Jump to content

the scouser

Advanced Member
  • Posts

    6474
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by the scouser

  1. Thanks OC for having told me of this sad news. John spent a number of years in the UK where lived just up the road from Liverpool. He loved chatting on Skype about his old haunts.

    Here's John enjoying his birthday:-

    post-3169-018999100 1279797449_thumb.jpg

  2. ...Which is the main reason why we decided to come to England in the first place.[/size]

    So, assuming the UKBA's thought process, your wife applied for a visit visa in the knowledge that her child, and by association herself, had no intention of leaving at the end of the visit.

    Your wife has 2 options: either return to Thailand and apply for a settlement visa, which given the circumstances you have described, she will probably get, or make an application from within the UK to switch to settlement from visit status. The latter, as I tell my clients, is highly likely to be refused. Perhaps it's the nature of human beings, but they all perceive that somehow their circumstances are more compelling than others', and opt to make the in-country application. Generally speaking though, it's still refused and they then have to return to Thailand to seek a settlement visa, which they could have done months earlier and have now been back in the UK perfectly lawfully.

    Really, it is short-termism to think you can save money and time by trying to "buck the system", but if you want to try to do it, there'll be many an adviser/solicitor willing to take your money and guide you through the application/appeal/JR process (perhaps c. £4000.00) safe in the knowledge that your wife will ultimately be refused and have to return to Thailand to make a settlement application at further cost to yourself.

    Your call!

    Scouse.

  3. And, there is no 6-months-in-12 "rule" for visitors.

    It may say so in the UKBA policy, but such guidance has no effect in law. The UKBA has been clogged twice by the courts within the past 2 weeks for trying to implement binding decisions on the basis of "guidance".

    Both the High Court and the Court of Appeal have found that the Home Secretary was using "guidance" as a means of making law, and that to do so is unconstitutional as the "guidance" was not approved by Parliament.

    Scouse.

  4. Have a look at the refusal notice that your sister-in-law will have been given. If the accusation is that she submitted false documentation, she will have probably been refused by reference to para 320(7A) of the Rules, in which case there is no point in re-applying as any subsequent application will automatically be refused for a period of 10 years by reference to para 320(7B).

    Should this be the case, your sister-in-law's only option is to appeal, and hope to convince the immigration judge of both her genuine intentions and that no deception was employed.

    Scouse.

  5. To an extent, I both agree and disagree with the two of you.

    As an EEA citizen, and their accompanying family members, can choose to exercise "treaty rights" at any point, how the parties enter a given EEA state, and with what type of "visa", is redundant. Ultimately, neither a Schengen visa nor a family permit is required.

    Article 5(4) of the 2004/38 Directive states:-

    Where a Union citizen, or a family member who is not a national of a Member State, does not have the necessary travel documents or, if required, the necessary visas, the Member State concerned shall, before turning them back, give such persons every reasonable opportunity to obtain the necessary documents or have them brought to them within a reasonable period of time or to corroborate or prove by other means that they are covered by the right of free movement and residence.

    That said, how, for example, the French authorities interpret the Directive, I just don't know. But if they require EEA citizens and their family members to apply for "long term" visas as a prerequisite to being able to assert European "rights", I would wager that it is in contravention of the Directive.

    Scouse.

  6. The future of your relationship is not necessarily determined by UK immigration law, but by how you and your child's mother see your relationship developing.

    She should apply for the visa that best suits her purpose. If she intends to visit the UK, then a visit visa, or if she wishes to settle in the UK, a settlement visa. In either instance there are certain criteria to be met.

    The only thing I would say is that if she gives birth whilst present in the UK on a visit visa, it is highly unlikely that her permission to stay could be switched to that of settlement simply as a consequence of the child's birth, and you might find yourself facing a bill (£4,000.00?) for mum's maternity hospital treatment.

    Scouse.

  7. UK Border Agency | Can I register as a British citizen if I was born before 1983 to a British mother?

    Complete form UKM:-

    http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/sitecontent/applicationforms/nationality/form_ukm.pdf

    and present it at the consular section of the British embassy in Bangkok, who will then forward it to the UK for consideration. The fee is £550.00 plus a consular forwarding fee. You would need to undertake a citizenship ceremony, so perhaps clarify whether you would have to travel to the UK to do this, or whether the consular officer in Bangkok gets you to sing the national anthem before handing you your registration certificate.

    Once armed with your certificate, you can then apply for a British passport if you wish.

    Scouse.

  8. As one can only take the test in Welsh or Scottish Gaelic in Wales or Scotland, I don't see the point of this comment. If that is where they will be living, then what's wrong with the new requirement testing them in one of those languages? A non-English speaking French person, for example, entering the UK under the EEA rules would have the same difficulties in London!

    The point being that, hypothetically, a Thai living in Guildford, for example, could pass the test in Welsh, yet not be able to pass the time of day with those immediately around. But s/he would still meet the requirements of the law; i.e. can speak an indigenous tongue, even if the rest of the adjacent populace can't understand a blind word.

    For one to meet the Welsh- or Gaelic-speaking rules does not require that one lives in Wales or Scotland.

    Scouse.

  9. An equally valid argument would be that the immigration rules have served only to line the pockets of immigration advisers!...

