ExpatArchie

Thanks for the feedback CharlieB.

I have done that already. They have replied by email twice now and I have asked them if they can provide the passport number to either me and/or the Singapore police directly.

No reply to that yet.

The next thing I will do on that 'front' is to ask the Singapore police if they will deal with the Thai consulate in Singapore directly.

I could ask the Singapore police to do this now - but I think its better I make some effort to just provide the passport number they asked for first. I am sure like me, you would think its not very good 'form' for them to ask me on Tuesday to provide this number and then I contact them a day later and say I have done all I can to get this number and can they do this and that etc.... Before I ask the Singapore police to do anything else I need to spend and least until next week trying to get this passport number.

If I am unsuccessful then I will list all the unsuccessful methods I have used, then they can see I am not just lazy and really do need them to do something else...

Obviously if I am successful, then I can remove the Thai authorities from the 'equation' - lets face it - we all know involving the Thai authorities more than necessary is unlikely to speed this process up in the long term.

Even when we spoke to the MFA in Thailand, when my wife told them her sister had not been in contact for 3 weeks - they seemed to think that was not really a long time to be missing - and did not seem too interesetd - hmmm... I disagree.

How do you know she did not return to Thailand?

Previously you explained that you didn't know the spelling of the "english" name in her passport which might assist Singapore police trace her passport number.

This would be the same as on her ID card. If you know her ID number, chances are her sister will, you can find this out from the Provincial registrar

You can assure your friend the rules have not changed.

The 2 month extension is usually given to allow time for the 400/800Kbht to be in the bank prior to 1 year marriage/retirement extensions.

The OP didn't say if he had just deposited that amount.

I don't recall the OP making any reference to retirement.

60 days is allowed for visiting a Thai wife. Any type of visa. You can even come here on a 30day visa exempt entry and get 60 days extra if you marry a Thai.

Extension for seasoning of money. Unlikely

The 60 day extension is normal practice. When I changed for extension based on retirement to one based on marriage, I was given the same thing. I had no problems

One month under consideration is the norm

t

If application was accepted it is most likely to be approved. Often such extension for a young child would require a court order of custody but it varies and this case appears to be clear if mother has departed and case in court.

But was the application accepted or has he simply been fobbed off with a 60 day consolation prize visit wife and come back later and try again?

If it was accepted his passport wil have been stamped "under consideration" and success is the likely outcome. Perhaps the OP can enlighten us.

OP, is the child yours? If he isn't, you are not entitled to a visa extension however good your intentions.

Whichever I do not think you need involve a lawyer at this stage.

This is a corrected version

Living in Chiangmai since 2005

May 2007 1 year based on retirement (given in Chiangmai)

May 2008 1 year extension based on marriage (applied for it in Chiangmai but had to travel to Nakhomphanom to apply as wife's house registration book is from there, granted_

May 2009 1 year extension based on marriage (travelled to Nakhomphanom again to apply where wife's registration is but my wife or myself never live there, granted)

May 2010 applied for 1 year extension in Chiangmai based on supporting Thai child (going through divorce in court, mother of child not available for taking care of child, disappeared) I only rent house in Chiangmai, child 4 years old, goes to school every day

Was given 2 months and told to return to get 1 year

Now I am told by others that I will not be given 1 year extension

Do I need a lawyer to sort this out?

Any comments

You would only need a lawyer if your application was refused.

If the child is also yours and you meet the same income/money in the bank requirement needed for a Thai wife extension should be a walkover

You are not entitled to an extension of stay to support a step-child ild this is not a justifcation for a visa extension. My guess is you have been given 2 months because you are entitled to 60 days no questions asked by virtue of still having a Thai wife.

Edited:

To correct a glaring error

Allow 90 days.

Service standard is to process 95% of settlement applications within 12 weeks and 100% in 24 weeks.

During the first 3 months of this year Bangkok processed 94% within 30 days, 98% within 60 days, 100% within 90 days. Total processed 624.

