Jump to content
BANGKOK 26 April 2019 15:39


Advanced Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by 7by7

  1. I am not arguing, I am merely pointing out the facts, as is everyone else who has responded to you. You asked if your wife needed a visa to enter The Netherlands. You were told from the very first response that she does. It is your refusal to accept that simple fact which has led to lengthier and lengthier posts in an effort to educate you about the FoM directive and how it effects you and your wife. But, yet again, you simply wont accept the answers you are given, and instead tried to convince us that we are all wrong! As you seem to do this every time you come here for advice, I have to wonder why you have ever asked us for our advice at all!
  2. These people have done nothing to make me more aware of pollution, climate change or any other environmental issue. Issues I have been aware of and joining legitimate campaigns about since the 1970s. None of which alters my comment that "These people who claim to care about the environment are not only causing a huge deterioration of Central London's air quality, they are also producing a huge amount of non biodegradable, plastic waste!" Do you find that acceptable?
  3. Read my post again: I did not say that she may be your American cousin; I said she may be the spouse/partner of your American cousin. I said this because her FLR residence permit does not name you, so she could be the spouse/partner of someone else who may not necessarily be British, another EU/EEA national or Swiss. Your marriage certificate does prove your relationship, and that may satisfy immigration at your port of entry to The Netherlands; but will it satisfy your airline's check in staff who probably aren't fully aware of the requirements? If it doesn't, then your wife will not be allowed to board. Want to take that chance? I originally linked to and quoted from the guidance to keep it simple; but have linked to and quoted from the directive itself since. Here is that link again, this time with the full title so you cannot confuse it with the guidance.: DIRECTIVE 2004/38/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC Both the guidance and the directive itself clearly state that your wife needs a visa, whether obtained in advance or at the border, due to her having a UK residence card as the spouse/partner of an unnamed individual, not as a family member of a Union citizen. I have quoted from the directive to show that the words "family member of a Union citizen" must appear on that residence card. To be honest, I can't be arsed to trawl through the directive to see if the words "except the country you are a national of" or similar appear because she does not have a residence card as a family member of a Union citizen and so needs a visa anyway. A member's immigration rules are separate and apart from their EEA regulations. The latter applies to EEA and Swiss nationals and their qualifying family members and are based upon, and include all the requirements of, the FoM directive. The former are not and are set and amended by the individual member state's government with no need to comply with any EU ruling or directive whatsoever. Although the rules and requirements are the same for all the Schengen states they are applied without reference to the FoM directive unless the applicant is a qualifying family member of an EWU/EEA/Swiss national. Your wife's FLR residence permit was issued under the UK immigration rules, not the UK's EEA regulations. If it had been issued under the EEA regulations it would have the words "family member of a Union citizen" on it! Does it? "Spouse/partner" means what it says. As I said before, that you have the same name does not prove she is your spouse/partner. Leaving possible American cousins aside, I have the same surname as my brother's wife; but she is not my spouse/partner! She would also have exactly the same residence card with exactly the same wording on it were she the wife of a non Brit, e.g. American, who had ILR in the UK. I took the picture of the residence card from page 10 of the government's An employer’s guide to acceptable right to work documents. Yes, and I have always said as much! But as I have said, theoldgit has said, Donutz, rasg has said; getting to the port of entry may not be possible as your airline may refuse to board her without a visa! Want to take that chance? What vested interests? Why would anyone want to hide the facts; even though your wife needs a visa, it will be issued free of charge so there is no money to be made by hiding the truth. The only possible difference between what is in the guidance and the directive is your claim that the directive does not say "except the country you are a national of" or similar. As I have already said, I can't be arsed to trawl through to see if you are correct or not for the simple reason that your wife does not have a residence card as the family member of an EU national issued under the EEA regulations! Therefore, as both the guidance and the directive clearly say, she needs a visa regardless of whether or not the words "except the country you are a national of" or similar appear anywhere in the directive. Fair enough; but London is not your only option for her to apply, and either Manchester or Edinburgh may be closer. At least four people have advised you she needs a visa and it's best for her to get it in advance. Up to you; get her visa in advance or be prepared to be denied boarding when you get to the airport. I know what I would do.
