Immigrationboards.com

It seems current granted leave remains valid while an application is Pending. But if you travel, the pending application will be considered withdrawn.

I am curious whether people can think of good reasons for having this rule. What is it aimed at/protecting from? Just trying to understand the rationale, or whether it is YAAR (Yet Another Arbitrary Rule).

RowanDrive wrote: ↑

Tue Feb 14, 2023 9:15 am

It seems current granted leave remains valid while an application is Pending. But if you travel, the pending application will be considered withdrawn.

I am curious whether people can think of good reasons for having this rule. What is it aimed at/protecting from? Just trying to understand the rationale, or whether it is YAAR (Yet Another Arbitrary Rule).

For 1, prior to now, you'd have had to submit your passport alongside your application to the HO. Requesting it to travel out of the UK would have meant withdrawing your application.

Secondly, when you need something from someone, you have to do exactly what they want. You don't have to like it, but whatever rules and regulations they come up with can't be questioned.

Secondly, when you need something from someone, you have to do exactly what they want. You don't have to like it, but whatever rules and regulations they come up with can't be questioned.

No.

RowanDrive wrote: ↑

Tue Feb 14, 2023 9:15 am

It seems current granted leave remains valid while an application is Pending. But if you travel, the pending application will be considered withdrawn.

Based on your previous posts, you applied for a 1 year GTV till September 2023, which is when you become eligible for ILR. So yes, submitting an application before your visa expires will engage Section 3C which means if your visa expires while your application is pending, your GTV visa conditions continue as does your right to remain in the UK. Section 3C of the immigration rules only applies if you remain WITHIN the UK. Section 3C protection ends if you leave the UK, hence you will have no valid leave (or 3C leave) if you leave the UK and won't be able to return as you have no valid visa and the pending application you had will have been withdrawn.

You do of course have the priority or super priority options if you are prepared to pay the extra fees to reduce the waiting time for a decision.

CR001 wrote: ↑

Tue Feb 14, 2023 11:17 am

RowanDrive wrote: ↑

Tue Feb 14, 2023 9:15 am

It seems current granted leave remains valid while an application is Pending. But if you travel, the pending application will be considered withdrawn.

Based on your previous posts, you applied for a 1 year GTV till September 2023, which is when you become eligible for ILR. So yes, submitting an application before your visa expires will engage Section 3C which means if your visa expires while your application is pending, your GTV visa conditions continue as does your right to remain in the UK. Section 3C of the immigration rules only applies if you remain WITHIN the UK. Section 3C protection ends if you leave the UK, hence you will have no valid leave (or 3C leave) if you leave the UK and won't be able to return as you have no valid visa and the pending application you had will have been withdrawn.

You do of course have the priority or super priority options if you are prepared to pay the extra fees to reduce the waiting time for a decision.

Thanks. Yes I am aware of all that. My question is about the rationale (rather than the rules) behind not allowing people with pending applications to travel. As a previous commentator mentioned, if they take your passport, then it makes sense that you'd need to withdraw your application and ask for the passport if you want to travel. But currently you get to keep your passport, and you still can't travel. I know the rules, but I am asking about its utility (assuming there is a reason why a rule becomes a rule).

RowanDrive wrote: ↑

Tue Feb 14, 2023 11:44 am

CR001 wrote: ↑

Tue Feb 14, 2023 11:17 am

RowanDrive wrote: ↑

Tue Feb 14, 2023 9:15 am

It seems current granted leave remains valid while an application is Pending. But if you travel, the pending application will be considered withdrawn.

Based on your previous posts, you applied for a 1 year GTV till September 2023, which is when you become eligible for ILR. So yes, submitting an application before your visa expires will engage Section 3C which means if your visa expires while your application is pending, your GTV visa conditions continue as does your right to remain in the UK. Section 3C of the immigration rules only applies if you remain WITHIN the UK. Section 3C protection ends if you leave the UK, hence you will have no valid leave (or 3C leave) if you leave the UK and won't be able to return as you have no valid visa and the pending application you had will have been withdrawn.

You do of course have the priority or super priority options if you are prepared to pay the extra fees to reduce the waiting time for a decision.

Thanks. Yes I am aware of all that. My question is about the rationale (rather than the rules) behind not allowing people with pending applications to travel. As a previous commentator mentioned, if they take your passport, then it makes sense that you'd need to withdraw your application and ask for the passport if you want to travel. But currently you get to keep your passport, and you still can't travel. I know the rules, but I am asking about its utility (assuming there is a reason why a rule becomes a rule).

The rationale behind it may best be explained by HO, request an FOI or something about it and educate us.

