Skilled Worker ILR – does a 4-month gap in permission break continuous residence even though I was outside the UK for less than 180 days?
Hi everyone,
I’m trying to understand whether my previous Skilled Worker residence can still count towards the 5-year ILR qualifying period.
My timeline:
- 19 August 2021: Skilled Worker/Tier 2 qualifying period started
- Mid-April 2024: My employment was terminated around 1–1.5 weeks before my visa was due to expire
- 24 April 2024: Left the UK while my visa was still valid
- 27 April 2024: Previous Skilled Worker visa expired
- 31 August 2024: Applied from abroad for a new Skilled Worker visa after finding another sponsored job
- 25 September 2024: New Skilled Worker permission started
- 3 October 2024: Returned to the UK
I was therefore outside the UK for approximately 162 days, which is below the normal 180-day absence limit. I also left before my previous visa expired and did not overstay.
However, there was approximately a 126-day gap between my old permission expiring (27 April) and submitting my new application (31 August).
My concern is Appendix Continuous Residence CR 4.1(d)(ii), which appears to require a successful new entry-clearance application to have been made before the previous permission expired or within 14 days after expiry in order to preserve continuous residence.
What makes my situation difficult is that my employment was terminated only around 1–1.5 weeks before my visa expired, leaving very little time to secure another sponsored position before expiry. I eventually found another sponsor and returned within 180 days.
Has anyone had a similar situation where they left the UK with valid Skilled Worker permission, their visa expired while abroad, and they obtained another Skilled Worker visa several months later?
Did your previous Skilled Worker residence still count towards ILR, or did your 5-year qualifying period restart?
I had already completed approximately 2 years and 8 months on the Skilled Worker route, so having the clock restart would make a significant difference.
I would particularly appreciate hearing from anyone who has had a similar case assessed by UKVI or received specialist legal advice regarding CR 4.1(d)(ii).