How is an application automatically withdrawn when travelling outside the UK when application is still under progress.

[MGLondon]

Does anyone know, how does the home office know if someone has travelled outside the UK, and their existing application is automatically withdrawn. Does the home office get this information from the immigration officers at border control?
Say someone has travelled outside the UK when their application is yet in progress. How can I inform the home office?

[Zerubbabel]

It depends on factors beyond your control.

If the application has not been decided when you leave the country, it will be withdrawn. You don't need to tell them, that happens automatically (when it happens).

If the application was already decided, it won't be affected by your travel.

But you don't know if it was decided or not and you don't know if they are going to look in the system to see if you travelled or not. It's a bit of a gamble to be honest.

I know people who travelled without any issues during an application but it's not something worth risking.

[MGLondon]

It depends on factors beyond your control.

If the application has not been decided when you leave the country, it will be withdrawn. You don't need to tell them, that happens automatically (when it happens).

If the application was already decided, it won't be affected by your travel.

But you don't know if it was decided or not and you don't know if they are going to look in the system to see if you travelled or not. It's a bit of a gamble to be honest.

I know people who travelled without any issues during an application but it's not something worth risking.

Thanks for your reply. Do you know how to inform the home office, in the event someone (in this hypothetical case, let that someone be me) is already doing it? I know it would be decided by a case-worker, but how to inform that case-worker. Is there an email such as complaints@home.office.... etc.

[Zerubbabel]

That would be equivalent to cancelling your application. Because if you tell them you are now abroad, they will go ahead and consider the application as withdrawn.

You can cancel here and ask them to return your documents:
https://eforms.homeoffice.gov.uk/outrea ... ments.ofml

Careful with that! I am not recommending you do it as this can lead to the loss of your immigration status in the UK (you won't be able to return!)

[MGLondon]

That would be equivalent to cancelling your application. Because if you tell them you are now abroad, they will go ahead and consider the application as withdrawn.

You can cancel here and ask them to return your documents:
https://eforms.homeoffice.gov.uk/outrea ... ments.ofml

Careful with that! I am not recommending you do it as this can lead to the loss of your immigration status in the UK (you won't be able to return!)

Thanks, very helpful. One question though, this does not specify Skilled Worker visa?

[Hampshire]

We have consulted an expert immigration lawyer and they have advised not to leave UK when your application is with the Home Office else it would be cancelled.

If you want to be 100% sure, hire a lawyer yourself and ask them to pinpoint the relevant section of immigration laws which apply.

[vinny]

pinpoint the relevant section of immigration laws which apply.

34K.

Previously, if an applicant had to physically submit the passport and wanted to travel while an application was pending, then they may request their passport back for the purposes of travel. At that point, the document request form or caseworker may warn applicants of the consequences. So both caseworker and applicant would be aware that the application would be withdrawn when the applicant travelled outside the CTA. However, there had been an exception. If an applicant didn’t request their submitted passport back and travelled on another passport, then caseworkers wouldn’t treat the application as withdrawn.

Currently, if nothing, apart from reading 34K, had warned applicants on the dangers of travelling outside the CTA, then they may not know about it. Moreover, caseworkers may also be unaware that an applicant had travelled. So, both parties may be ignorant of the full situation.

Is the onus on caseworkers to treat such an application as withdrawn? What happens if they didn’t and decided on the application? If they found out later, then would they retrospectively treat the application withdrawn and nullify the decision, etc?

[MGLondon]

I think the way to inform the home office must be. First travel outside the CTA. Then inform them using the cancel your visa/withdraw application form? This should work, correct?

[vinny]

Withdrawn applications

The case of Qadeer v SSHD clarified that the SSHD does not have to agree to the withdrawal of an application but may still consider and decide the application even where that might lead to a refusal.

The most common reason to refuse to accept a withdrawal request from an applicant and decide an application is where there is a suspicion that deception has been exercised by the applicant. For example, if they have knowingly submitted fraudulent documents.

If a person travels outside the common travel area (CTA) before a decision is made on their application for leave to remain, you must treat the application as withdrawn on the date they leave the CTA. This is set out in paragraph 34K of the Immigration Rules. If biometrics have already been submitted you must not refund the application fee but any IHS must be refunded. For guidance on when the full fee must be returned see the Immigration and Nationality refunds guidance .

The CTA includes the:

• UK
• Republic of Ireland
• Channel Islands
• Isle of Man

Is travelling outside the CTA an attempt to circumvent a refusal of a withdrawal request (Qadeer v SSHD)?

[MGLondon]

Withdrawn applications

The case of Qadeer v SSHD clarified that the SSHD does not have to agree to the withdrawal of an application but may still consider and decide the application even where that might lead to a refusal.

The most common reason to refuse to accept a withdrawal request from an applicant and decide an application is where there is a suspicion that deception has been exercised by the applicant. For example, if they have knowingly submitted fraudulent documents.