    Quite simply, there is no legal requirement for someone making an immigration application to use an adviser, whereas there is a legal requirement for a foreigner to have attained a certain amount of knowledge in either English, Welsh, or Gaelic, combined with a citizenship element.

    Having said that, the UKBA is currently the best referer of immigration work, as even their own website states that if you want advice don't ask us, see an OISC-registered adviser.

    Scouse.

  10. I think that you should not place so much reliance upon the UK Border Agency information leaflets, which don't have any basis in law.

    Regulation 7(3) of the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006 states:-

    ...a person who is an extended family member and has been issued with an EEA family permit, a registration certificate or a residence card shall be treated as the family member of the relevant EEA national for as long as he continues to satisfy the conditions in regulation 8(2), (3), (4) or (5) in relation to that EEA national and the permit, certificate or card has not ceased to be valid or been revoked.

    In other words, although you and Waravan are not married, she is considered to be your family member. You can then set about thinking about her mum. Do you have evidence of regular financial remittances to mum in Thailand? If so, this could demonstrate her (mum's) dependency.

    Scouse.

  11. I don't necessarily disagree with you, Lao Po. However, my point is that those who immigrate to a given country will, if so inclined, learn the indigenous tongue without government intervention. Those who can't be bothered will both flounder and founder.

    The legal requirement for immigrants to have a certain ability in English has served only to line the pockets of "preferred" providers of English courses. Indeed, I am able to count amongst my clients various foreign Premiership football players, very few of whom see any relevance in learning English. Additionally, there are 3 "common" native languages in the UK, and the law allows people to manifest an ability in not only English, but Welsh and Scottish Gaelic. Even if an immigrant speaks Welsh, and thereby meets the requirements of the law, s/he is not going to fair very well when travelling to, for example, London.

    Scouse.

  12. That something you were told may be bad advice. Even as a professional adviser, I still have clients who want me to assist but then question my advice on the basis of some scuttlebutt they've been told by a friend of a friend of a friend - "Ah, she know! She go Ulop many time."

    The reality is that the visa officer, in refusing your wife's settlement application, has reason to believe that certain facts were witheld, the inference being that no credibility can then be attached to anything else that was said. He's not being judgmental, but simply working off the information before him.

    The oft-mentioned "review" is nothing more than superficial unless a proper basis and grounds for disputing the decision are provided. I would think, based upon what you've written, that your wife's matter is destined to go to an appeal hearing, in the course of which you will be questioned about why certain facts were perhaps not disclosed at the time of the original application. To say that one didn't see the relevance, is not the right answer. If, in the eyes of the court, someone can't tell the truth, then evidently, their entire trustworthiness is in doubt, and at the appeal stage, you don't want the judge to make negative findings of fact about your credibility as a sponsor/witness because the visa officer can then rely upon those to substantiate a refusal of a subsequent application.

    Should your wife make a visit visa application, it is almost certain to be refused. Perhaps it is time to start investigating job opportunities in SE Asia.

    Scouse.

  13. If I haven't got my wires crossed, you're a citizen of an EEA country and your girlfriend has a residence card as your unmarried partner.

    Should this be so, your girlfriend's mother can apply for a family permit free of charge and you don't need to worry about bank statements, accommodation, intention to leave the UK etc.

    Scouse.

  14. It shows that newcomers to the UK need some English lessons badly..........

    Whereas my turn of phrase is an example of bad English goodly. :) However, I admire your English when, other than a token couple of phrases, I cannot speak Dutch.

    I'm sorry to be a Boer bore, but returning to the original point, I can't help but feel that it's just another means of taking money off people for something that doesn't really achieve anything.

    Scouse.

  15. Speaking for myself, the issue is not that such tests are going to be introduced, but how a universal standard is going to be set, maintained and effectively enforced.

    As it stands, the concept has the appearance of wealth-creation for those providers favoured by the government, and not the purposes of ensuring that would-be immigrants already speak English to a pre-determined standard; i.e. give us X amount of spondoolicks and you'll get your sistificate to show that your English is of the required level, which to my mind defeats the objective.

    Scouse.

  16. Perhaps not so much cynicism, but ennui.

    If the (UK) government were intent on introducing meaningful language tests for newcomers, they wouldn't do it in such a way that it creates another level of bureaucracy that is simply overcome by payment of a fee to a third party; i.e. how much do I need to pay to pass this exam? It's all about income generation for those private entities currently in favour (e.g. VFS), rather than any substance.

    Despite the language requirements of Dutch law, the Netherlands' election results make interesting reading:-

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/wilders-makes-shock-gains-in-dutch-elections-1997293.html

    Scouse.

  17. Whilst I can understand your desire to have your wife spend time with you in the UK, I do think that to apply for a visit visa immediately following a settlement visa refusal is ill-advised.

    For your wife to obtain a visit visa, she has to meet the requirements of the law for visitors, one of which is that she intends to leave the UK at the end of the visit. Now that she has already made known her intention to settle in the UK, the visa officer is never going to be satisfied that she intends to leave at the end of any proposed visit. I'd save the £68 and not apply.

    The only benefit of a "family" visit application is that, if refused, it attracts a right of appeal, in which case you'll be back in to the 7-8 month waitihng game.

    Scouse.

×
×
  • Create New...