URGENT - issue with work

[noajthan]

I only got the job offer. And is literally my dream job. They agreed to hold the offer until next Friday. I think it's very unlikely I will be able to provide any prof.

The RC is your proof!

[psuch2]

I only got the job offer. And is literally my dream job. They agreed to hold the offer until next Friday. I think it's very unlikely I will be able to provide any prof.

Are you not even going to suggest they call the Employer Checking Service in the link I posted?

Hello Casa. Yes I will

[psuch2]

I only got the job offer. And is literally my dream job. They agreed to hold the offer until next Friday. I think it's very unlikely I will be able to provide any prof.

The RC is your proof!

They insist is not enough. Because I mentioned I am separated from my wife in the interview process.
So I got the job offer from the manager, but when. The Hr person went to prepare my contract, even though I gave her my RC, she asked for prof my wife is still in the country, because are separated.

[Obie]

Are they not aware of Diatta

[psuch2]

Are they not aware of Diatta

That's is some interesting read. I will put this forward to my employer. At this point, I lost any faith I will get the job, but it's worth a try.

[Richard W]

In order to avoid a considerable fine, your prospective employer is legally required to ask for proof that you are permitted to work and to show that proof to Home Office officers on request. You right to work depends on what your sponsor (wife) is doing here, as does your application for PR.

While the reason you give is perfectly correct, the employer is in no way required to ask for proof that the prospective employee is permitted to work. Rather, to establish a statutory excuse, he must be shown certain prescribed indications that the prospective employee is permitted to work, such as an RC.

In the meantime, for your immediate issue with your job offer ask you prospective employer to call the UKVI Employer Checking Service to confirm your right to work.
https://www.gov.uk/employee-immigration ... ent-status

Wow! Will they actually confirm that a spouse is currently in work?

The Residence Card, unless revoked, remains a valid documents. Employer has no right to ask you to provide evidence of your wife.

I think the problem is that HR suspects that the company may have 'reasonable cause to believe' that the OP's spouse is no longer working in the UK. The 'HR girl' may actually be risking a prison sentence. Are there useful authoritative statements as to what does not constitute 'reasonable cause to believe'? For example, there are suggestions that failure to complete the 'right-to-work' checks for a non-EEA employee may lead to prosecution if the employee is found to have no right to work. As another example, I can find this on one law firm's site:

The onus will now be on the employer to take steps at an earlier stage to suspend an employee pending an internal investigation into the employee’s immigration status, if the employee is unable or unwilling to provide satisfactory evidence of their continued right to work in the UK.

Some confusion may have been created because of a suspicion that the law would have been strengthened to "reasonable cause to suspect" by the time the bill became law: this did not happen.

[ptstream]

if we go down this route then a RC becomes nearly useless if employers don't accept it, as it's issued precisely to non-EEA nationals.

[Casa]

In order to avoid a considerable fine, your prospective employer is legally required to ask for proof that you are permitted to work and to show that proof to Home Office officers on request. You right to work depends on what your sponsor (wife) is doing here, as does your application for PR.

While the reason you give is perfectly correct, the employer is in no way required to ask for proof that the prospective employee is permitted to work. Rather, to establish a statutory excuse, he must be shown certain prescribed indications that the prospective employee is permitted to work, such as an RC.
"You could face a civil penalty if you employ an illegal worker and haven’t carried out a correct right to work check."
https://www.gov.uk/check-job-applicant-right-to-work

In the meantime, for your immediate issue with your job offer ask you prospective employer to call the UKVI Employer Checking Service to confirm your right to work.
https://www.gov.uk/employee-immigration ... ent-status

Wow! Will they actually confirm that a spouse is currently in work? You know what Oscar Wilde said about sarcasm

The Residence Card, unless revoked, remains a valid documents. Employer has no right to ask you to provide evidence of your wife.

I think the problem is that HR suspects that the company may have 'reasonable cause to believe' that the OP's spouse is no longer working in the UK. The 'HR girl' may actually be risking a prison sentence. Are there useful authoritative statements as to what does not constitute 'reasonable cause to believe'? For example, there are suggestions that failure to complete the 'right-to-work' checks for a non-EEA employee may lead to prosecution if the employee is found to have no right to work. As another example, I can find this on one law firm's site:

The onus will now be on the employer to take steps at an earlier stage to suspend an employee pending an internal investigation into the employee’s immigration status, if the employee is unable or unwilling to provide satisfactory evidence of their continued right to work in the UK.

