Alice109 wrote: ↑Sat Oct 10, 2020 1:54 pm
The good character is 10 years regardless, It has always been there
This is true. Not "always" but for a considerable while. And so were the rules around breaches of immigration laws under which, in theory, not having had CSI when required should always have been considered as a breach. So this is a slight glimmer of hope.
Yet again, the fact that we have not seen people fail the GCR due to CSI prior to the update does not mean that the caseworker did not exercise discretion!
Alice109 wrote: ↑Sat Oct 10, 2020 1:54 pm
they only added up a bit of clarity for Settled Status
No. The now explicitly mentioned CSI clauses apply to all, including DCPR applications, and this is very very very clear from the guidance! It does, however, impact EUSS applicants a bit more than DCPR applicants though.
This extra "bit of clarity" is exactly why this is so crucial which is the point I have been trying to get across, as this completely changes how applicants (and maybe caseworkers) see and interpret the GCR when it comes to immigration breaches due to CSI:
Before: Not having CSI (when required) in the last 10y
should be seen as a breach of immigration laws,
should be considered as part of the GCR assessment, and
may have an impact on the outcome.
After: Not having CSI (when required) in the last 10y
is definitely a breach of immigration laws,
is definitely considered as part of the GCR assessment, and
may have an impact on the outcome.
Once again, if it's not obvious from the "may have"s, it doesn't necessarily mean that there will be a significant impact on the outcome of applications - only time will tell. It also doesn't mean that the CSI requirement (when it comes to GCR) was never considered before. But it does clarify how caseworkers have handled or will handle applications.