In total 16332 visas (all types) were processed

Remember the days quoted are working days.

I was trying to give heart to the OP.

Based on the number of days a civil servant works I calculate 90 days equates to 9 months

Correction: The right for spouses on settlement visas to work is asserted in the Home Office guidance to applicants but NOT in the guidance for child access applicants. My point remains valid.

I recall I said I will post no more in this thread BUT it is a fascinating issue......……….

There are apparent contradictions between the immigration rules and the wording of refusals. It appears the wording is out of date. But is that credible? Of course not: they will have been out of date for 10 YEARS.

You have to consider intention and purpose of policy/law makers.

The right of access to a child was conceded in the 1990s with the principal intention of allowing a parent who was required to involuntarily leave the UK following divorce or legal separation to remain or return in order to contribute to the upbringing of their child. In 2000 the rules were relaxed and seemingly anyone with a child in the UK can apply. Was it the intention in 2000 to extend the right to a person voluntarily separated from their child. I suggest not.

Consider:

In a recent thread an Irish passport holder living in the UK with his Thai wife wishes to obtain an EEA family permit for her child who has been raised by Thai grandparents for the past 6 years. Apparently she can do this do this without agreement or knowledge of the biological father. Let us assume the biological father is Thai (it is not stated). The father will be involuntarily separated. Would it have been the intention that the father should have a right to access his child. I suggest, YES.

The permit was refused because as evidence of legal custody was not submitted

A Thai man goes on holiday to UK, has an affair, fathers a child. Was it the intention to extend a right of access to him? I suggest NO: he voluntarily did what he did in the knowledge he had no right of residence.

Now consider the OP's situation. A Thai mother separates from her husband (OP) and insists he takes their child to the UK. She is voluntarily separated from the child. Time passes. She now (possibly) has a change of heart and wants to be part of the child's life. Would she be granted a visa? I suggest NO, because it was not intended there be a remedy for voluntary separation. So how will it be refused? She would conveniently be viewed, on consideration and on balance, as an economic migrant and refused on the basis of her intention to work. If her husband agreed to maintain her temporarily she would be refused on the basis the rules do not permit work. One could argue the rules make no mention of work, or the visa conditions, once issued, permit work. Semantics. The Home Office would simply dig in it's heels in the knowledge the average Thai would not have the means nor wherewithal to take the matter further. There is also a public interest consideration: what would be the view of a Sun or Daily Mail reader if the visa was issued and the story got out (rhetoric).

I suggest policy is to grant visas to those involuntarily separated from their child.

I suggest unless the applicant is of independent means general policy is to refuse visas to those who have been voluntarily separated and, whether lawful or not, use intention to work as grounds. If you need to work you won't get in; if you don't need to work you will get a visa which permits you to work. There will of course be exceptions where, for example, a person can demonstrate they gave agreement to the removal of a child under duress or mental stress.

The retention of refusing applications on grounds that evidence of divorce/legal separation has not been provided is related to the question of voluntary repatriation. He may become homesick and leave the UK, his wife and child. He has a change of heart after the visa expires. To deceive the Home Office into believing he left involuntarily he lies about being divorced/separated.

Wild suppostion or inspired insight?

Looking at Wording for refusals: Sections 31-35 it appears that much of the refusal wording is out of date and does not reflect the current rules; like the wording for a refusal because the parents are not divorced or legally separated which you have mentioned no longer applies.

The immigration rules Para 246 (vii) says

the applicant will be able to maintain himself and any dependents adequately without recourse to public funds

There is no mention that employment is prohibited; as there is in the rules for general visitors for example: Para 41(iii)

does not intend to take employment in the United Kingdom;

As said previously, this would be a Code 1 endorsement on the entry clearance, not a Code 3. If you look at Entry Clearance Codes and Conditions attached (page 5 of the document) you will see that Code 1 means no recourse to public funds, whereas Code 3 means no work and recourse to public funds.

