Welcome to immigrationboards.com!
Indeed.Obie wrote:I will like to see the legal basis for their contention that the visa should be curtailed.
I believe a person's leave is curtailed iff that person's leave was subject to curtailment under 323-323C.Immigration Rules: Interpretation wrote:“curtailment” in relation to the curtailment of a person’s leave to enter or remain in the UK, means curtailing their leave such that they will have a shorter period of, or no, leave remaining.
1(2) wrote:Those not having that right may live, work and settle in the United Kingdom by permission and subject to such regulation and control of their entry into, stay in and departure from the United Kingdom as is imposed by this Act; and indefinite leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom shall, by virtue of this provision, be treated as having been given under this Act to those in the United Kingdom at its coming into force, if they are then settled there (and not exempt under this Act from the provisions relating to leave to enter or remain).
33 wrote:(2A) Subject to section 8(5) above, references to a person being settled in the United Kingdom are references to his being ordinarily resident there without being subject under the immigration laws to any restriction on the period for which he may remain.
Immigration Rules: Introduction wrote:"settled in the United Kingdom" means that the person concerned:
(a) is free from any restriction on the period for which he may remain save that a person entitled to an exemption under Section 8 of the Immigration Act 1971 (otherwise than as a member of the home forces) is not to be regarded as settled in the United Kingdom except in so far as Section 8(5A) so provides; and
(b) is either:
(i) ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom without having entered or remained in breach of the immigration laws; or
(ii) despite having entered or remained in breach of the immigration laws, has subsequently entered lawfully or has been granted leave to remain and is ordinarily resident.
P's leave was never curtailed. P being granted further or indefinite leave that increases P's existing period of leave directly contradicts with the definition and process of curtailment. So, to say that 323(vi) is applicable is irrational.
Your leave as a PBS dependant under 319C is already in line with your partner who has indefinite leave to remain as a Relevant Points Based System Migrant.323 wrote:(ii) if he ceases to meet the requirements of the Rules under which his leave to enter or remain was granted; or
Do confirm that 319D(b) is still satisfied.
As explained, your partner's leave (P's leave) was not curtailed. Therefore, 323(vi) is also not applicable.
I think you were correctly informed. It's the curtailment that is in error.mabhang wrote:We want to make a complaint to home office regarding misguidance. As before travelling, me and my husband both called the home office and comfirmed that we do not requireto apply for a different visa and that I can travel ooutside the country without any worries! When we received the curtailment letter from home office we were clearly misguided. we have the date and time we called them.
How can we make an effective complaint against them?
In my view, the same principle must also apply to the UKVI's caseworkers.76 wrote:In my view the same principle applies here. The responsibility in law on the Claimant was to ensure that his conduct was four-square within the rules. The rules were not hidden from him...
mabhang wrote:Can I apply for FLR from India or have to go back to UK to apply from within?