Asylum seeker - time limited

Um, can they work? That's always the first question with an Asylum Seeker?

Yep, work permitted

Hi Darren,

Happy New Year.

I have had the same question posed twice in the last few months and surprisingly had the same answer on both occasions from the helpdesk.....

That they are not eligible as do not meet P20.4.

It still leaves questions in my head... am I overthinking it... probably not!

Karen

Hi Karen,

Happy New Year to you too - thanks for sharing that. Always good to get a consistent response albeit not the one we'd like. I agree it leaves some unanswered questions. I'll drop a ticket in and see what they say back.

Darren

Darren Vidler did you get a response on this from the Service Desk?

Hey, have you seen the new para though?:

296. Asylum seekers and individuals who have made further protection-based
submissions are eligible to receive funding if they have a valid permission to
work granted by the Secretary of State for the Home Department. Any
permission to work granted will only be valid until the claim has been finally
determined and any appeals rights exhausted.  

This bangs right up against 20.2 though because they won't have anything that says they *definitely* have "time available"...

Melanie Aspinall we didn't really get anywhere unfortunately however, as Steve says, the new rules have a clash around the need for evidence of the time available.

Thanks Steve Hewitt and Darren Vidler - we did see the new rules and that's what got us thinking. 20.2 (or 21.4 and 20.4 in previous rules iterations!) are the driving force but in some instances, it feels a little harsh. I can see why it's there as it protects providers and supports the eligibility of the apprentice (or ineligibility in most cases) but the pushback we get from employers at times is a lot!

Completely agree with you - we've had push back from applicants, our own staff and employers (quite rightly in my opinion).

Nah, it's just plain racist. There was nothing wrong with how we used to do it (confirm with the learner that they'd apply for an extension when they could)... Worth noting it's still acceptable for ASF, it's only Apps that have this rule.

Have asked about the AS change and the removal of the "if they've applied for an extension they still have that permission" rule as well (although worth pointing out that policy queries for apps can't be raised through Customer Help, have to send via email, not sure if this is better or worse...)

Thanks Steve. I agree with you there. And as for the sending queries via email - I think it's worse!

Well, it was quick, at least...

here's the response:

In simple terms, if the apprentice was currently an asylum seeker, and they had made further protection-based submissions before the apprenticeship started, they would be eligible for funding.
 
Then, if this submission was rejected and the appeals process was exhausted, the learner would no longer be eligible.
 
When we then look at the funding rules 20.2, it is not superseding this rule, rather it is working in tandem. The apprentice is presumed to have this submission granted, thus allowing them to complete the apprenticeship within the allotted time.

So, Asylum Seekers with the right to work are fine?