AnotherUUID wrote: ↑Mon May 25, 2020 12:59 pm
Frou01 wrote: ↑Sun May 24, 2020 8:16 pm
As I understand it, it is about the last 10 year history and there shouldn’t be times without CSI in case of being economically inactive, not about 5 years. Look at the quote above they asked here now to prove CSI for 2013 which is 7 years ago.
This is the main thing from that article that caught my attention. But the only part of the application for naturalsiation that goes back further than the 3 or 5 year period prior to the date of the application is the Good Character Requirement. Which, ironically, we have no clear guidance as to how CSI might affect that.
But, as you have noticed yourself, there are many issues with the news article. One is the quote from the HO spokesman which is clearly wrong, unless he/she meant that the laws behind it haven't changed (just their interpretation) which would be correct.
Then there's the apparent confusion of the author with respect to settled status under the EU Settlement Scheme (under UK rules) and permanent residency (under EEA rules), both of which de facto lead to the applicant being "settled". The author appears to suggest that PR is the "full path to citizenship" (whatever that means), which is factually incorrect as EU Settlement Scheme applicants obviously don't need to have DCPR to apply.
And finally, the quote from the applicant who was asked to show their CSI from 2013 is still a sample size of 1. There may or may not have been other reasons in their application for HO to ask that, and we can't know that.
Personally, I take news articles with a lot of salt as there's always a risk of inaccuracies and bias due to cherry-picking example cases. I hope we see a clearer picture of what's going on through first hand reports from members here re their own applications.
I absolutely agree with you and you speak a lot of sense.
I find that quote from the spokesman very misleading, instead of helping it just starts more confusing.
I can clearly say there have been people 2 years ago and last week been approved claiming they would have need CSI in those cases.
I also feel confused about following:
1. The guidance state out people need to write into the box of their form if and why they didn’t have CSI.
I can clearly say my form submitted 1st May did not have this.
I will work with that fact in my cover letter and I think it says it all when I didn’t have that updated new (?) questions.
2. Why is the guidance for applicants not updated?
Seriously, that is the source we’re applicants look at.
I’m sure 90% of people now talking about that topic wouldn’t know about the other guidance when the article wouldn’t refer to it.
3. Why are there no announcements with notice. Even by raising fees e.g. people know what to expect and make up their mind.
It is totally unfair and out of touch to just apply new requirements at the point you paid (my case) or if you have a year old pending application and been asked now to provide CSI.
The topic CSI must be highlighted more intense. Unfair ways to use a sudden change to make it more difficult are absolutely unacceptable.
I know they might be right about CSI, but there must be more awareness. The HO should make a campaign like about Settled Status and give people a fair chance.
No one can legally backdate CSI. There’s no chance.
It’s not difficult to communicate something a lot better which seems major important to them.
I will remain with some hope things might eventually change. However with a pending application I need to focus on standing a chance for discretion and hope some of the great people here can help people like me how to ask for discretion in their cover letters.
