please advise....new grounds for asylum

[karamjit]

Hi I hope someone can advise on my husbands situation.
My Husband went back to India March 4th 2008 to apply through the proper channels as he had enter uk illegally in 2001. He was refused on the grounds of the 320 (B) as he has returned before the 17th of march and did not come into the concession period that was from March 17th - october.
I was then told the 320 (b) rule has been banised and those that were refused under the 320 (b) rule can claim visa however, my husbands case went in to enquiry as he had claimed asylum when he came into the UK.
We had disclosed everything to the EC officer at the time of the interview and she mentioned that she was happy with the interview and wth all the paper work that I can support my husband but she was refusing the case because he returned back before the 17th march.

Can some one advise what I should do as my husband and I have been married for 5yrs. We married in 2002 and filled his case in 2004. We only got a response back from the Homeoffice in feb 2008 for my husband to return back to India on a temporary bases to apply through the proper channels. My husband returned back volentarily and now he's out there for the past 5 months and I'm here. I've returned back to India again recently to enquire from Dehli about the status of the case and they have said they are waiting for the new guidlines for those that claimed asylum.
Please advise what I can do in the mean time to speed the process.

[Wanderer]

On what grounds did he claim asylum? I suppose the HO could argue since he went back his claim must be false thereby he used deception therefore liable for a ban.

Dunno what others think....

[Mr Rusty]

On what grounds did he claim asylum? I suppose the HO could argue since he went back his claim must be false thereby he used deception therefore liable for a ban.

Dunno what others think....

OP states her husband entered illegally, which could disqualify him for up to a year if he left voluntarily at his own expense, longer if he didn't pay for it himself. Just because an asylum claim is refused doesn't necessarily imply deception, it could have been refused because the circumstances described by the applicant didn't fall within the scope of the relevant Conventions. I can't imagine the ECO's are back-tracking and checking on the reasons for asylum refusals before reaching such decisions.

BUT Para 7C says that 7b refusals don't apply to spouse or civil partner applications, so I don't claim to understand what's going on here.