Mr C relied on UKVI's guidance but this information was at odds with Immigration Rules

What happened

Mr C committed a criminal offence between spring and early summer 2011, for which he was convicted in mid-2012.

In summer 2013 Mr C applied for indefinite leave to remain in the UK using the premium same day service, which cost just over £6,000 for him and his family. He applied at this time because UKVI's guidance said that the application had to be more than two years after the offence.Mr C said his offence was more than two years ago(by one day) as it had happened in summer2011.

But UKVI refused Mr C's application because the Immigration Rules said that it should be refused if an applicant had been convicted of a crime within two years, and this was not so.

Mr C complained to UKVI but it explained that he did not qualify for indefinite leave to remain under the Immigration Rules. UKVI also noted that Mr C signed a declaration stating that he was aware of the Immigration Rules at the time.

When he complained, Mr C said that UKVI did not put the situation right.

In winter 2013 Mr C successfully applied to extend his leave to remain in the UK.

What we found

Although Mr C had also signed a declaration that he understood UKVI's rules in his application, it was reasonable for him to have relied on UKVI's guidance that he could put in his application two years from his offence.

Mr C had applied for indefinite leave to remain two years and one day after he had committed the offence as UKVI's guidance stated.  This was at variance with the Immigration Rules that the application had to be put in two years after the date of conviction.

We noted that there were other misleading references in UKVI's guidance.

UKVI did not listen to the complaint when Mr C first contacted it and failed to address his complaint. It had not corrected the guidance.

Putting it right

UKVI apologised to Mr C for misleading him and for not fully responding to his complaint. It agreed to reimburse Mr C the cost of submitting his application, with interest. It also agreed to pay £250 compensation to Mr C for the inconvenience and distress that its actions had caused him and his family.

UKVI will review its guidance in relation to applications for visas/indefinite leave to remain/leave to remain where non-custodial convictions and offences which have been admitted need to be declared. This is so that terminology is clearly defined and the guidance properly reflects the Immigration Rules.