outset (if the work was intended to be long term, but was terminated by the employer unexpectedly and/or the worker became unwell unexpectedly this would be taken into consideration)
The number of hours
The level of earnings
Voluntary work does not qualify. ‘Cash-in-hand’ work might qualify in certain circumstances if there is evidence of the work taking place (e.g. payslips, some kind of work agreement). ‘Zero hour’ contracts will be assessed individually.
If you have not earned an average of example, £183 (in 2020/21) per week over 3 months, but you think your work or self-employment should be considered 'genuine and effective' you may need specialist help to put your case forward.
*fingers crossed*
