New tier 4 visa for a return to study/ Breaching tier 4 conditions

[Yehia]

I am a registered PhD student who undertook an interruption of studies since May 2019. I have now applied for a new visa to return to my studies. There is a nuisance though, rather a big one; during my stay as a PhD student I went on working full time during vacations and at times when I told my supervisor I needed rest for a couple of days from studying. I would take these as vacations and undertake full time posts before returning to part-time again when studying. This was actually happening for 3 years in row. For some reason I thought term time vacations were also applicable to PhD students just the same as masters students (I did my masters in the UK too).

Now that I have applied for a new visa, do ECOs check the number of hours worked to try to detect a breach while processing a new tier 4 visa? What if they realize I worked more hours and yet I "didn't" tick that I had breached previous conditions before..would this amount to me being "deceptive" and thus I am to expect a ban on my reentry into the UK for 10 years while losing all the years, the money and my degree?

[sah10406]

Now that I have applied for a new visa, do ECOs check the number of hours worked to try to detect a breach while processing a new tier 4 visa?

Yes.

What if they realize I worked more hours and yet I "didn't" tick that I had breached previous conditions before..would this amount to me being "deceptive" and thus I am to expect a ban on my reentry into the UK for 10 years while losing all the years, the money and my degree?

Yes. You seem to have clearly lied, to try to conceal the breach. That is deception.

[ektan]

I am a registered PhD student who undertook an interruption of studies since May 2019. I have now applied for a new visa to return to my studies. There is a nuisance though, rather a big one; during my stay as a PhD student I went on working full time during vacations and at times when I told my supervisor I needed rest for a couple of days from studying. I would take these as vacations and undertake full time posts before returning to part-time again when studying. This was actually happening for 3 years in row. For some reason I thought term time vacations were also applicable to PhD students just the same as masters students (I did my masters in the UK too).

Now that I have applied for a new visa, do ECOs check the number of hours worked to try to detect a breach while processing a new tier 4 visa? What if they realize I worked more hours and yet I "didn't" tick that I had breached previous conditions before..would this amount to me being "deceptive" and thus I am to expect a ban on my reentry into the UK for 10 years while losing all the years, the money and my degree?

No, you dont have to as you were never caught while breaching.

[sah10406]

No, you dont have to as you were never caught while breaching.

[Yehia]

I am a registered PhD student who undertook an interruption of studies since May 2019. I have now applied for a new visa to return to my studies. There is a nuisance though, rather a big one; during my stay as a PhD student I went on working full time during vacations and at times when I told my supervisor I needed rest for a couple of days from studying. I would take these as vacations and undertake full time posts before returning to part-time again when studying. This was actually happening for 3 years in row. For some reason I thought term time vacations were also applicable to PhD students just the same as masters students (I did my masters in the UK too).

Now that I have applied for a new visa, do ECOs check the number of hours worked to try to detect a breach while processing a new tier 4 visa? What if they realize I worked more hours and yet I "didn't" tick that I had breached previous conditions before..would this amount to me being "deceptive" and thus I am to expect a ban on my reentry into the UK for 10 years while losing all the years, the money and my degree?

No, you dont have to as you were never caught while breaching.

Given my situation I feel more inclined to a wishful thinking that your say is accurate. But what is your reasoning with regards to this matter? They do check hours, dont they?

[ektan]

I am a registered PhD student who undertook an interruption of studies since May 2019. I have now applied for a new visa to return to my studies. There is a nuisance though, rather a big one; during my stay as a PhD student I went on working full time during vacations and at times when I told my supervisor I needed rest for a couple of days from studying. I would take these as vacations and undertake full time posts before returning to part-time again when studying. This was actually happening for 3 years in row. For some reason I thought term time vacations were also applicable to PhD students just the same as masters students (I did my masters in the UK too).

Now that I have applied for a new visa, do ECOs check the number of hours worked to try to detect a breach while processing a new tier 4 visa? What if they realize I worked more hours and yet I "didn't" tick that I had breached previous conditions before..would this amount to me being "deceptive" and thus I am to expect a ban on my reentry into the UK for 10 years while losing all the years, the money and my degree?

No, you dont have to as you were never caught while breaching.

Given my situation I feel more inclined to a wishful thinking that your say is accurate. But what is your reasoning with regards to this matter? They do check hours, dont they?

They do not have the authority to check hours unless there is a record that you were in a breach. Secondly, even if they did, the employer will also be heavily penalised in the range of GBP 20,000 for making a student work illegally. So, be assured the employer will never disclose.

[JB007]

They do not have the authority to check hours unless there is a record that you were in a breach.

They can contact goverment departments and councils to see if they breached their visa and took public funds, so what makes you think they can't check for other breaches?

HMRCs new(Ish) Real Time Information has been a useful asset in finding those who used deception; breached their visa. For RTI, employers must send details to HMRC every time they pay an employee, at the time they pay them.

I don't know what else they check for breach of visas, but for welfare, they only have to suspect there might be fraud or deception, to be able to check everthing, including their (and others) bank statements.

Secondly, even if they did, the employer will also be heavily penalised in the range of GBP 20,000 for making a student work illegally. So, be assured the employer will never disclose.

As UKVI will be the the ones who will decide what happens to that employer, don't you think the employer will comply when they realise they are in UKVI's sights?

[vinny]

There is a nuisance though, rather a big one; during my stay as a PhD student I went on working full time during vacations and at times when I told my supervisor I needed rest for a couple of days from studying. I would take these as vacations and undertake full time posts before returning to part-time again when studying. This was actually happening for 3 years in row. For some reason I thought term time vacations were also applicable to PhD students just the same as masters students (I did my masters in the UK too).

