- FAQ
- Login
- Register
- Call Workpermit.com for a paid service +44 (0)344-991-9222
ESC
Welcome to immigrationboards.com!
Moderators: Casa, push, JAJ, ca.funke, Amber, zimba, vinny, Obie, EUsmileWEallsmile, batleykhan, meself2, geriatrix, John, ChetanOjha, archigabe
That stratagem might only work where if he was given the option to apply from UK following his visa curtailment and then was given the right to appeal in country.fahadii123 wrote: ↑Sat Jul 11, 2020 1:10 amAsking for a friend.. please help
He has been legally in the UK for 10 years and 3 months.. 6 years on student visa, then got married in 2016 and unfortunately divorced in 2019. He received curtailment letter on Oct’19. Was advised by a solicitor to apply for FLR(FP). Decision of this came within 3 weeks and was a refusal. He appealed the decision and it has been acknowledged but still pending.
Now the question is if he can make an ILR application as he has been in Uk for just over 10 years.
Thanks for your time and we look forward to your replies
Applications made under Appendix FM (or private life) are considered human rights application and they have the right of appeal with Section 3C protections. He can apply under SET(LR) without his section 3C being affected or appeal needed to be withdrawn.fahadii123 wrote: ↑Sat Jul 11, 2020 1:10 amAsking for a friend.. please help
He has been legally in the UK for 10 years and 3 months.. 6 years on student visa, then got married in 2016 and unfortunately divorced in 2019. He received curtailment letter on Oct’19. Was advised by a solicitor to apply for FLR(FP). Decision of this came within 3 weeks and was a refusal. He appealed the decision and it has been acknowledged but still pending.
Now the question is if he can make an ILR application as he has been in Uk for just over 10 years.
Thanks for your time and we look forward to your replies
The Guidance differs?
That was my view until I saw the appeal guidance document last year: https://www.immigrationboards.com/indef ... l#p1845642
If he applies for SET(LR), then wouldn’t they consider this as a human rights application?
Yes but op hadn't completed his 10 years when had applied flrfp then it wasn't the case under human right. A recap the op spent 6 years on student followed by around 2.5-3 years on spouse visa and to cover the shortage of time after divorce have applied FLRFP then how human right came into play?? In my view given the above situation if the op has completed his 10 years before/until the expiry of curtailment deadline then the above quote will attract human right covenant.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... form-flrfpForm to apply to stay in the UK on the basis of your family life as a partner, parent or dependent child or on the basis of your private life in the UK.
https://www.gov.uk/uk-family-visa/private-lifeApply on the basis of your private life
You can only apply on the basis of your private life if you’re already living in the UK.
You must be able to prove that you’re:
under 18 and you’ve lived in the UK continuously for at least 7 years, and it would be unreasonable to expect you to leave the UK
between 18 and 24 and you’ve lived continuously in the UK for more than half your life
18 or over, have spent less than 20 years in the UK and would have very significant problems living in the country you’d have to go to - for example, you do not speak the language and could not learn it
25 or over and you’ve been in the UK continuously for 20 years
Now you are confusing a 'valid' application with 'valid human rights claims in an application'. When I said a 'valid claim' I was not referring to the application itself being considered 'valid' or 'invalid'. Application validity is a different matter. When I said 'valid claim', it meant to refer to the applicant having a 'genuine claim' in an application.seagul wrote: ↑Mon Jul 13, 2020 3:00 pmWell to keep it precise the main integrant bit which op and most others strive for is section 3C which not just gets triggered by applying in timely rather the application need to be synchronously be valid as well. And for a valid application the claim must be valid as well otherwise section 3C won't be applied as conspicuous in several guidance. Also as stated earlier that a mere application of flrfp just to buy the time doesn't always be treated as valid which attract a guaranteed section 3C.
Hypothetically you maybe saying correct but based on what guidances have been saying in line with op's circumstances his application can be deemed as invalid expunging any retrospective section 3C. The crucial point which is missing in your example is that the op hadn't yet completed his 10 years rather adopted a circuitous route of flrfp which neither fit in appendix fm nor to private life. The example you given might have been practicable where until the deadline of curtailment the op marks his 10 years. Furthermore, there is also silver lining be possible as evinced in several precedence in past but these all are subject to the level of individual caseworker's discretion. Again an application need to be valid for a valid claim to attract section 3C. There is an extensive guidance about invalidity of an application leading to the forfeiture of section 3C which simply can be google searched.Zimba wrote: ↑Mon Jul 13, 2020 3:53 pmNow you are confusing a 'valid' application with 'valid human rights claims in an application'. When I said a 'valid claim' I was not referring to the application itself being considered 'valid' or 'invalid'. Application validity is a different matter. When I said 'valid claim', it meant to refer to the applicant having a 'genuine claim' in an application.seagul wrote: ↑Mon Jul 13, 2020 3:00 pmWell to keep it precise the main integrant bit which op and most others strive for is section 3C which not just gets triggered by applying in timely rather the application need to be synchronously be valid as well. And for a valid application the claim must be valid as well otherwise section 3C won't be applied as conspicuous in several guidance. Also as stated earlier that a mere application of flrfp just to buy the time doesn't always be treated as valid which attract a guaranteed section 3C.
Example: If I apply for long residence ILR but I do not qualify for it (a claim to be granted ILR under long residence), I have made a valid application. It will be considered a human rights application. I will be given right to appeal it even after refusal. The fact that I did not qualify and did not have 10 years of lawful residence ( a valid claim) did not matter at all.