the scouser
-
Posts
6474 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Downloads
Posts posted by the scouser
-
-
There is no stipulation in the law that says someone will only be issued with a fiancé(e) visa once the parties have physically known each other for six months.
The test, essentially, is the strength and depth of the relationship. If you feel that you are able to show that your relationship is meaningful and that you intend to stay together, there is no reason why your fiancée should not apply now.
Scouse.
-
Providing that the original student visa was of more than 6 months' duration, an in-country settlement application can be made. So, obtain the certificate of approval, marry and then make the application to the UK Border Agency.
Scouse.
-
I don't know what the OP's intentions are in relation to his wife, i.e. whether relations have reached such a point that he wishes her to return to Thailand whilst the child stays in the UK, or whether he is ambivalent to her remaining in the UK. However, that she has a child who is a British citizen is, as likely as not, going to facilitate her staying in the country.
Scouse.
-
As I see it there are several possible scenarios when/if she presents herself at immigration at a UK port of entry. I wont list them all, just three.
1) Best case. The IO looks at her passport, sees what appears to be a valid visa and waves her through. She enjoys her stay in the UK and returns home once her visit is over with nobody aware that technically she was probably in the UK illegally.
2) Middle case. The IO decides to check and asks her a few questions. She answers these honestly and the IO refuses her entry under Para321(ii). She is sent back on the next available flight, but no other sanctions against her are imposed.
3) Worst case. As 2, but when questioned she tries to bluff her way in by lying about the change of circumstances. Not only is she refused entry, but she is banned from visiting the UK for 10 years.
And even if option 1 is achieved, it may come back to haunt her come an application for a second visa, whether visit or settlement.
Scouse.
-
The Northern Ireland case is not at all relevant to silent deception. It addresses more the question of whether a student was able to change courses without having to inform the immigration authorities. As it is already established in case law that a student was not restricted to attending the original course, there was a degree of inevitability about the outcome, but nothing to do with silent deception.
However, the judgement is useful insofar as it does refer to silent deception, upon which subject it states:-
"While there is no duty of candour on the part of an applicant he or she must not mislead the authorities on a material fact. A material fact is an effective but not necessarily decisive fact in obtaining the visa or obtaining entry."
In the case in question, it is my opinion that a change in boyfriends is, prima facie, material to the grant of entry and failure to disclose such, whether asked or not, would constitute either a 24A administrative offence or 26(1)© criminal offence.
I'm not going to get bogged further down in the discussion of hypotheses. This is not a legal forum for the discussion of minutiae, and to be honest, I've got far better things to do with my time. The OP has got all the advice he needs and can make his own mind up. If you wish to continue to disagree, then fine: you disagree. I'll take my stance and you take yours.
Scouse.
-
Whether attempting to enter the UK with an entry clearance issued based upon circumstances which one knows no longer exist would be construed as deception is an interesting point. Any thoughts, Scouse?
It would constitute silent deception. The visa applicant/person seeking entry to the UK is under an obligation to disclose any material fact to either the ECO or immigration officer, as relevant. If s/he fails to do so, and is admitted to the UK, this would constitute on offence under sect. 26(1)© of the '71 Act and s/he would be classed as an illegal entrant.
Scouse.
-
If you re-read my posts above, I always stated that there is a deception element to the 10-year "ban". It is not something that I am "now" saying. If you chose not to absorb that information earlier, that's your look out.
In answer to the OP's question, the answer has to, legally speaking, be a prima facie "no" as there is an evident material change that effectively negates the validity of the visa. The social standing of the new boyfriend would be neither here nor there.
Scouse.
-
Firstly a refusal of entry is a very different thing from a 10-year ban. I respectfully maintain the opinion that such a ban imposed on a person who had broken no rule nor done anything wrong would be unlikely to survive appeal/judicial review.
I don't think anyone is saying that she would definitely be hit with a 10-year "ban".
Secondly, if one adequate sponsor has been replaced by another adequate sponsor, then in what way is "the basis of the holder's claim to admission removed"?Because she would no longer be construed to have a valid visa, which is a requirement of the law.
Scouse.
-
Having obtained the visa with boyfriend A as a sponsor, but then seeking entry at a UK airport to visit boyfriend B is a material change in circumstances and the visa's validity would then be withdrawn. She would then, legally speaking, require a new visa to enter the UK to visit boyfriend B and she wouldn't have one. Thai require a valid visa to visit the UK and in that situation can't seek leave to enter of the immigration officer at the UK airport, so providing evidence of B's ability to maintain and accommodate would be pointless. The relevant paragraph of the Immigration Rules that an IO can rely upon to refuse entry in such cirucmstances is 321 and is cited above.
