- FAQ
- Login
- Register
- Call Workpermit.com for a paid service +44 (0)344-991-9222
ESC
Welcome to immigrationboards.com!
Moderators: Casa, John, ChetanOjha, archigabe, CR001, push, JAJ, ca.funke, Amber, zimba, vinny, Obie, EUsmileWEallsmile, batleykhan, meself2, geriatrix
Obie is a ModeratorObie wrote:I do not support their contention. You had section 3C rights, as they had withdrawn the impugned decision. Therefore the new application you made was a variation of the last application, and therefore your section 3C only elapses now that you received this decision.
That is my position. It they withdraw part or a whole of a decision, it indicates the decision remain extant, awaiting a lawful decision.
Your solicitor is right. Your 3C is broken now after you got the refusal and you are an overstayer.ankkss wrote:honestly i dont know how 3c works. but when home office solicitor did the consent order in there he mentioned valid out of time application chance.
n my solicitor said ur 3c is broken after current refusal but u can still get ilr if u apply within 14 days.
OkCasa wrote:Obie is a ModeratorObie wrote:I do not support their contention. You had section 3C rights, as they had withdrawn the impugned decision. Therefore the new application you made was a variation of the last application, and therefore your section 3C only elapses now that you received this decision.
That is my position. It they withdraw part or a whole of a decision, it indicates the decision remain extant, awaiting a lawful decision.
Sorry, appreciate you are facing stress and unfortunately there is no good news.ankkss wrote:i spoke to an agent about my case... and it didnt made sense to me
he said
You will be regarded as breaking your residence
As the last application was made out of time but within 28 days which has been refused, so continuous residence will be broken
The 28 days still means you were an overstayer just that it wouldn't be refused because of a 28 day grace period
But when you make an application within 28 days of your leave expiring you are still regarded as being an overstayer unless the application is successful
Which it wasn't
Because the out of time application failed it has broken the chain
u never had 3c
Obie wrote:I do not support their contention. You had section 3C rights, as they had withdrawn the impugned decision. Therefore the new application you made was a variation of the last application, and therefore your section 3C only elapses now that you received this decision.
That is my position. It they withdraw part or a whole of a decision, it indicates the decision remain extant, awaiting a lawful decision.
Yes, I did read your main post. There were a few critical dates missing in that though.ankkss wrote:Marcnath... pls read my main post...
Macrnath.. since October 2015 I applied Ar (which was refused)marcnath wrote:Yes, I did read your main post. There were a few critical dates missing in that though.ankkss wrote:Marcnath... pls read my main post...
Your application on 21 august (2015, I assume) was rejected. You don't have the dates for the rejection and the AR in the main post.
But, based on your HO letter which I assume was somewhere in October/November 2016 (again, you have not stated the date for that), it appears the original rejection was on 12 October 2015.
All that letter stated was that HO would not refuse your application made within 28 days of that letter. It was clear there that the application would be as an overstayer, so you did not have Section 3C protection.
My interpretation differs from @obie. To me, it appears that HO only withdrew the finding of deception but not the refusal decision, which still stood.
Again, it is not totally clear from your original post, but it looked like you did not proceed with the JR, but instead had a mutual agreement with HO to remove the deception finding and reapply.
I edited my earlier response after you submitted these new posts. But your replies reinforces my interpretation.ankkss wrote:Home office removed para 320(7b) and deception but the reason they can't remove 322(1a) was because cos was actually false but given the evidence provided to police, home office n oisc.
Macbethmarcnath wrote:I edited my earlier response after you submitted these new posts. But your replies reinforces my interpretation.ankkss wrote:Home office removed para 320(7b) and deception but the reason they can't remove 322(1a) was because cos was actually false but given the evidence provided to police, home office n oisc.
You withdrew the JR, so there was no decision made there.
@obie's position was " It they withdraw part or a whole of a decision, it indicates the decision remain extant"
Whether withdrawing one of the reasons satisfies that condition is something I am not clear about. I personally think not, because any one of those is sufficient to make the decision. But @obie is more experienced, so I could be wrong.
Either way, when you have conflicting opinions, your only option is to apply and see what HO will come back with.