  4. Unlike, I suspect, anyone else here, I have been caught up in this demonstration as on Thursday as I had to get to client's premises in Mortimer Street (just north of Oxford Street) and then from there to Pelham Crescent in South Kensington; carrying the tools I needed to do my work, which are heavy and cumbersome so public transport is out of the question. Fortunately, I was able to avoid the illegal demonstration on Waterloo Bridge and that at Marble Arch, but the road closures due to the illegal demonstrations at Piccadilly Circus and Oxford Circus meant myself and others had to crawl along in a stop start manner (worse than even the usual peak hours) to try and find alternative routes. Which, of course, vastly increased the amount of polluting exhaust we emitted. Hugely reducing the air quality inside London's Ultra Low Emissions Zone! I eventually gave up trying to get from south of Oxford Street to the site in Mortimer Street and parked my vehicle in Poland Street (Soho) Car Park. Walking from there, I passed many of the demonstrators at Oxford Circus. Most of whom were carrying plastic bags, drinking water from plastic bottles and eating takeaway food in single use polystyrene or plastic containers! These people who claim to care about the environment are not only causing a huge deterioration of Central London's air quality, they are also producing a huge amount of non biodegradable, plastic waste!
  5. The 2004 directive contains nothing new. What it did is bring all the various regulations in many other directives into one place. See para 4 of the preamble. There is no hidden agenda by anyone; the rules and requirements as well as the rights of EU/EEA/Swiss nationals and their family members are there for all to see, both in the actual directive and the guidance linked to earlier.
  6. @durhamboy The Freedom of Movement directive makes no mention of the Schengen agreement for the simple reason that whilst all Schengen states are members of the EU, not all EU members are members of Schengen; the UK and RoI are not. Nether are the EEA states. Yet all these are covered by the FoM directive. You wife's residence permit says she is a spouse/partner, but not who that spouse partner is. That she is travelling with you and you have the same surname does not prove that she is your spouse/partner. She may be that of your American cousin! The guidance I linked to and quoted earlier is based upon the directive itself Your wife's FLR residence permit is not a residence card of a family member of a Union citizen. It makes no mention of her being so anywhere on it and was issued under the UK's immigration rules, not the EEA regulations. If it were, it would look like this: She needs a visa, and for the reasons amply explained by others, it is best if she obtains this before you travel. But you do not need to travel to London; there are Netherlands visa application centres in Manchester and Edinburgh. Surely, based on your usernbame, one of those is closer. See EU/EEA and Swiss national family member.
  7. The directive applies to all EEA members and Switzerland, not just the Schengen states. @Donutz does, and he has given his reply. @rasg has also related his experience. The words "family member of an EU/EEA national" or similar. must appear on her residence permit for her not to need a visa. Your wife has FLR and so a residence permit issued under the UK immigration rules. Therefore her permit does not say that she is a family member of an EU/EEA national. Only EEA family permits issued under the directive will say that. Even if she did have an EEA family permit, if it was issued by the UK and you are British then she would still need a visa. From Travel documents for non-EU family members However, it should be possible for her to obtain that visa at her port of entry: As that says, to avoid delays, or even, as @theoldgit said, being denied boarding by your airline, it is best for her to obtain the "necessary documents" such as a visa in advance before you travel.
  8. Presumably this is overtime and shown as such on her payslips? If so, it is taken into account when calculating her gross annual income. See Section 5.5.24 para 18(b) on page 35of the financial requirement appendix. P60s are not mandatory. If she has all the mandatory documents, see section 5.6 on page 37, and they show that the requirement is met, then there is no reason I can think of why the decision maker would ask for her P60. See section 5.6 para 2(ii)(d). Edit: Sent PM as well.
  • Create New...