Visa For Thai Partner For Long Term Stay In Uk

[Tootah]

Hi!

I have been with my Thai girfriend for 3 years now and I would like some advice as to the likelihood of her getting a say, 2-3 year visa for the UK, as she would like to study and work. I am 29 she is 24, she is university educated with degree and speaks English fluently, works full time in Thailand for school. We live together in Thailand at present, I have text messages and emails going back 3 years, we are not married but soon to wed. I would like to think that she would have no problem in getting the visa, we dont have a lot of money, but my father has own company and he would sponsor her no probs if reqd, as I dont have a house in the UK but will rent an apartment. I plan to leave thailand to UK, organise apartment and find job and then fly her over when our place is ready.

Any of you fellas been down this route? Any feedback warmly welcomed, thanks again.

TT

[the scouser]

In the circumstances that you describe, your girlfriend could, if you have been living together for two years and have the evidence to demonstrate this, apply for an unmarried partner's settlement visa which would give her two years before applying for indefinite leave. Alternatively, once you are married, she may apply for the same settlement visa as the spouse of a British citizen. Lastly, if she wishes neither of those options, she could arrrange a course of study in the Uk and apply for a student visa.

Scouse.

[vinny]

The Husbands, wives and partners (INF 4) Guidance and Settlement : Fiance(e)s, proposed civil partners, spouses, civil partners, unmarried and same-sex partners may be useful.

If you are considering marriage in Thailand, see also:

General Guidance for British Nations wishing to marry in Thailand

Guidance for British Nationals Wishing to Marry in Thailand

Regarding any financial support from your father, see also Third Party Support no longer permitted in Entry Clearance cases.

[Tootah]

Vinny and Scouse, thanks so much for the info and links, I really appreciate your kind input and time. I will take some time out to read more into this and post back my experience(s) as and when it happens. In the meantime thanks again for your knowledge, I have so much on my mind with preparing to leave Thailand, which in itself is more than difficult, but more importantly want to prepare my gf for her move and to support her as much as possible as she is one in a million. Thanks and best regards,

TT

[the scouser]

Regarding any financial support from your father, see also Third Party Support no longer permitted in Entry Clearance cases.

It's interesting that Vinny should raise this case. For those who are inclined it is well worth reading the determination.

When the judgement was promulgated, I took some legal opinion which is as follows:-

It is somewhat superficial and I would surmise an application to the High Court may develop the principle further in favour of the appellant.

Hodge has made no attempt to define what constitutes " support " and " third party ". Funds excluding recourse to public provision can be defined as income from pension and/ or employment that may be relied upon by any party and has to be realistic and the appropriate test is as ever on the balance of probabilities.Thus a job in hand or pension must be sufficiently remunerative and available and by definition comes from " a third party " viz the employer or pension provider. How can he exclude the income stream provided by the daughter which has been demonstrated to be both sufficient and reliable and has every expectation of being provided until the parties have no further need of it? How is an employer or pension provider so different from the daughter in these circumstances for they are both " third parties "? He has not considered this argument but yet he has opened it........

Scouse.

[Tootah]

Regarding any financial support from your father, see also Third Party Support no longer permitted in Entry Clearance cases.

It's interesting that Vinny should raise this case. For those who are inclined it is well worth reading the determination.

When the judgement was promulgated, I took some legal opinion which is as follows:-

It is somewhat superficial and I would surmise an application to the High Court may develop the principle further in favour of the appellant.

Hodge has made no attempt to define what constitutes " support " and " third party ". Funds excluding recourse to public provision can be defined as income from pension and/ or employment that may be relied upon by any party and has to be realistic and the appropriate test is as ever on the balance of probabilities.Thus a job in hand or pension must be sufficiently remunerative and available and by definition comes from " a third party " viz the employer or pension provider. How can he exclude the income stream provided by the daughter which has been demonstrated to be both sufficient and reliable and has every expectation of being provided until the parties have no further need of it? How is an employer or pension provider so different from the daughter in these circumstances for they are both " third parties "? He has not considered this argument but yet he has opened it........