If no attempt were made to either misrepresent the facts or conceal the change of circs to the IO, she may not be subjected to an accusation of deception, and thereby escape a 10-year "ban". However, that would depend precisely upon the circumstances of her arrival in the UK and what was said/not said to the IO; something that we don't know as this is all largely hypothetical.
Scouse.
-
In "the old days" it might take the UK immigration officer anything up to 2 weeks to obtain the visa application form from the visa-issuing post, but modern technology now means that they have instant access. Consequently, if the IO at the UK airport were so inclined to check, he could easily establish that the person with whom the woman arrived was not the original sponsor. As others have commented, this would constitute a change in circs and result in refusal of entry.
Depending upon the circumstances as a whole, she might get a right of in-country appeal, or she might be limited to an appeal from abroad. However, whichever she were given, there would be little point pursuing it as the refusing IO would have solid grounds. Additionally, if she were to either misrepresent the new boyfriend as the original sponsor, or state that she would be visiting the old boyfriend knowing this not to be the case, this could be sufficient to justify an accusation of deception, which would then result in any visit visa application for 10 years being refused without consideration.
Scouse.
-
Once the visa expires, it should be apparent to UK immigration officers from the stamps in the wife's passport that she continues to qualify as a returning resident, but I quite agree that it leaves the door open for airline check-in staff, who can't be expected to be aware of every nuance, to possibly deny boarding on the basis that the visa itself has expired. However, once the first entry has been made on the basis of the RR visa, the visa itself ceases to be relevant and will be superseded by stamps in the passport.
Hope you're settling in, J. - you lucky bugger!
Scouse.
-
My reading of the situation is that as your wife has been issued entry clearance as a returning resident, and in order to continue to be a returning resident one cannot have spent more than 2 years outside of the UK, then perhaps the UKBA is correct to limit the new visa's validity to a date of 2 years since your wife last left. To make it valid beyond that date would give her the facility to delay her return to the UK until such a time as she has spent more than 2 years outside the country.
If your wife later wishes to have her status endorsed in a new passport, she should complete form NTL at a cost of £165.00.
Scouse.
-
That's the impression I get, too: that the OP and wife are in Thailand, looking to send the kids to the UK for schooling whilst they, "the parents", remain in Thailand, in which case the visa applications would be governed by Tier 4.
Scouse.
-
I think we've previously had this discussion on another forum.
Anyway, para 297 of the Immigration Rules states inter alia:-
297. The requirements to be met by a person seeking indefinite leave to enter the United Kingdom as the child of a parent, parents or a relative present and settled or being admitted for settlement in the United Kingdom are that he:
(i) is seeking leave to enter to accompany or join a parent, parents or a relative in one of the following circumstances:
(a) both parents are present and settled in the United Kingdom; or
(
both parents are being admitted on the same occasion for settlement; or © one parent is present and settled in the United Kingdom and the other is being admitted on the same occasion for settlement; or
(d) one parent is present and settled in the United Kingdom or being admitted on the same occasion for settlement and the other parent is dead; or
(e) one parent is present and settled in the United Kingdom or being admitted on the same occasion for settlement and has had sole responsibility for the child's upbringing; or
(f) one parent or a relative is present and settled in the United Kingdom or being admitted on the same occasion for settlement and there are serious and compelling family or other considerations which make exclusion of the child undesirable and suitable arrangements have been made for the child's care; .....
As can be seen, of the foregoing criteria, only one needs to be met. If the child in question satisfies (d), then (e) is redundant.
Scouse.
-
The mother can sign the visa application.
Does the mother have indefinite leave to remain in the UK? If so, and the child's father is demonstrably dead, then sole responsibility does not have to be shown.
Scouse.
-
If I answer your second question, that'll be 2 pints of Stella.
Unfortunately, your wife still needs to pass either an ESOL with Citizenship course, and moving up a level, or the Life in the UK test.
Scouse.
-
Providing you didn't tell porkies on the application form, the money's all yours and mine's a pint of Stella.
Scouse.
-
It seems that such matters can drag on, even in instances where there is no dispute. In the one case I have been involved with, the mother was in Thailand and the father and child in the UK. However, it is likely that the district judge will make an interim order pending a full hearing. If this awards the mother contact with the child, then it can be used to support a visa application.
Scouse.
-
Were the parents married at the time of the child's birth? If not, the father is not considered to have parental responsibility for the child in the UK. He would be unable to undertake such routine tasks as consenting to medical treatment for the child and having her admitted to school. Ultimately, unwittingly, the child could end up in the care of local social services, there being no parent in the UK with lawful responsibility for the child.
