paddy234

Hey guys, my visa for Permanent Residency is being processed however due to my police clearance showing no live trace they then asked for a statuary declaration showing what my caution was for that is no longer on my record which i then provided. Just two weeks ago however they asked for a Subject Access Request. I've applied for one detailing it is for immigration and still waiting to hear back however i'm just reading today that it's illegal for immigration to ask for this. It explicitly states it is for personal use only and any organisation asking for this is committing what is called ''enforced Subject Access'' and may be committing an offence under the data protection act. It then clearly states below as follows:

Can I use my subject access disclosure for immigration purposes?

If you need a visa to travel to Australia, Belgium, Canada, Cayman Islands, New Zealand, South Africa or the United States of America, you will need to apply for an ACRO Police Certificate.

If you require a disclosure for immigration to a country other than these, you should contact the relevant embassy/high commission for advice on whether an ACRO Police Certificate is acceptable. ACRO does not provide subject access disclosure for immigration. The disclosure is intended for personal use only.
https://www.acro.police.uk/SA-Further-guidance


Why is immigration asking for this since it isn't relevant information as all the relevant information would be on my police clearance? I've also noticed this to be from a different case officer than the others. Such irrelevant but highly detailed information such as my addresses etc could be used for other purposes? To be honest i'd just like to go ahead with it but not if i'm breaking the law and especially not if Australian immigration services shouldn't be asking for such information, it makes me highly suspicious. Anyone else experience this?

Pollyana

Did you initially supply an ACRO check?
Assuming yes, then what they are asking for now is a Subject Access Check as a means of obtaining the extra information about the offence, not as an immigration clearance.
The Subject Access Check is yours, you apply for it personally, and if you then choose to share it with Aus Immigration as additional information, thats up to you. You can refuse, they cannot then refuse your application in the grounds of not supplying a police check, though they could refuse it on the grounds that you did not provide additional information when requested. The information on the Subject Access Check will not be used for other purposes - they just want more details on your case. There is limited personal information on there too - you mention addresses; the only address on there should be the one you gave when you were arrested, and even that may not be there.
If its an old caution there may not even be any details of it on your Subject Access Check anyway.

paddy234

Thank you for the reply. Yea I supplied an ACRO police clearance which came up with no live trace found. I gave them a statuary declaration to explain the caution I recieved 10 years ago. I will send it as soon as I get it to make things go as smoothly as possible however when I applied for the subject Access request I declared why I was doing it and I'm worried that since it states it is not to be used for immigration they might decline to give it to me. Also immigration asking for this according to UK law is illegal as the link I provided states, it declares that doing so is what they called an enforced Access request and could be in violation of the law. I find it strange because the information on a police clearance required for Australia contains all the relevant information they need. All the information that goes into a police clearance for Australia is agreed upon and drawn up by both countries so when Australia asks for it they get all the relevant information they require in the police clearance. Asking for information that is solely to be used for personal use isn't relevant as the fact it isn't on my record means it is for a small past offense that couldn't sway their decision either way. Therefore they certainly wouldn't be able to reject my application on the basis of refusing to supply information on a caution that happened 10 years ago as since its not on my record it isn't relevant to them.

As I said I'll send it anyway if I get it however this is my fourth s56 request so I'm getting a bit over it especially them asking for information that may be illegal for them to request.

old.sparkles

Accepting a caution I think means admitting you are guilty of an offence. Whether it was more than 10 years ago or not, it's all relevant to immigration.

paddy234

It isn't relevant to immigration because it is no longer on my record which my police clearance shows. An ACRO police clearance for Australia gives ALL relevant information. It's a police clearance created by both countries so if immigration needed more information on a police clearance they would of drawn up and agreed with ACRO what additional information they require rather than later request documents that ACRO states is strictly for personal use only and not for immigration. The police clearance won't bring up a caution no longer on a persons record because it can't be used to make a decision on. I suppose they may want it just to prove if I'm telling the truth about the details of my caution but the reality is it wouldn't be able to sway their decision either way as it's too minor an offence and removed from my record. Also my issue here is more with immigration requesting something ACRO is saying it is illegal for them to do. Why are they doing this when they ought to know better? Clearly it states they shouldn't be doing this.

