urgent guidance on ILR

[Obie]

This is complete non-sense and makes no sense to me, and i do not understand why a competent legal practitioner will suggest you take such an offer.

It is either they withdraw 322(1A) or they do not. They cannot say we withdraw deception but will maintain 322(1A).

It makes no sense. It is like saying I am going to withdraw the decision that you used fraud, but i will still maintain that you are a fraudster.

In my experience, many of these cases ends, in the SSHD saying, they will withdraw the decision and allow you 28 days to vary into another category. That is the sensible approach to adopt.

I cannot understand for the sake of my sanity, why the lawyer, will say we will allow the old decision to maintain without a right of appeal, but will allow him to make another application within 28 days.

Such a concession will not be worthy of the paper on which it was made, and should never had been accepted. It should have been outrightly rejected and the matter proceed to trial.


My understanding of the case, which has been my understanding when dealing with PBS cases, is that the Home Office issue a 60 days leave to the individual after the impugned decision has been successfully challenged, giving them an opportunity to vary the terms of their leave into another category.

If however you and your lawyer accepted, a term that your case has been decided, and the only concession they will give, is permission to make a new application within 28 days. That is just stupid, and appears to let the Home Office off the hook, and gives you nothing in return.

It is such a senseless thing to do, to the extent i was advising on the basis that such a thing could not have been done by a sensible practitioner.

[marcnath]

I can't explain how I gone through in this period. It was like hell.

Really sorry to hear and I can't imagine what you have been going through. I know the tensions we went through our own process and that was even with nothing that we really should have worried about. So I know the process is tense one.

And you must have experienced it multi-fold. Not something I would wish on anyone.

@obie is correct, accepting HO's offer last year seems to have been a poor choice. It appears you were the one defrauded by someone giving you a faulty CoS. HO admitted as such by removing your deception.

You would have been in a better position if you had got another Tier 2 sponsor anytime in the last year and varied your FLR(O).

But now that has all gone by. I am not what your options are. Another JR that also argues that your initial lawyer was incompetent in advising you to accept the HO proposal ? Hope you get some good solicitor.

Wish you good luck - keep up your strength and keep fighting.

[Obie]

This case is becoming increasingly confusing to me. How can an offer be accepted, which essentially allows Home Office to refuse under the same provision. It makes no sense. So long as 322(1A) remains, you will continue to get refusal for up to 100 years.

How can a competent person in good conscience accepts such preposition. I just can't understand. I don't even believe Secretary of State counsel will actually advise that.

[ankkss]

This is complete non-sense and makes no sense to me, and i do not understand why a competent legal practitioner will suggest you take such an offer.

It is either they withdraw 322(1A) or they do not. They cannot say we withdraw deception but will maintain 322(1A).

It makes no sense. It is like saying I am going to withdraw the decision that you used fraud, but i will still maintain that you are a fraudster.

In my experience, many of these cases ends, in the SSHD saying, they will withdraw the decision and allow you 28 days to vary into another category. That is the sensible approach to adopt.

I cannot understand for the sake of my sanity, why the lawyer, will say we will allow the old decision to maintain without a right of appeal, but will allow him to make another application within 28 days.


so i don't have any other choice ?
have already applied new application

Such a concession will not be worthy of the paper on which it was made, and should never had been accepted. It should have been outrightly rejected and the matter proceed to trial.


My understanding of the case, which has been my understanding when dealing with PBS cases, is that the Home Office issue a 60 days leave to the individual after the impugned decision has been successfully challenged, giving them an opportunity to vary the terms of their leave into another category.

If however you and your lawyer accepted, a term that your case has been decided, and the only concession they will give, is permission to make a new application within 28 days. That is just stupid, and appears to let the Home Office off the hook, and gives you nothing in return.

It is such a senseless thing to do, to the extent i was advising on the basis that such a thing could not have been done by a sensible practitioner.

[ankkss]

This is complete non-sense and makes no sense to me, and i do not understand why a competent legal practitioner will suggest you take such an offer.

It is either they withdraw 322(1A) or they do not. They cannot say we withdraw deception but will maintain 322(1A).

It makes no sense. It is like saying I am going to withdraw the decision that you used fraud, but i will still maintain that you are a fraudster.

In my experience, many of these cases ends, in the SSHD saying, they will withdraw the decision and allow you 28 days to vary into another category. That is the sensible approach to adopt.

I cannot understand for the sake of my sanity, why the lawyer, will say we will allow the old decision to maintain without a right of appeal, but will allow him to make another application within 28 days.


so i don't have any other choice ?
have already applied new application

Such a concession will not be worthy of the paper on which it was made, and should never had been accepted. It should have been outrightly rejected and the matter proceed to trial.


My understanding of the case, which has been my understanding when dealing with PBS cases, is that the Home Office issue a 60 days leave to the individual after the impugned decision has been successfully challenged, giving them an opportunity to vary the terms of their leave into another category.

If however you and your lawyer accepted, a term that your case has been decided, and the only concession they will give, is permission to make a new application within 28 days. That is just stupid, and appears to let the Home Office off the hook, and gives you nothing in return.

It is such a senseless thing to do, to the extent i was advising on the basis that such a thing could not have been done by a sensible practitioner.

so i don't have choice now and my 10 years broken ?

[marcnath]

This case is becoming increasingly confusing to me. How can an offer be accepted, which essentially allows Home Office to refuse under the same provision. It makes no sense. So long as 322(1A) remains, you will continue to get refusal for up to 100 years.

How can a competent person in good conscience accepts such preposition. I just can't understand. I don't even believe Secretary of State counsel will actually advise that.

I thought a 322(1A) decision only applies to the application under consideration. It should not disqualify future applications in a manner that deception would.

[ankkss]

m i still qualify for ilr or not.....

[ankkss]

let me make very clear
322(1a)
they said will only consider for tier 2 application, not for future application.
but thats not my point
am i still eligible for ilr if i apply within 14 days ?

[marcnath]

let me make very clear
322(1a)
they said will only consider for tier 2 application, not for future application.
but thats not my point
am i still eligible for ilr if i apply within 14 days ?

Unfortunately, the only people who can answer that definitely is UKVI themselves.
We can have our opinions - my opinion, regretfully, is that you are not eligible.
But you will only know for sure once you apply.

[Obie]

If the refusal does not have merit, then you can challenge it. And if successful, you will get back to the previous situation.

I was under the impression that you were given an opportunity to vary.

Every competent advisers, lawyer's or barrister uses PATEL to fight for the right of their client to be given an opportunity to vary. If your lawyer was sensible, he should have proceed in challenging the November decision on Patel grounds, and if there was a consent order, seek to have it amended.

The picture i have now, is that if your lawyer allowed you to proceed on the basis that you will be applying as a person whose leave has elapse as opposed to a variation, then that is unlawful.

You could apply for ILR and challenge a refusal on Patel grounds and see how it goes.

I have been involved with 2 Tier 2 sponsor, and in one the Home Office granted a leave of 60 days, and in the other, they gave 60 days to get a new sponsor and vary.

In your case, you were given the worst possible deal, and it is a shame a bit more fight was not put up for you.

[ankkss]

Thanks obie

Pls bring light to this

Current refusal date 04/07/17
Date I recieved 07/07/17

I varied my application on 05/07/17
Date home recieved 07/07/17