As you know, Jana Dankovicova is due to start work with us on Thursday.
DfEE has granted a work permit, Personnel has drawn up the contract,
everything has been going smoothly.
But.
Today the Home Office has refused the work permit ("no appeal"), on the
grounds that she is switching status from student to employee, and
therefore needs to leave the country for 3 weeks, be sent the work permit,
then come back into Britain with it.
This is complete nonsense. She has already been through this with her
previous job in Oxford. We have copious documentation, including her
current work permit, which expires on 30 Sept.
However, although the Home Office now acknowledge that this work permit
exists on record, they claim it was never "activated", and is therefore
invalid. To activate it she needed a special stamp in her passport from
when she re-entered the country to take up employment.
I've just spoken to Jana, who rang from her new flat in London, where she
has just arrived with all her worldly goods. Naturally, she is devastated.
On the occasion when she re-entered Britain, she presented her work
permit, but was told by an Immigration Officer at Heathrow that since she
already had a student visa extension to 30 Sept, no revised passport stamp
was required, and that as long as she hung on to the work permit paper all
would be well. She was surprised to be told this, but assumed he knew what
he was talking about. In her position you don't argue with immigration
officials.
In short, one way or another, Jana's official start on the grant -- already
a lot later than we would have liked -- is going to be delayed further.
* Preferred next move, since the Home Office will not accept an appeal, is
to enlist the aid of her new MP, and Personnel have kindly said thay can
help her make a case.
* The "simple" alternative would be for Jana to go abroad for 3 weeks,
return with the new work permit and get her status changed properly on her
passport. This is pretty outrageous on grounds of cost alone, and even
more so since it would presumably mean that she could not count the 9
months she has already been employed towards the 4 years' continuous
employment she is aiming for.
These are the facts as I understand them at present. I've addressed this
to people who will in some way be affected by Jana's non-arrival, or may
possibly have some other advice or suggestions to offer, like what "big
guns" we might be able to call on to fight her case. As Jana herself said,
it looks as though the "common sense" solution is unlikely to work.
Thank you for reading this far. I feel pretty devastated myself, and
ashamed at the way she's being treated.
Jill