It may rest on whether the definitions of term-time and vacation-time were sufficiently clear.

[Yehia]

They do not have the authority to check hours unless there is a record that you were in a breach.

They can contact goverment departments and councils to see if they breached their visa and took public funds, so what makes you think they can't check for other breaches?

HMRCs new(Ish) Real Time Information has been a useful asset in finding those who used deception; breached their visa. For RTI, employers must send details to HMRC every time they pay an employee, at the time they pay them.

I don't know what else they check for breach of visas, but for welfare, they only have to suspect there might be fraud or deception, to be able to check everthing, including their (and others) bank statements.

Secondly, even if they did, the employer will also be heavily penalised in the range of GBP 20,000 for making a student work illegally. So, be assured the employer will never disclose.

As UKVI will be the the ones who will decide what happens to that employer, don't you think the employer will comply when they realise they are in UKVI's sights?

Let's just be clear that Ukvi can trace almost everything if they want to. I am only concerned whether checking hour is mandatory. Or whether they do that upon finding out payments more appropriate for full timers.

I kind of declared I haven't preached conditions with the retrospective notion that I didn't actually know I was preaching conditions until late at the third year of my studies. I know this might not get me anywhere but I didn't feel like dictating myself to have been in breach and for this to be recorded as part of my immigration history for god knows when.

[Yehia]

There is a nuisance though, rather a big one; during my stay as a PhD student I went on working full time during vacations and at times when I told my supervisor I needed rest for a couple of days from studying. I would take these as vacations and undertake full time posts before returning to part-time again when studying. This was actually happening for 3 years in row. For some reason I thought term time vacations were also applicable to PhD students just the same as masters students (I did my masters in the UK too).

It may rest on whether the definitions of term-time and vacation-time were sufficiently clear.

Unfortunately, PhD students are treated as full time students all over the year and thus no vacation is the clearest of definitions for them. I am only wondering now whey there is a lack of resources of situations of the like on the internet.

[sah10406]

I know this might not get me anywhere but I didn't feel like dictating myself to have been in breach and for this to be recorded as part of my immigration history for god knows when.

Sorry but that is pretty much the textbook definition of deception.

[vinny]

Risky?

[Yehia1]

I know this might not get me anywhere but I didn't feel like dictating myself to have been in breach and for this to be recorded as part of my immigration history for god knows when.

Sorry but that is pretty much the textbook definition of deception.

I suggest that you reread what I put here before throwing the word "deception" twice when one could do.

I "didn't" know I was breaching conditions the time I was working more hours. Declaring I breached conditions would not make clear if I knew I was breaching conditions on purpose or not. As I stated already it would not make much difference whether I did it on purpose or not but it's not a clear cut situation the way your replies seem to suggest.

I take it that ticking I didn't breach conditions is a way of refusing that I had known I was breaching conditions regardless of the consequences. If am to be requested for an interview I would openly declare my situation without "deception".

[QR0228]

I take it that ticking I didn't breach conditions is a way of refusing that I had known I was breaching conditions regardless of the consequences. If am to be requested for an interview I would openly declare my situation without "deception".

If you are already sure that you would declare this breach in the interview, then why not tick the box? If you don't tick the box and then discuss this at the interview, they will certainly realise that you "lied" on the application which is an even riskier move IMO. Whereas if you check that box, you will have an opportunity to explain this situation within the application form itself.

[sah10406]

If you are already sure that you would declare this breach in the interview, then why not tick the box? If you don't tick the box and then discuss this at the interview, they will certainly realise that you "lied" on the application which is an even riskier move IMO. Whereas if you check that box, you will have an opportunity to explain this situation within the application form itself.

Exactly. Hence my warning that it appears to be deception.

[ektan]

I know this might not get me anywhere but I didn't feel like dictating myself to have been in breach and for this to be recorded as part of my immigration history for god knows when.

Sorry but that is pretty much the textbook definition of deception.

I suggest that you reread what I put here before throwing the word "deception" twice when one could do.

I "didn't" know I was breaching conditions the time I was working more hours. Declaring I breached conditions would not make clear if I knew I was breaching conditions on purpose or not. As I stated already it would not make much difference whether I did it on purpose or not but it's not a clear cut situation the way your replies seem to suggest.

I take it that ticking I didn't breach conditions is a way of refusing that I had known I was breaching conditions regardless of the consequences. If am to be requested for an interview I would openly declare my situation without "deception".

Regarding your statement - "I "didn't" know I was breaching conditions the time I was working more hours"
If you had read and understood the question in the application form, then you should have realized that the question wasn't - "Did you know whether you were breaching the conditions of your visa?"
Rather the question was very clear - "Have you ever breached the conditions of your leave, for example, worked without permission or received public funds when you did not have permission of your leave,?"
And the fact of the matter is that at the time of filling out the form, you knew you had breached the conditions. So what should have been your answer you know very well. I dont know what is your point in arguing over it on this forum. You should consult a lawyer and be prepared to face it.

[ektan]

I take it that ticking I didn't breach conditions is a way of refusing that I had known I was breaching conditions regardless of the consequences. If am to be requested for an interview I would openly declare my situation without "deception".

If you are already sure that you would declare this breach in the interview, then why not tick the box? If you don't tick the box and then discuss this at the interview, they will certainly realise that you "lied" on the application which is an even riskier move IMO. Whereas if you check that box, you will have an opportunity to explain this situation within the application form itself.

I think what he means is that should the UKVI find out he breached the conditions and invite him to an interview, then he would give an explanation. But I dont know why they would invite him to an interview after finding out he had lied in the application.