- FAQ
- Login
- Register
- Call Workpermit.com for a paid service +44 (0)344-991-9222
Immigration, work visa and work permit discussion board
ESC
Welcome to immigrationboards.com!
Moderators: Casa, push, JAJ, ca.funke, Amber, zimba, vinny, Obie, EUsmileWEallsmile, batleykhan, meself2, geriatrix, John, ChetanOjha, archigabe
You can try AR. If you have submitted all the required documents and the only error is that you did not indicate correctly which jobs are combined, you may be able to argue that HO should have used evidential flexibility as it is obvious that the part time jobs are to be combined. It helps that the other one was a full time job, so it is clear which jobs are to be combined.Umair974 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 10, 2018 9:56 pmHello guys i have received my refusal today after 8 months home office is not satisfied with the jobs i had one full time person working in my company and two part time jobs with two different job titles as a 2nd job. So the 2nd job was mr abc as part time office assistant workin till now since march 2016. While the other part time job that was packing assistant was two people worked in that so the first one started in 06:09:2016 left in 05/03/2017. The same day other packing assistant started working which left on 05:09/2017. And started again after 3 months mean while i had one more part time job as posting assistant. Now i made a mistake I didn’t mention in my intial application that combine job 2 and 3. To make it one full time job home office has combine job 2 and job 4 and refused my visa just on this point remaining all the points they have awarded me. What is the best thing to do now shall i put new case or shall i go for ar? Also my visa was issued in oct 2014 so i fall in the category of after april 2014. But my two jobs if they combine it will become one full time job.
That is wrong !! Such decisions have been overturned before in AR.
posting on his behalf the refusal reasons.
As mentioned, there is nothing in the immigration rules that says that the job titles have to be the same. So, on its own, the refusal is wrong.nasiaziz wrote: ↑Thu Oct 11, 2018 11:53 amposting on his behalf the refusal reasons.
The evidence provided does not establish that the equivalent of two full time jobs existing for more than 12 months have been created.only employee A & B both sales assisstants have created 1 full time job lasting 12 months.employee C (postage assisstant) , employee D (Packaging assistant) and employee E (office assistant) didnt ceate another full time job.the wrking hours could not be combined as they have got diffirent job titles.this is not sufficient to meet the requirement of creating the equivalent of two new full time jobs which have each existed for atleast 12 months.
the question is employee E (OFFICE ASSISTANT) was part time for more than 30 months and stilL employed.
And employee D (packaging assistant) there were two people who worked but the officer only picked the second employee from this job which was only for six months and ignored the 1st employee under this job which was for six months too. he could have taken this part time job which in total was 12 months and combined it with employee E TO MAKE equivalent of one full time job.. my question is is it not allowed to mix different job titles part time jobs to claim one job~? as he mentioned on the refusal.
thanks
OK SOmarcnath wrote: ↑Thu Oct 11, 2018 12:59 pmAs mentioned, there is nothing in the immigration rules that says that the job titles have to be the same. So, on its own, the refusal is wrong.nasiaziz wrote: ↑Thu Oct 11, 2018 11:53 amposting on his behalf the refusal reasons.
The evidence provided does not establish that the equivalent of two full time jobs existing for more than 12 months have been created.only employee A & B both sales assisstants have created 1 full time job lasting 12 months.employee C (postage assisstant) , employee D (Packaging assistant) and employee E (office assistant) didnt ceate another full time job.the wrking hours could not be combined as they have got diffirent job titles.this is not sufficient to meet the requirement of creating the equivalent of two new full time jobs which have each existed for atleast 12 months.
the question is employee E (OFFICE ASSISTANT) was part time for more than 30 months and stilL employed.
And employee D (packaging assistant) there were two people who worked but the officer only picked the second employee from this job which was only for six months and ignored the 1st employee under this job which was for six months too. he could have taken this part time job which in total was 12 months and combined it with employee E TO MAKE equivalent of one full time job.. my question is is it not allowed to mix different job titles part time jobs to claim one job~? as he mentioned on the refusal.
thanks
However, it also depends on how the Job Table will filled. If employee C, D and E were filled in the same table, then the CW is possibly right.
So, to be very clear, can you or the OP exactly specify the situation.
For each employee, c, d, e give job title, exact start dates and end dates.
You seem to be confusing JOBS and EMPLOYEES. Your statement - "employee D (packaging assistant) there were two people" - is very confusing. How can one employee be two people ?
Also can you clearly state how the Job Table was filled
Job 1 - employee - start date, end date
Job 2 - employee - start date, end date
and so on.
Hi Marcnath,marcnath wrote: ↑Fri Oct 12, 2018 6:51 amSeems to be a pretty straightforward CW error. But since you did not specify which jobs should be combined, you can't blame them entirely.
But given that they somehow used one of the employees alone on Job 3, they can't really argue that.
I am quite confident your AR will be successful. You just have to highlight that they seem to have missed one employee
You can look through the timeline posts - typically they are received almost at the same time. You should try reaching out to them now that it has been two weeks. Check with DX delivery also in case there was some problem delivering it to you - people here have posted that they are quite responsive