Why is the sky so blue? And yet the clouds so white?
Why is my life so full of unanswerable questions?

Keep in mind that the laws and rules on immigration have evolved organically piecemeal over decades. It was not written down at a single point in time, by one person.

Indeed, I faintly recall a court judgment (that @vinny may be able to link to if they recall it) that said that there is no underlying logic to the immigration rules simply because it has been added to and amended by so many different people over decades.

The original Immigration Rules, then running to about 80 pages, were laid in front of Parliament in May 1994. The list of references of amendments to it then runs a page and a half. See, for instance, Pages 5 & 6 of this Statement of Changes from last year. And the repeated amendments means that the Rules now run to 1000+ pages.

But, in the grand scheme of things, it does not matter. Whatever the rationale of the law, it is not ours to ask why, it is but ours to do or die.

In any case, from an English common law perspective, the rationale of the law is immaterial. It is the text of the law that matters and that is adjudicated on.

The extension of leave if an application is in progress is specifically provided for by Section 3C of the Immigration Act 1971. The withdrawal of an application if the person leaves the UK (or more correctly the Common Travel Area) is provided by Immigration Rule 34K. And that is all that we need to know. The whys and whereofs are irrelevant and immaterial.

Many are keen on reminding me that it doesn't matter. I am asking out of curiosity. It is good (for me at least) to understand the underlying logic if it exists. I understand that at the end of the day case officers follow the text and not the logic.

That being said. I don't think the rules being what they are should prevent us from having a discussion about them, their underlying logic, the utilities and drawbacks of each them, and dare I say maybe try to change them. That's how systems evolve and it starts by affected people discussing them.

So while a rule does not need to make sense or have an underlying logic for me to abide by it, I believe we should strive for a system where the rules and laws make sense. If I wanna get philosophical, that's the fundamental idea about the Rule of The Law which the UK praises itself of championing. But I understand with immigration rules and laws, it is tricky because the people affected by them have no say in them.

One example I also find arbitrary how £2400 guarantees a decision in up to 6 months, but if you fork just an extra £800 you get it the next day. Given that every priority application pushes standard application to the back of the queue extending its time, should this be legal? And what is the cost structure. Why does it cost so much money and effort to do this processing. It doesn't matter, I will pay, but I'd like to question.

RowanDrive wrote: ↑

Tue Feb 14, 2023 1:37 pm

Many are keen on reminding me that it doesn't matter. I am asking out of curiosity. It is good (for me at least) to understand the underlying logic if it exists. I understand that at the end of the day case officers follow the text and not the logic

I understand your need to understand the underlying logic. The need to understand the underlying logic before acting drives me as well.

However, as I mentioned, there is no benefit in this case to understanding the logic, as our required behaviour is dictated not by the underlying logic, but by the behaviour of the Home Office officials who will implement the text of the law.

Therefore, the logic that we need to understand in this case is, if I do not follow the letter of the law (regardless of the logic), there will be negative consequences for me. Sometimes, that is all the logic that is relevant.

RowanDrive wrote: ↑

Tue Feb 14, 2023 1:37 pm

we should strive for a system where the rules and laws make sense. If I wanna get philosophical, that's the fundamental idea about the Rule of The Law which the UK praises itself of championing.

That is not the Rule of Law as others may understand it. The Rule of Law as I would understand is is that the government is as bound by the law as I am.

Rules and laws will invariably not make sense. They are the outcome of compromises made either behind closed doors or in open in the legislature. Many cooks spoil the broth and that is often seen in laws, across the world.

Also a country with a continuous and stable history like the UK's means that laws of the past live on decades and centuries after any person who could explain their logic has long passed away. Napoleon ensured that that was not the case on the continent.

We don't live in the era or under the rule of philosopher-kings. Indeed, if we live under popular sovereignty (the people are the supreme sovereign), I shudder to think what term I would use to describe the populace of almost every country in the world.

RowanDrive wrote: ↑

Tue Feb 14, 2023 1:37 pm

But I understand with immigration rules and laws, it is tricky because the people affected by them have no say in tjem.

Resident non-British Commonwealth citizens (so, Indian, Pakistani and Nigerian students and spouses, etc) do have the vote in all elections, EU citizens in some elections. So that is not entirely true.

RowanDrive wrote: ↑

Tue Feb 14, 2023 1:37 pm

One example I also find arbitrary how £2400 guarantees a decision in up to 6 months, but if you fork just an extra £800 you get it the next day.

That's dead easy to explain. The government wants your money and can prioritise the processing of applications for a fee.

That is also why priority and super-priority slots are so scarce. There is only a finite amount of prioritising possible. One can't put everybody at the front of the queue. In that case, there is no queue, just a melee.