ESC

Click the "allow" button if you want to receive important news and updates from immigrationboards.com


Immigrationboards.com: Immigration, work visa and work permit discussion board

Welcome to immigrationboards.com!

Login Register Do not show

Reason for rejecting EEA4 application

Use this section for queries concerning applications on any of the EEA series of forms, and also for applications for EEA Family Permits.

Moderators: Casa, JAJ, ca.funke, Amber, Zimba, vinny, Obie, EUsmileWEallsmile, batleykhan, geriatrix, John, ChetanOjha, archigabe, push

Locked
coconutsforme
Newbie
Posts: 36
Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2010 12:39 pm
Location: london

Reason for rejecting EEA4 application

Post by coconutsforme » Thu Jul 22, 2010 9:23 am

Hi everyone,

I recently had my application returned due to the lack of Comprehensive Sickness Insurance cover. We then purchased one and sent everything back to Liverpool.

Does the fact that we did not have such cover for the past 9 months is a reason for declining my EEA4 application? and if they do reject/decline it, what would my stamp be?

Has anybody experienced anything similar?
Your comments would be very much appreciated.

86ti
Diamond Member
Posts: 2760
Joined: Wed Nov 21, 2007 7:07 am

Post by 86ti » Thu Jul 22, 2010 9:47 am

I believe there were reports here recently that stated that an application with an only recently purchased policy was succesful. But please check yourself or wait for others to answer.

You wouldn't get a 'stamp' without the CSI because, in the view of the UKBA, you would not be lawfully resident in the UK according to the EEA regulations.

coconutsforme
Newbie
Posts: 36
Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2010 12:39 pm
Location: london

Post by coconutsforme » Thu Jul 22, 2010 10:48 am

86ti wrote:I believe there were reports here recently that stated that an application with an only recently purchased policy was succesful. But please check yourself or wait for others to answer.

You wouldn't get a 'stamp' without the CSI because, in the view of the UKBA, you would not be lawfully resident in the UK according to the EEA regulations.
Thanks 86ti,

well i queried the matter with the lady over the phone in HO. She scared me by saying that they will issue a further 5 years visa???!! But it wasn't the 1st time when HO staff provide different suggestions every time you call them.

BTW, what are the latest updates on the processing times of those applications and COAs?

86ti
Diamond Member
Posts: 2760
Joined: Wed Nov 21, 2007 7:07 am

Post by 86ti » Thu Jul 22, 2010 12:45 pm

coconutsforme wrote:well i queried the matter with the lady over the phone in HO. She scared me by saying that they will issue a further 5 years visa???!!
Actually, and sorry for the oversight, that is right in my opinion. If you do not fulfill the criteria for permanent residence but for 'ordinary' residence under the EEA regulations, in your case having sufficient funds and the CSI, then you certainly qualifiy for (another) residence card and are entitled to receiving one. If the UKBA does indeed not accept the CSI quasi in retrospective then unfortunately, I think, all the time accumulated before taking out the CSI is lost.

But to clarify: has the EEA national been self-sufficient or a student for the whole last five years?

coconutsforme
Newbie
Posts: 36
Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2010 12:39 pm
Location: london

Post by coconutsforme » Thu Jul 22, 2010 1:39 pm

86ti wrote:
coconutsforme wrote:well i queried the matter with the lady over the phone in HO. She scared me by saying that they will issue a further 5 years visa???!!
Actually, and sorry for the oversight, that is right in my opinion. If you do not fulfill the criteria for permanent residence but for 'ordinary' residence under the EEA regulations, in your case having sufficient funds and the CSI, then you certainly qualifiy for (another) residence card and are entitled to receiving one. If the UKBA does indeed not accept the CSI quasi in retrospective then unfortunately, I think, all the time accumulated before taking out the CSI is lost.

But to clarify: has the EEA national been self-sufficient or a student for the whole last five years?
The 5 years treaty rights period inc. April 05 -to April 10.

the EEA national has been employed for 4,5 years of which the last 2 she was ALSO a full time student, nevertheless, despite being a full time student she maintained her job (and paid taxes and NI) right until nov 09.
i guess that is the period she needs to be covered by the CSI???

Could this possibly be a reason for issuing a further 5 years visa??? (bear in mind i have sent EEA4 form)

what are your thoughts on that?

