Immigrationboards.com

Or is there nothing to worry about?

My (EEA DCPR) application has been refused, either because they didn't pay attention to what I said in the application form or because I confused them.

Basically for a number of months after graduation I was abroad. My absence was not long enough to break the residency requirement. Upon my return I started interviewing (and I kept applying to jobs) and withing a couple of weeks I started work.

The issue is that I started sending emails and applying to jobs in the UK before I returned to England. So in a was I was a "jobseeker", but from abroad. As a result, I included some emails that I sent while abroad. My reasoning was to show that upon my return I was immediately a jobseeker, since I had applied to jobs from abroad and basically I was at that point waiting for interviews. Which is exactly what happened.

They refused my application saying that I had not shown evidence that I was employed before [insert date when I returned to England]. But I wasn't in England in the first place! And I made it clear in my application that I was not in England until shortly before I started work. But for some reason they still refused me for not showing evidence of employment before that time. They probably thought "OK, this guy included some emails, maybe because he was in England at this point", completely disregarding the page that said that I was not in England until much later.

Will this cause issues if I apply a second time? Will they want evidence that I was not in England?

Thanks for your time!

HO now plays hardball in area of jobseekers.
What was your status before going abroad?

The concept of Job seeker in the Treaty, as interpreted by the CJEU, does not incorporate a person who is outside the host state.

By showing them letter that you were seeking job, when outside UK, you gave them the impression that you were in the UK.

Notwithstanding your mistake, they seem to be wrong too. They are proceeding on the old regulation, which precludes a person being a jobseeker twice, and only made provision for people who initially entered the UK for that purpose.

They are confusing your position with a worker, who maintains their status after losing their job.

noajthan wrote:HO now plays hardball in area of jobseekers.
What was your status before going abroad?

Thanks for your reply!

I was a student! I didn't have CSI, because I am one of the "special" cases where I had a yellow registration certificate (issued as student) before 20.06.2011. They still refused me for lack of CSI anyway, but this is slightly easier to fight so I'm not worried.

To sum up: I was a student for 3 years, then I was absent for a few months, then I returned and found a job within 2 weeks. So basically the main reason for refusal was that during the time when I was actually absent I didn't provide any evidence of work Well I wasn't even here in the first place!

Obie wrote:The concept of Job seeker in the Treaty, as interpreted by the CJEU, does not incorporate a person who is outside the host state.

By showing them letter that you were seeking job, when outside UK, you gave them the impression that you were in the UK.

Notwithstanding your mistake, they seem to be wrong too. They are proceeding on the old regulation, which precludes a person being a jobseeker twice, and only made provision for people who initially entered the UK for that purpose.

They are confusing your position with a worker, who maintains their status after losing their job.

Thanks Obie! I'm preparing a new application and I will include rock solid information, including the regulations and extracts from their own documents.

Do you think it's likely I'll get in trouble for the confusion in my initial application? As in they refuse me in the second application because I hadn't clarified the confusion in the initial one? Should I mention "jobseeking from abroad" in the second application?

You may be best advised to appeal. Some of these caseworker will refuse on the basis of their previous colleague, even if their colleague was wrong.