If a person travels outside the common travel area (CTA) before a decision is made on their application for leave to remain, you must treat the application as withdrawn on the date they leave the CTA. This is set out in paragraph 34K of the Immigration Rules. If biometrics have already been submitted you must not refund the application fee but any IHS must be refunded. For guidance on when the full fee must be returned see the Immigration and Nationality refunds guidance .
The CTA includes the:

• UK
• Republic of Ireland
• Channel Islands
• Isle of Man

Is travelling outside the CTA an attempt to circumvent a refusal of a withdrawal request (Qadeer v SSHD)?

Nope it is not an attempt for that. This is just to understand the process fully.

[vinny]

If applicants are not warned of the dangers of travelling outside the CTA during a pending application, then I think the process is messy?

As a comparison, if the Consumer Rights Act 2015 protected applicants under the Immigration rules and the “subject matter terms are not transparent and prominent”, then the small print 34K may be unlawful under that Act?

[MGLondon]

It depends on factors beyond your control.

If the application has not been decided when you leave the country, it will be withdrawn. You don't need to tell them, that happens automatically (when it happens).

If the application was already decided, it won't be affected by your travel.

But you don't know if it was decided or not and you don't know if they are going to look in the system to see if you travelled or not. It's a bit of a gamble to be honest.

I know people who travelled without any issues during an application but it's not something worth risking.

Okay, one more question in relation to this. I think it is better to ask this here, rather than to ask a separate question on the forum.
If the main applicant and the dependant made a joint application, and the dependant travelled outside the CTA (Common Travel Area) when the application was still in progress, would travelling outside withdraw the joint application? I've asked this question to the home office, and they say that if a joint application was made, this travelling by the dependant would withdraw the joint application. Are you or someone else aware that in some previous case, the joint application was withdrawn because the dependant travelled outside the CTA?

[vinny]

I think if an applicant had travelled outside the CTA, then 34K may treat the applicant’s application as withdrawn.

I think it’s beyond 34K’s scope to treat a non-travelling applicant’s application as withdrawn?

However, if the main applicant travelled outside the CTA, then the dependant’s application may fail as there may be no main application.

[MGLondon]

I think if an applicant had travelled outside the CTA, then 34K may treat the applicant’s application as withdrawn.

I think it’s beyond 34K’s scope to treat a non-travelling applicant’s application as withdrawn?

However, if the main applicant travelled outside the CTA, then the dependant’s application may fail as there may be no main application.

Honestly, I don't know the answer to this. That's why I asked the question. As per the home office, based on phone calls I made, if the application is a joint application, then the entire application would need to be withdrawn. I hope they make rules on this a bit more clear. But currently this seems plausible, because if there is only one application in the name of multiple people, then only that one application can be withdrawn.

[vinny]

Actually, I think there are two applications. The application fees is for two applicants. But one applicant is dependent on the other and so may be included in the same form, only for convenience? The dependant is dependent on the Main Applicant and not the other way round.

[Casa]

Be wary of any information given on the 'help line', This is staffed by an outside agency, not the Home Office and the advisors have limited knowledge of the Immigration Rules and have limited training. Neither will they accept responsibility of any negative outcome due to reliance on the information given.

[sah10406]

Be wary of any information given on the 'help line', This is staffed by an outside agency, not the Home Office and the advisors have limited knowledge of the Immigration Rules and have limited training. Neither will they accept responsibility of any negative outcome due to reliance on the information given.

Too right. This verkakte "helpline" with their untrained unregulated advisers gives terrible damaging "advice" with impunity. They like to be Good Cop and will encourage people to make doomed applications. If a regulated, registered and trained professional adviser then warns an applicant that their application may fail, they naturally think "But the Home Office says it will be fine, and surely they are the experts, not you".

They do also sometimes discourage people from making perfectly fine applications because of perceived and non-existent problems with eligibility. Sometimes as a real adviser you cannot then persuade a client that everything is fine, because, again, surely the Home Office helpline knows better.

I recommend that anyone who uses this wretched helpline always takes the name of the person they speak to, note the time of the call, and asks them to cite the specific immigration rule or guidance that backs up what they are saying. Say that you will be quoting all the above in your application. This is normally enough for them to backtrack on their back-of-an-envelope advice.

[vinny]

If there were no warnings against an applicant travelling during a pending application, then I think applicants have a legitimate expectation of being able to travel and return, especially prior expiry of leave.

34K is putting a condition on a pending immigration application. I think if there was no notification of the condition, then it may be possible to draw an analogy with Anwar?

If the UKVI didn’t draw attention to the travel restrictions, then, given the dire consequences to the applicant, I’m perplexed as to why they didn’t make it prominent?

If the applicant is able to return to the UK prior to expiry of leave, then what is the problem with that? The applicant is not illegally jumping any immigration queues.

Although preventing travelling may be environmently friendly, what is the purpose and intention of 34K? It frustrates an unsuspecting applicant (if there are no warnings). Applicants may not even know about it, unless they get an unlikely refund or try SAR? It may make caseworkers do extra work in checking specific absences after the application date. It may also prevent caseworkers from refusing a withdrawal request. It creates a lose-lose situation for both applicant and caseworker.

IMHO, it’s unreasonable (when the applicant is not warned) and irrational.

[Hampshire]

German and Dutch immigration applications dont have this weird condition.