A different light in thought... I am not a solicitor nor my interpretations have any value but too much reading a sentence makes a sentence meaningless. So after a break this is what stuck my brain.
1) para 245AAA says
(a) "continuous period of 5 years lawfully in the UK" means, subject to paragraphs 245CD, 245GF and 245HF, residence in the United Kingdom for an unbroken period with valid leave, and for these purposes a period shall not be considered to have been broken where :
(i) the applicant has been absent from the UK for a period of 180 days or less in any of the five consecutive 12 month periods preceding the date of the application for leave to remain;
(ii) the applicant has existing limited leave to enter or remain upon their departure and return except that where that leave expired no more than 28 days prior to a further application for entry clearance, that period and any period pending the determination of an application made within that 28 day period shall be disregarded; and
(iii) the applicant has any period of overstaying between periods of entry clearance, leave to enter or leave to remain of up to 28 days and any period of overstaying pending the determination of an application made within that 28 day period disregarded.
and there is no 'and' in the end of the sentence in (a). "Contra proferentem" IS APPLICABLE HERE. So all these proofs and evidences are applicable (I think) _only_ if we exceed the 180 days. Within the 180 days means there is nothing to be even declared or evidenced. Also continuous period is NOT BROKEN
This is also fair and not retrospective in applying the rules becuase when we came in, we were allowed only 90 days outside and in some periods it was 180 days in 5 years. The rules are relaxed now to 180 days per year. So under the para (a) above, NOT giving evidences must not be a ground for refusal
under the break of 5 year continuous residence.
2) The information
Except for periods where the applicant had ... highly skilled migrant,...
(j) The applicant must provide the specified documents in paragraph 245CD-SD to evidence the reason for the absences set out in paragraph 245AAA.
(c) Except for periods where the applicant had leave as a Tier 1(Investor) Migrant, a Tier 1(Entrepreneur) Migrant, a Tier 1(Exceptional Talent...
Para (c) is a harmless para which does not really talk about unpaid leaves or any such complications. The INTENT
is that we must be employed and not be outside UK without actively being here either searching a job or already in a job (still contradictory for Tier1 but many of us do not get squeezed into this issue I presume). This is particularly applicable for people who in a 2 year period stay outside UK for more than 6 months and still think they are eligible for ILR since they can cookup some document in favour of their stay outside
GURUs ... please comment
So why must we evidence the absences if we are under 180 days ?
What (I think ) again when the UKBA is replying it is assuming that we are off the 180 day limit and then when the evidences/reasons become mandatory the problems and interpretation of law starts. What UKBA did not put clearly in the rules is when the evidences need to be shown. Otherwise break in continuous period is *NOT* broken as-long-as it is within 180 days.
Does not talk about 180 days at all in the discussion. So when UKBA meant break in residence is when the 180 days is exceeded and also there are unpaid leaves.
I am going to straight disregard all the answers from the UKBA since they do not seem to be coming from a experienced fully law-aware person. They always are answered with a tinge of confusing people rather than clearing out doubts.
If this is true, PEO appointments for people less than 180 days/year must not even ask for the reasons letter.
Guys we need a lot of feedback from the PEO ILR. Its been 4 days and there must have been atleast 20 or more applications in PEO.