Darren Vidler

Asylum seeker - time limited


Hi folks, 

I haven't dealt with an asylum seeker applying for an apprenticeship for a while and have a question re eligibility. The rules say:

They then also say:

I've got an asylum applicant with an ARC which expires in December 2024 - based on rule 20.4 I'd say he won't be able to complete in the time available however reading rule 296 I'd then say that if he is able to apply for an extension (such as where a decision has not been made) then he's still able to be funded. 

Does anyone have any better knowledge than me on this aspect?




No one has replied to this post.

Steve Hewitt

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

Darren Vidler

Yep, work permitted

Karen Fone

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!




Darren Vidler

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.


Melanie Aspinall

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

Steve Hewitt

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"...

Darren Vidler

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.

Melanie Aspinall

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!

Darren Vidler

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

Steve Hewitt

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...)

Melanie Aspinall

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

Steve Hewitt

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?