| This article intends to focus on two key aspects of an | | | | the initial refusal and the application were again to be |
| extension application, namely the importance of lodging | | | | refused, the applicant may by then have become an |
| (a) an in-time and also (b) a valid application. These | | | | over-stayer resulting in a re-entry ban of at least one |
| two very different issues both merit careful | | | | year if he/she were to leave voluntarily the UK. |
| consideration. | | | | Finally, still on the subject of application form, it cannot |
| In order to make a successful extension application, | | | | be stressed enough how important it is to answer |
| migrants will need to show that they and their | | | | truthfully and accurately to any questions listed on the |
| dependants are able to meet the relevant immigration | | | | form since an omission or a failure to disclose any |
| requirements. However, this is not per se sufficient to | | | | information, may lead to a presumption of deception |
| be granted further leave to remain in the UK since the | | | | leading to a possible re-entry ban and prejudice any |
| UK Border Agency will routinely refuse applications | | | | future applications. In FW (Paragraph 322: untruthful |
| unless accompanied by the correct fee(s) together | | | | answer) Kenya [2010] UKUT 165 (IAC) the Upper |
| with the correct and up-to-date form(s). The easiest | | | | Tribunal took a belligerent approach on what might be |
| way to understand why is so important to satisfy (a) | | | | a false representation and a material non-disclosure |
| and (b) mentioned above is to consider what might | | | | ruling that "When a direct question is asked, and |
| happen when an applicant fails to comply. | | | | answered untruthfully, there is both a false |
| When an application is not submitted in-time, migrants | | | | representation and a non-disclosure; and it is not open |
| will usually lose their right to appeal. Therefore, they will | | | | to an Appellant who gives an untruthful answer to a |
| not be able to request an immigration judge to apply | | | | direct question in an application form to say that the |
| their own judgment as to the merit of the refusal and | | | | matter was not material." |
| the supporting evidence under section 85(4). Further, | | | | However, the Upper Tribunal in US and MV (PBS - |
| even when an application is approved following a late | | | | applicants from same family) Malaysia [2010] UKUT |
| submission, namely after the expiry of one's leave, the | | | | 167 (IAC) has decided to use a more grounded |
| applicant would have by then incurred a gap in his | | | | approach in ruling that "There is no proper basis for the |
| "continous" residence and thus a break in the five | | | | Secretary of State to treat a valid application as |
| years period leading to settlement under a working or | | | | invalidated by the presence in the same envelope of |
| PBS category or worse a gap in the 10 years period | | | | an invalid application by a member of the same family." |
| under the long residence. This might also have an | | | | This is a welcome decision and a break from the past, |
| impact on their eligibility to naturalise as British Citizens. | | | | however it remains paramount to seek professional |
| A similar outcome may result when the application is | | | | legal advice before submitting any application bundle, |
| deemed invalid i.e. the form is out-of-date or is meant | | | | particularly in case of doubts or concerns with one's |
| to be used for a different category. Further, if one | | | | immigration history, status or compliance. |
| were to re-submit an application after 28 days from | | | | |