New application = cancellation of current leave?

Thank goodness...but it still doesn't make that rule fair.

I already posted about this.  It is in the new bill.  Do you guys not read my stuff?   

For this interested newcomer: where have you posted about this?

The question is how do you stop the abuse that's going on?  

Any better ways?  That are actually both palatable and workable?

What abuse is that? I just don't see what's wrong with keeping the system of a new leave replacing an old leave, rather than just an application cancelling old leave.

The question is how do you stop the abuse that's going on?  

Any better ways?  That are actually both palatable and workable?

There is nothing wrong with the current way.

if the new application is refused because fo deceit then the previous leave is curtailed.  If it is refused because of missing docs or not meeting the criteria then it is unfair for the previous leave to be curtailed.  If there is no breach of rules, what is the problem?

Vicky

For this interested newcomer: where have you posted about this?

Last August...

http://talk.uk-yankee.com/index.php?topic=46104.msg656295#msg656295

Hidden in a work permit thread!

I'd still like to see the actual legislation if you have the relevent paragraph to hand.

Vicky

Hidden in a work permit thread!

I'd still like to see the actual legislation if you have the relevent paragraph to hand.

I don't actually walk around with the draft legislation.  Indexed and cross-indexed.  Why not try reading the bill yourself?

What a STRANGE thread!

I don't see what's so strange about wanting to know whether it's worth trying to switch visas and what will happen if one does! I did have a read through the draft bill, and I didn't find it. It must be in legalese that I'm not understanding or something

I don't actually walk around with the draft legislation.  Indexed and cross-indexed.  Why not try reading the bill yourself?

What a STRANGE thread!

To be fair, August was before I started coming back... 

And I don't think (or hope) that Vicky means RIGHT NOW, but when you get a chance, if you could please enlighten us with the book and verse of the draft legislation so we can go "oh the F did we miss something like that".

Of course I don't mean right now.  I thought that you might have an idea of where I could find it, so I don't have to read through the entire Bill (whilst at home with a stinking rotten cold, drugged up to my eyeballs on lemsip).


Vicky

Sorry for causing any upset, hon.  

Background.  At issue is that the current rules about in-country applications to switch or for FLR are being horribly abused by people using a loophole to build up an Article 8 claim to personal life.  It's just flat-out abusing the system.

They are going to close that loophole to stop such abuse.  Even if the bill does not pass, this has still been Commanded.

To your point:  you need a provision to continue working while your app is decided.  I think that's fine.  The question is how to do that?

eta: "hon" = super, nobody else   

To your point:  you need a provision to continue working while your app is decided.  I think that's fine.  The question is how to do that?

Um, yeah. Otherwise what happens to someone applying for ILR on the basis of a work permit?!

Also, would cancellation of existing leave constitute a break in permission for purposes of ILR/citizenship? Say I have a WP for three years on a fixed-term contract, then get a permanent job and need a new permit. Would the ILR clock be reset?

I have no problem with closing loopholes to prevent abuse, but I can see a number of ways it could go horribly wrong...

eta: "hon" = super, nobody else   

Damn, and I thought you were calling me hon for a second...   

Yep, those concerns sounds pretty right Elynor. I guess I'm also somewhat confused about how there is a loophole. If someone has valid, legally-obtained leave in one category and has plenty of time left, but for whatever valid, legal reason wants to switch to another category (eg from work permit to Tier 1 for flexibility/protection in case of job loss, or gets genuinely married and wants to partake of the benefits of being a spouse), how is that open to massive abuse? Let's say someone on a student visa gets married halfway through his course- if the spouse applications fails, for instance because of finance, he would then be forced to quit his course- indeed, would have to quit while the application was pending, and would thus be in breach of his initial leave, and not only be an overstayer, but also could be seen as having contrived to frustrate the rules and can be banned! Oh, and this still would not prevent them from having an Article 8 case, so all it does is clog up the system and mess with people's lives. This is an extreme worst-case scenario I know, but the last year spent on immigration forums has taught me to expect the worst from the HO