The HR 'girl' ( ) won't face a prison sentence as an employee of the company. The penalty would be on the employer.
Some confusion may have been created because of a suspicion that the law would have been strengthened to "reasonable cause to suspect" by the time the bill became law: this did not happen.

[noajthan]

if we go down this route then a RC becomes nearly useless if employers don't accept it, as it's issued precisely to non-EEA nationals.

+1

And unclear how any of the 'analysis' above actually helps OP; its the employer who needs convincing not people here.

The only consolation is, if employer is so unaware and ignorant of this (and how many other vital areas), would OP/anyone really want to work for them.

[psuch2]

if we go down this route then a RC becomes nearly useless if employers don't accept it, as it's issued precisely to non-EEA nationals.

+1

And unclear how any of the 'analysis' above actually helps OP; its the employer who needs convincing not people here.

The only consolation is, if employer is so unaware and ignorant of this (and how many other vital areas), would OP/anyone really want to work for them.

I see what you mean when you say would I really want to work for them. It's a great job, the pay is awesome and they would also fund my university degree.

Meanwhile, I found out where ny ex wife works. I will forward that information to the HR and suggest they contact her employer HR, they will sure be able to confirm she resides un the country. Hopefully that would do the trick.

[Richard W]

The dark blue text is from Casa.

In order to avoid a considerable fine, your prospective employer is legally required to ask for proof that you are permitted to work and to show that proof to Home Office officers on request. You right to work depends on what your sponsor (wife) is doing here, as does your application for PR.

While the reason you give is perfectly correct, the employer is in no way required to ask for proof that the prospective employee is permitted to work. Rather, to establish a statutory excuse, he must be shown certain prescribed indications that the prospective employee is permitted to work, such as an RC.
"You could face a civil penalty if you employ an illegal worker and haven’t carried out a correct right to work check."
https://www.gov.uk/check-job-applicant-right-to-work

A British EEA residence card does not prove the right to work - it only attests to the state of affairs near the time of issue - but it provides a statutory excuse. Visas are close to proof, but may have been revoked.

The point was that the OP should not need to prove that he has the right to work, but merely ensure that the employer has no reasonable cause to believe that he no longer has it. I am confident that if he accomplishes that, then the statutory excuse he can furnish (has furnished?) will remain valid. Indeed, it may still require actual knowledge by the employer that the employee has no right to work to invalidate the excuse.

In the meantime, for your immediate issue with your job offer ask you prospective employer to call the UKVI Employer Checking Service to confirm your right to work.
https://www.gov.uk/employee-immigration ... ent-status

Wow! Will they actually confirm that a spouse is currently in work?You know what Oscar Wilde said about sarcasm

I'm puzzled by the original suggestion. Unless it was simply a mistake, how else did you, Casa, expect such a call to help? I don't know that they won't check, but I'll be pleasantly astounded if they will assist when an employer knows too much for his own comfort.

The HR 'girl' ( ) won't face a prison sentence as an employee of the company. The penalty would be on the employer.

I didn't much like Obie's dismissive phrase ('HR girl') either.

As to who would be prosecuted, see Section 22 of the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006. In particular:

(1)For the purposes of section 21(1) a body (whether corporate or not) shall be treated as knowing a fact about an employee if a person who has responsibility within the body for an aspect of the employment knows the fact.

(2)If an offence under section 21(1) is committed by a body corporate with the consent or connivance of an officer of the body, the officer, as well as the body, shall be treated as having committed the offence.

HR are threatened; too much knowledge is bad for their peace of mind.

[Richard W]

if we go down this route then a RC becomes nearly useless if employers don't accept it, as it's issued precisely to non-EEA nationals.

The problem is that if the sponsor simply leaves the UK, the holder has not achieved permanent residence, divorce proceedings have not started, and there are no children at school in the UK, then the holder would usually not be able to work legally anyway. If the employer discovers the circumstances, and there is no route to remain lawfully, then the employer will be acting criminally if he allows employment to continue.

The problem lies with the meaning of 'reasonable cause to believe' - I've seen claims that the meaning in this context is legally undecided. In the US, the courts are divided on the meaning of the phrase, which bodes ill. I agree with Noajthan on this - telling HR everything is dangerous. It could be worse - there were suggestions that the test would be made 'reasonable cause to suspect'.