86ti
Diamond Member
Posts: 2760
Joined: Wed Nov 21, 2007 7:07 am

Post by 86ti » Thu Jul 22, 2010 1:48 pm

If the EEA national was a worker for a period of 4 and a half years I do not see why a CSI would be needed at all. Possibly that the UKBA may formally require the CSI when she was 'just' a student int the last six months before completion of the 5 years but she could have been a job seeker in that period (was she?). A denial of PR would simply be unproportional I think.

coconutsforme
Newbie
Posts: 36
Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2010 12:39 pm
Location: london

Post by coconutsforme » Thu Jul 22, 2010 2:00 pm

86ti wrote:If the EEA national was a worker for a period of 4 and a half years I do not see why a CSI would be needed at all. Possibly that the UKBA may formally require the CSI when she was 'just' a student int the last six months before completion of the 5 years but she could have been a job seeker in that period (was she?). A denial of PR would simply be unproportional I think.
She had to stop working because of her exams that started in dec 09 and she wasn't looking for a job since then cos i was working.

To be honest, felling a bit worried about how they gonna handle it.

jackEM
Newbie
Posts: 49
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 9:21 am

Post by jackEM » Thu Jul 22, 2010 2:46 pm

To coconutforme

If she has been working for 4.5 years in that qualifying years, how many p60 you have?


If she is not working at the end of qualifying period send some rejection letters or email applications to prove she is activel looking for a job if thats the case....
Otherwise If you can provide CSI from Dec09 to till now it would work....

And if she was working for 4.5 years, doesn't matter whatelse she was doing i.e studying or self-sufficient.......
As long as person is paying national insurance, s/he is exercising treaty right, regardless of income, study or self-sufficient... so dont even need to mention those things....

Match your dates for 4.5 years if you can handle, the solution for last 6months will come to you, which may work....

Regards
Last edited by jackEM on Thu Jul 22, 2010 3:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.

coconutsforme
Newbie
Posts: 36
Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2010 12:39 pm
Location: london

Post by coconutsforme » Thu Jul 22, 2010 3:20 pm

jackEM wrote:To coconutforme

If she has been working for 4.5 years in that qualifying years, how many p60 you have?

Secondly even if there was any gap you can simply say that she changed her job in that time period, or she was looking for one and proof is that she got one....

If she is not working at the end of qualifying period send some rejection letters or email applications to prove she is activel looking for a job if thats the case....
Otherwise If you can provide CSI from Dec09 to till now it would work....

And you have a misunderstanding abt student or self-sufficient.....(Last two yrs out of 4.5)
As long as person is paying national insurance, s/he is exercising treaty right, regardless of income, study or self-sufficient... so dont even need to mention those things....

Match your dates for 4.5 years if you can handle, the solution for last 6months will come to you, which may work....

Regards
Thanks JackEM,

I had 4 x P60s but this current year's wasn't available at the time of application.

So in reality, you are saying that by submitting the 5th P60, (April 2010) we would confirm that she has been employed in a tax year and therefore justify the period without CSI?

coconutsforme
Newbie
Posts: 36
Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2010 12:39 pm
Location: london

Post by coconutsforme » Thu Jul 22, 2010 3:22 pm

[quote="jackEM"]To coconutforme

And you have a misunderstanding abt student or self-sufficient.....(Last two yrs out of 4.5)
As long as person is paying national insurance, s/he is exercising treaty right, regardless of income, study or self-sufficient... so dont even need to mention those things....

My apologies jackEM,

but the above message wasn't clear for me, if you could kindly clarify..?

jackEM
Newbie
Posts: 49
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 9:21 am

Post by jackEM » Thu Jul 22, 2010 3:31 pm

So you got it

giardaella
BANNED
Posts: 42
Joined: Sat Jul 24, 2010 12:09 pm

Post by giardaella » Sat Jul 24, 2010 12:37 pm

just a quick note about the grey area.

Technically, the whole point of having CIS is not to become an unnecessary burden on the country's social assistance system. So, to refuse the application on the basis of this requirement when in reality (which I believe you never did) the person never even claimed anything in the period, would be DISPROPORTIONATE.

Imagine a person working his arse off for 4.5 years and then (even if not job seeker) simply being self-sufficient without CIS for 5 months as being unaware of the requirement, and having to start the whole 5 year period over again! Sounds disproportionate.

I don't think there have been any cases on the basis of the UKBA applying discretion disproportionately, although there is no requirement for discretion mentioned in the Directive 2004/38 and the Regulations 2006 with regards to minor inconsistencies.

However, I also think there have been cases where people were lucky enough for the caseworkers to overlook the fact and allow for purchases of insurance, with gaps in the past.

Then again, technically, the refusal and the issue of a new 5 year RC is logical.

Finally, someone mentioned showing letters of rejection etc as proof of actively seeking work. This, unfortunately, on its own shouldn't be enough, as there is an additional requirement to register with a job centre (relevant authority) while seeking employment.

All that is left now for you is to find the person on the forum who successfully obtained PR on the basis of having gaps in exercising Treaty Rights and then try your luck.

If rejected, you would and should probably invest in taking the matter to court and arguing that not to allow for PR would be disproportionate as you never became the burden to society, prevention of which is the only point of having the CIS.