On the assumption that the parents weren't married, the father may apply for a residence/responsibility order. At the same time, the judge can address contact and this order can then be used to support a visa application under para 246.
Scouse.
-
So, transfer the money to her bank if you want her to come, as advised.
And if you don't wish to transfer the money, she ain't gonna come (as a student, at least).
Bit of Catch 22 really: Joseph Heller was a prescient guy.
Anyway, the UKBA isn't generally daft. They realise that some people are going to baulk at transferring large amounts of money to their perceived loved-ones, just in case they turn out to be not-so-loved-ones, and this will counter-balance the withdrawal of the ECO's facility to refuse a student application because the facts don't add up.
Hey, the only way you can avoid flying these missions is by being mad, but you've got to be mad to fly them.
Scouse.
-
I've now spoken to an OISC visa agent who advised that for student visas (i) there is no option as a UK partner to support/financially sponsor the applicant (ii) the ECO is not interested in whether or not the applicant is in a relationship, indeed there's nowhere to make reference to this anyway as it's irrelevant to a student visa application and (iii) in terms of maintenance, the ECO is just concerned that the funds are in the applicant's account and can see evidence that they've been there for 28 days - it makes no difference whether or not I've helped her achieve the adequate balance as the fact remains that she has control of these funds personally so can support herself. She would just need to show bank statements covering 28 days with a balance above the required threshold for the period....
Still not sure what the correct course of action is and transferring the money to her account is expensive and inpractical as she will stay with me for free so won't need it!
By your own admission, you've been told (and not by me (just for the record)) what the correct course of action is. If you choose to ignore it, well, as they say, you can lead a horse to water....
-
Regular readers might recall a certain member (and I use the term in both of its meanings), who went by various nom de plumes, and who espoused a tick-box system for determining visa applications: well, he's got his wish.
In relation to student applications, we now have a points-based system. It is simply a matter of whether the visa applicant gains sufficient "points", and it is not for the visa officer to question how those points have been obtained. Consequently, a person applying for a student visa requires 40 points: 30 for a "visa letter" from the UKBA-registered educational establishment, and 10 for maintenance and funds.
If the OP were to bung 10 grand in his girlfriend's account, which must then be there for at least 28 days, and she were to otherwise obtain a "visa letter" from the UKBA-registered school, legally speaking she's home and dry. There are other trivial bits, but that's it in a nutshell.
Scouse.
-
The situation that the OP describes is, unfortunately, hardly strange these days. More and more folk are falling foul of the parlous economic conditions of the planet. Mind you, some sage once commented that capitalism contains within it the seeds of its own decay.
If the visa application fees can't be met, then there is no way the OP's wife and step-daughter can even apply for visas. However, providing he can show, inter alia, that in day-to-day terms there is enough income to take care of the entire family unit in the UK, then it doesn't really matter who pays the visa fees. Likewise, that the property may be only rented is no bar.
-
It's not a question of the mother's rights, but the child(ren)'s.
Sect. 1 of the Children Act 1989 states that in the court deciding any proceedings, the child's welfare will be paramount.
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1989/ukpga...1_en_2#pt1-l1g1
both parents are being admitted on the same occasion for settlement; or
Uk Visa For Wife And Her Son
in Visas and migration to other countries
Posted
People should not really get side-tracked by this Por Kor 14 business. As I posted on another forum:-
"My observation is that having a Por Kor 14 (in whatever format) is not, per se, a demonstration of sole responsibility, but rather an indication of the Thai authorities' view of which parent has custody, and to have custody is not prima facie evidence of sole responsibility. Indeed, notwithstanding this, Thai custody documents are not legally recognised in the UK. The PK14 is essentially a self-serving statement sworn before an amphur employee in the absence of any other hard-and-fast evidence of custody.
When an application is made for a child to join a parent in the UK, it is not custody that has to be shown, but "sole resonsibility", and the two are widely different concepts. Indeed, "sole responsibility" is not necessarily a matter to be decided between parents, but between all of the child's carers. Additionally, case law has established that "sole responsibility" is not a question of being able to submit various legal documents, but moreover, being able to show that it is the parent in the UK who takes all of the major decisions in the child's life.
Essentially, having a PK14 is neither a requirement of the Immigration Rules, nor is it the be-all-and-end-all of a child settlement visa application. What is required is evidence that whoever is looking after the child in the foreign country is doing so only on a day-to-day basis and that they are instructed by the parent in the UK."
Also see the relevant case law.
Scouse.