Scouse.

Hi Scouse,

I deduct from the above quote and link, the information states that an application lodged which includes third party support for the applicant is no longer applicable in this instance? Edit: I did;nt read the information in full correctly, apologies.

[the scouser]

The relevant clause of the Immigration Rules states:-

the parties will be able to maintain themselves and any dependants adequately without recourse to public funds

In the past, this has been interpreted as meaning that any old source of income, as long as it's not from public funds, would be sufficient to meet the requirements of the Rules. However, the determination linked to by Vinny, rigidly interprets the clause and places emphasis on "the parties" and "themselves"; i.e. the couple is not to be reliant upon a third party for support, and this effectively puts the kaibosh on, amongst other things, parents offering financial assistance to their offspring for the purposes of supporting a foreign spouse. It is noteworthy, though, that this does not extend to offers of accommodation which may still be provided by a third party.

The opinion which I was given (and it is only an opinion) believes this state to be untenable, but until either the matter is taken to the High Court or the Immigration Rules are changed, the judgement stands.

Scouse.

[Tootah]

The relevant clause of the Immigration Rules states:-

the parties will be able to maintain themselves and any dependants adequately without recourse to public funds

In the past, this has been interpreted as meaning that any old source of income, as long as it's not from public funds, would be sufficient to meet the requirements of the Rules. However, the determination linked to by Vinny, rigidly interprets the clause and places emphasis on "the parties" and "themselves"; i.e. the couple is not to be reliant upon a third party for support, and this effectively puts the kaibosh on, amongst other things, parents offering financial assistance to their offspring for the purposes of supporting a foreign spouse. It is noteworthy, though, that this does not extend to offers of accommodation which may still be provided by a third party.

The opinion which I was given (and it is only an opinion) believes this state to be untenable, but until either the matter is taken to the High Court or the Immigration Rules are changed, the judgement stands.

Scouse.

Cheers Scouse,

thanks for the valuable info here

[the scouser]

When the judgement was promulgated, I took some legal opinion which is as follows:-

It is somewhat superficial and I would surmise an application to the High Court may develop the principle further in favour of the appellant.

Hodge has made no attempt to define what constitutes " support " and " third party ". Funds excluding recourse to public provision can be defined as income from pension and/ or employment that may be relied upon by any party and has to be realistic and the appropriate test is as ever on the balance of probabilities.Thus a job in hand or pension must be sufficiently remunerative and available and by definition comes from " a third party " viz the employer or pension provider. How can he exclude the income stream provided by the daughter which has been demonstrated to be both sufficient and reliable and has every expectation of being provided until the parties have no further need of it? How is an employer or pension provider so different from the daughter in these circumstances for they are both " third parties "? He has not considered this argument but yet he has opened it........

Well, two years on and the person from whom I sought the opinion has been vindicated.

It appears that the Supreme Court has now re-allowed 3rd party support in settlement cases.

Thanks go to "richardb" for having alerted me to this, and to "the gent" for his original opinion.

Scouse.

[paully]

^ That's good news, scouse, and vindication for your counsel. A silly decision by the late Mr Justice Hodge, with all due respect to him, clearly not fully thought through - and not the only poor decision he made.

[the scouser]

... and vindication for your counsel.

Aye, but his already-large ego is now twice the size and he's going on about how heavy is the burden of always being right.

Scouse.

[paully]

^ That means his fees'll double and you may soon'll have to call him 'Leading Counsel..'

[vinny]

It will be interesting to see what the final judgment will say.

Restrictions to third party maintenance support may lead to strange determinations. For example, a student may have third party sponsors, but his dependants cannot rely on it

[vinny]

3rd party support judgment

[7by7]

The judgment allows an ECO or the tribunal to look at the question of whether third party support is sufficiently well-evidenced and reliable-looking to take into account when considering the question of maintenance. This is simply a sensible outcome.

Indeed.