10 Year continuity broken?

Have been a long time lurker and decided it's time for me to post. Big thanks to all the contributors dedicating their time and patience for bringing their wealth of knowledge and experience here to help others.

I am up for my 10 year completion soon and needed clarification on two points.

1. I have an overstay of exact 28 days (Pre Nov 2016) and wanted to confirm if continuity was broken.

UT Hearing dismissed and decision promulgated on 11 Dec 2015. I believe I would've been Appeals Rights Exhausted on 31 Dec 2015 (12 Working Days) ending my 3C. FLR(FP) applied on 28 Jan 2016 and granted outside the rules in April 2016. I am hoping this would fall within 276B(v) exemption. I am unsure of the effect of Masum Ahmed and other judgements in my case.

2. I made an in time FLR (HRO) in March 2019 and whilst it was outstanding with payment and biometrics done, I applied using the HO app for EUSS, which was accepted next day with 5 years LTR under Appendix EU. This wasn't treated as a variation of my FLR and I have had to write in May 2019 asking for my documents back. The Case Worker wrote back saying the FLR was voided with a full IHS and application refund. The SAR I made also noted the FLR was voided. Is this commonplace or shall I proactively rectify this before my ILR application to reflect the EUSS application was a variation of the FLR?

Would greatly appreciate your help in putting my worries to rest. Thanks.

You applied within 28 days of becoming an overstayer in 2016 and your overstaying should be disregarded.
Your application under Appendix EU was indeed a variation of the previous leave:

Application pending under another part of the Immigration Rules
If an applicant has an application for indefinite leave or limited leave pending under
another part of the Immigration Rules and then makes an application under the
scheme, the original application will be varied by the scheme application and must
no longer be considered. You must refund any fee paid in respect of the original
application.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... 4.0ext.pdf

Hi Zimba, thanks for your reply. Greatly appreciate it, helps to have other's opinion to put worries at bay.

I have read through the sticky topic on 39e. My understanding from your posts there and in general was that Masum Ahmed only comes into play when there is no valid leave at the time of a new application. Applicants who have managed to regularise their stay following a short overstay are not at risk. However, applicants who have made consecutive unsuccessful applications(even frivolous) in view of prolonging the time to meet the 10 year threshold are likely target of the judgement. Please correct me if I am misinterpreting this or opening a whole new can of worms.

I have a general dislike for the word 'void' in reference to Home Office documents. Only reference in the HO documents is on page 23 of "Applications for leave to remain:validation, variation and withdrawal Version 2.0"https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... .0-ext.pdf

Slightly worried the HO might turn around and say the FLR was voided and the EUSS application was out of time just due to the wording in the letter I received from the CW and the SAR.

Has anyone come across the word void/voided with reference to their application on here and its consequences on 3C? I understand an invalid application is entirely different and that certainly negates 3C from the date of application. Any input will be much appreciated. Thanks.

Ahmed's case is not relevant here at all. As I showed you, the EU application was a variation which means the previous application is voided and new one is considered. For some reason you seem to like your own interpretations of the procedures even when the UKVI guide tells you otherwise

Thanks again Zimba. I will blame my usual over analysis and classic paranoia before making applications as always. Thanks for clearing it up patiently and for your great help as always.

Sorry for digging this post up. I wanted to ask why Ahmed's case was not relevant here. Just to be clear, I am referring to MASUM AHMED PTA - https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2019/1070.html

Whilst the 28 days overstay before Nov 2016 will be disregarded, the Tribunals seem to be certain that the 39e exception via 276b(v) does not cure the gaps and will not convert the overstay into lawful or continuous residence.

Hence, all decisions I have read on the IAC Tribunal Decisions page appear to have been refused on Ahmed for falling short of 276b(i).

I would greatly appreciate if you can kindly explain even in brief why Ahmed's case was not applicable. I am not trying to be difficult, just genuinely concerned for my application as I feel it is not as straightforward now and I stand a high chance of refusal, despite being within the HO guidance on LR.

Incorrect. It is NOT relevant here. Ahmed's was refused due to failure to complete the 10 years lawful residence period (39E does not apply to an overstaying period at the end of your stay when the stay is not regularised). Do not confuse yourself. We covered it here: indefinite-leave-to-remain/ilr-10-years ... l#p1854791