Good luck

P.S. If your application was returned before a caseworker had been allocated to it, your file wouldn't be on the system yet.

So, just apply again and include 5 P60s to show that the person had been working for 5 years. No need to mention anything about the exact leaving date. Note that even if there is substantially less money compared to previous years, it's fine as even part-time work counts.

I know it sounds a bit like you'll have to be not 100% truthful, but I'm sure you'd rather get it over with than be the one to plough the first precedent in a court.

coconutsforme
Newbie
Posts: 36
Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2010 12:39 pm
Location: london

Post by coconutsforme » Sat Jul 24, 2010 2:22 pm

giardaella wrote:just a quick note about the grey area.

Technically, the whole point of having CIS is not to become an unnecessary burden on the country's social assistance system. So, to refuse the application on the basis of this requirement when in reality (which I believe you never did) the person never even claimed anything in the period, would be DISPROPORTIONATE.

Imagine a person working his arse off for 4.5 years and then (even if not job seeker) simply being self-sufficient without CIS for 5 months as being unaware of the requirement, and having to start the whole 5 year period over again! Sounds disproportionate.

I don't think there have been any cases on the basis of the UKBA applying discretion disproportionately, although there is no requirement for discretion mentioned in the Directive 2004/38 and the Regulations 2006 with regards to minor inconsistencies.

However, I also think there have been cases where people were lucky enough for the caseworkers to overlook the fact and allow for purchases of insurance, with gaps in the past.

Then again, technically, the refusal and the issue of a new 5 year RC is logical.

Finally, someone mentioned showing letters of rejection etc as proof of actively seeking work. This, unfortunately, on its own shouldn't be enough, as there is an additional requirement to register with a job centre (relevant authority) while seeking employment.

All that is left now for you is to find the person on the forum who successfully obtained PR on the basis of having gaps in exercising Treaty Rights and then try your luck.

If rejected, you would and should probably invest in taking the matter to court and arguing that not to allow for PR would be disproportionate as you never became the burden to society, prevention of which is the only point of having the CIS.

Good luck

P.S. If your application was returned before a caseworker had been allocated to it, your file wouldn't be on the system yet.

So, just apply again and include 5 P60s to show that the person had been working for 5 years. No need to mention anything about the exact leaving date. Note that even if there is substantially less money compared to previous years, it's fine as even part-time work counts.

I know it sounds a bit like you'll have to be not 100% truthful, but I'm sure you'd rather get it over with than be the one to plough the first precedent in a court.
Thank you for your comments Giardaella,

I have referred this query to one of the immigrations advisers i know, and was told not to worry as applying a further 5 years would indeed be disproportionate. He strongly believes everything should be fine with the recently purchased CSI.

Anyway, all the docs have been sent to them 2 weeks ago, should it pass the initial check up, I'll just have to pray for the caseworker to make the right judgement.

Should HO re-issue a further 5 year RC I will (for sure) take this matter to court and will be well up for it and fight for my right.

Many thanks,

coconutsforme
Newbie
Posts: 36
Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2010 12:39 pm
Location: london

Post by coconutsforme » Sat Jul 24, 2010 2:25 pm

ALSO,

Does anyone know if paying Voluntary National Insurance Contributions for the past months could be accepted by the Home Office?

These, apparently can be backdated, but when I phoned HMRC the lady on the phone could not answer me.

giardaella
BANNED
Posts: 42
Joined: Sat Jul 24, 2010 12:09 pm

Post by giardaella » Mon Jul 26, 2010 11:40 pm

coconutsforme wrote:ALSO,

Does anyone know if paying Voluntary National Insurance Contributions for the past months could be accepted by the Home Office?

These, apparently can be backdated, but when I phoned HMRC the lady on the phone could not answer me.
Sorry, don't have any info on it, doubt even caseworkers would. However, simply paying tax to make up the gap doesn't eliminate the fact that your wife wasn't working, which is one of the requirements of exercising treaty rights. Therefore, it follows that simply paying logically shouldn't make any difference.

giardaella
BANNED
Posts: 42
Joined: Sat Jul 24, 2010 12:09 pm

Post by giardaella » Tue Jul 27, 2010 12:21 am

There is a member "Iira" who got his PR even with gaps in insurance, read on page 3, about 2/3 down!


http://www.immigrationboards.com/viewto ... c&start=40

coconutsforme
Newbie
Posts: 36
Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2010 12:39 pm
Location: london

Post by coconutsforme » Tue Jul 27, 2010 9:32 am

giardaella wrote:There is a member "Iira" who got his PR even with gaps in insurance, read on page 3, about 2/3 down!


http://www.immigrationboards.com/viewto ... c&start=40
Thanks,
that would be great if it works.

Locked
cron