For me the first thing I thought of with a new case officer requesting such detailed personal information that they had no right to was identity theft lol. I've seen people's personal information be used in a number of ways through my life. Anyway I just find the whole thing strange. I just hope I get it and they don't refuse since i requested it for immigration

mikelincs

But it is on your record, and the answer came back as 'No Live Trace', that means that there is something there, which is why they have asked for the info. had there been nothing on your record, then the result would have been 'No Trace'. They are just doing their job as they are told to do.

paddy234

Does a caution stay on one's record though? I thought no live trace meant it was a previous offence such as a caution or warning that has been stepped down and is no longer on a record therefore not relevant. Only relevant information is included. It wouldn't be logical for them to withhold relevant information on a police clearance. I don't remember going through this with New Zealand immigration lol

mikelincs

The idea that offences drop off your record in incorrect, they do drop off for minor offences for THE UK ONLY, they are never considered spent for any other country, and that's why the 'No Live Trace' message is a warnong that something, in your past, is on your record. A friend of mine was passenger in a car which had been stolen by the driver, he was fined for it and then forgot about it as it was a minor offence. It can back to bite him on the butt when he got a job in Saudi Arabia, and when he applied for his visa the fine was found, and his visa denied, no appeal. what we consider minor isn't necessarily considered the same way by another country.

paddy234

I think that is ridiculous on ACRO's part. When one asks for a police clearance for a specific country which they pay for ACRO should include all relevant information in the clearance which that country requires. It also doesn't make sense when they claim a subject access request is not to be used for immigration. I'll be happy once I get it but I hate dragging this out over something they could have stated in my police clearance

scrubbedexpat099

I had not heard of country specific Acro, I thought it was a standard format, well it was when I did mine.

BritInParis

They would be breaking the law if they did.

It’s a standard format.

paddy234

Thanks for the reply guys. It says it can take up to a month for them to process it but immigration have only give me 28 days. Should I let them know it might go over the deadline? How long did it take for you guys?

Pollyana

Immigration are aware of the expected timelines. Just make sure that you tell them you have requested it.
And I know it sounds like splitting hairs, but they aren’t requesting the Subbject Access for Immigration purposes, its requested as a piece of further information to assist with their decision.
As stated above, no offence is ever considered “spent” for immigration purposes, even if they are considered spent in the home country for other reasons.

paddy234

It is for immigration purposes though, it is additional information required by immigration on top of a police clearance to make a decision. Also as I said reading the ACRO page it explicitly states you shouldn't be getting requested to give such information as it could be in breach of the data protection act. This seems to be ACRO's issue by not putting the relevant information on a police clearance and then saying a subject Access form is for personal use only and that no company has the right to request it, surely they should understand after getting so many requests for a Subject Access Form that they need to revise this. I also find it strange immigration asked me for a statutory declaration letting them know what my caution was about if they were then just going to ignore it and request this instead. Why not just ask for this in the first place lol. Saves everyone time

I even got a strange email last time saying I ticked yes on one of the character questions and that I should let them know what it was about. I had to correct them with The fact that I didn't tick yes to any of those questions, I ticked no, I uploaded a photo of my application to prove it, it was obviously a mistake. All my records are clean, no convictions ever, just a warning. Seems incredibly strange thats all and obviously due to this being one of three different case officers who have requested more information.

old.sparkles

Warning or caution? As mentioned, a caution is a conviction since you acknowledge you committed a crime when you accept the caution.

I'm not sure if a warning would give a 'No Live Trace', so if you used that term in your stat. dec, it may explain why you now have been asked if you would do the subject access request.

If you are still concerned, you can always tell immi that it's unlawful, that the ACRO provides all the info they need, and let them adjudicate your application as is.

EDIT - just had a quick Google, and warnings might appear on an ACRO. There is still a difference between warnings and cautions though, so you should describe your record accurately and consistently, as even if the original case does not warrant refusal, if immi think you are not honest with your answers it'll have a negative impact I would think.