10 years employment history - advice needed

Hi
I'm writing on behalf of a friend who is about to apply for naturalisation. She is a non-EEA family member (wife) of an EEA national and holds a PR. The problem is that she hasn't worked much since arriving in the UK about 10 years ago. She first came here on a student visa and then married her EEA husband. She has been working for the past 3 years but not during the first 7 years of her stay in the UK. Her husband has been working and studying. Until 3 years ago she was receiving money from her family to help with living expenses but unfortunately she doesn't have any proof showing that she was getting financial support (money sent through Western Union). What should she do with the section asking about her 10 years employment history? Can they refuse her application just because she wasn't wasn't working during the first 7 years of her stay? She wasn't taking any benefits or help from the UK government.
We would appreciate any comments/suggestions.

Employment is not a requirement for naturalisation. If she was unemployed, she can say so in the application form and that will not have any negative implication for the application.

That section is designed to weed out people who are working when they shouldn't have (such as students or people on visitor visas, for instance). Your friend should be fine as she already has PR.

secret.simon wrote:Employment is not a requirement for naturalisation. If she was unemployed, she can say so in the application form and that will not have any negative implication for the application.

That section is designed to weed out people who are working when they shouldn't have (such as students or people on visitor visas, for instance). Your friend should be fine as she already has PR.

STUDENTS ARE ALLOWED TO WORK!!!

Thank you both for your replies.
Yes, we know that students can work but she wasn't working while being a student hence the confusion. She got very upset because she thought her application may be refused doe to large gaps in her employment history.

I just read both comments again. I think what Secret.simon meant was that students are allowed to work only a certain number of hours so if an applicant stated that he was working full time while on student visa, the HO would likely refuse the application for citizenship.

muzakhaa wrote:STUDENTS ARE ALLOWED TO WORK!!!

Typing in all capital letters is the equivalent of shouting and is considered rude.

While students can work, there are restrictions on the amount of time they work and that can be caught out. Also, given remarks by the SSHD and other government ministers in the past few days, I would say that it is only a matter of time before overseas students are barred from working altogether.

EDIT: Indeed, sylvia532, that is exactly what I meant to say. Thank you for paraphrasing.

First of all apologies for misunderstanding , I was not shouting or being sarcastic. Sometimes its not easier to use gadgets to type comments. Any ways the point I was making that yes student are allowed to work but checking whether they were working full time or part time by all means Home office do that, however they need to judge each case carefully as the rules were diffferent over the time e.g. Prior to 2009 students were allowed to work full time during their vacation/Holidays or non term time. Similary over the period of time rule does get tougher presumably after April 2011 .

What other thing could HO consider or look for extension of previous visas in time as if the visa get expired and was not extended in time then it invalidates the conditions on the visa e.g. work etc. I totally agree with the categories who are not allowed any work a (e.g. Visitors, Asylum etc.).

Again the difference between the old form and new form is the employment history page however in both the forms everyone do provide their NI NOs ( if they have one). I dont see any difference for Home Office to pull out the employment history in both cases.

As this has been discussed in other threads as well. I agree with comments that is to wait and see the outcome of such applications rather than making assumptions what HO will do.

Simply ignore the comments of post naturalizationists and I wish government launch some policy to re-check them under good character.
Anyhow let's go to business as this is not to check that how many hours someone work rather what they are doing is that they check the weak point in immigration history where gap between visas did not cover by section 3c means overstaying then they ask that how they financed/supported themselves and. They actually from the hands of applicants extracting truth. Follow the following thread:
http://www.immigrationboards.com/britis ... l#p1214600