All of which seems to confirm that she will be able to work.

I accept once issued the visa permits working. I have stated that an employer would not be breaking the law by employing her. But in the particular circumstances describe by the OP it cannot, I suggest, be issued.

To obtain the visa she must demonstrate she can maintain herself. She cannot claim she can do this by getting a job because there is no guarantee of getting work, Therefore the visa must be refused.

If she had access to reasonable funds (which it appears she doesn't) the visa would be granted. I concede that on entry she could take up employment because if she subsequently lost the job she would not become destitute.

I am 100% positive that when the govt were forced to allow right to child access the rules, as laid before parliament, specified employment was prohitbited. I accept that the current consolidated rules make no mention of this. So either the rule has been revoked or quietly forgotten.

It is of note that the rules do not specifically say working is allowed, unlike spouse settlement.

I suspect there is unpublished guidance, or possibly such visa applications are automatically referred to the Home Ofice.

I will not post further on this issue and will allow you the last word.

Allow 90 days.

Service standard is to process 95% of settlement applications within 12 weeks and 100% in 24 weeks.

During the first 3 months of this year Bangkok processed 94% within 30 days, 98% within 60 days, 100% within 90 days. Total processed 624.

In total 16332 visas (all types) were processed

Bangkok processed 84 settlement visa applications in April. All had been processed within 60 days. 44% within 30 days.

How many were rejected I can't say.

The temporary closure of the embassy will doubtless add a few days to OP wife's application

In addition to Paras 246 to 248 and normal immigration rules ECOs are required to the additonal guidance, which confers the right of access only to a divorced or legally separated parent. I know the former is not the case and assume she is not legally seperated.

I have been informed the above statement is wrong. Rules were amended in 2000.The right to access is NOT restricted to those divorced or legally seperated.

I have every sympathy with the mother and wish her success should she apply.

I assert the accuracy of my pervious post

Chapter 26 Annex 2 Part 7

Wording for refusals: Section….35

35. Persons exercising rights of access to children resident in the United Kingdom

"...but I am not satisfied that you do not intend to take employment in the United Kingdom."

"...but I am not satisfied that you will maintain and accommodate yourself (and any dependants) adequately out of resources available to you without recourse to public funds or taking employment; or will (with and dependants) be maintained and accommodated adequately by relatives or friends."

A prospective employer, examining the visa to satisfy himself under the law of the right of the holder to be employed would be satisfied. But in the particular circumstances of this case the Visa will not be issued.

Of course the Immigration Rules do not state that employment is prohibited but by virtue of the above it is implicit. . In addition to Paras 246 to 248 and normal immigration rules ECOs are required to the additonal guidance, which confers the right of access only to a divorced or legally separated parent. I know the former is not the case and assume she is not legally seperated.

I am certain that unusually a LAW was placed before parliament specifically prohibiting employment of persons exercising this right of access but I do not know if it was passed. I will continue to search OPSI.

So what, thats is in the past?

But nevertheless relevant to my argument.

How many female immigrants of our generation who have entered UK without a knowledge of English have not subsequently learnt it? Factual answers only please

I don't know the factual answer; do you?

I wonder, though, how many who have entered in the recent past would have learned English were doing so not a requirement for their ILR and so, having not learned it, would be in the position of their predecessors which I described and you dismissed.

My first point wa rhetorical.

Older generations did not have learn English. New immigrants do to gain ILR. That is my point. Why not leave things as they are?

Which is what he didn't. He went through the EEA channel and then wandered back down to the non EEA channel. Nonetheless you make a fair point.

OK one each there.

When entering the UK through LHR my gf and I have always gone through the UK/EU Channel and have never been turned away.

Indeed , when accompanying my Thai wife we always used the EEA (I'm point scoring) and the BKK Thai/ASEAN channels. I've read on Thaivisa there a an EU law/directive that family members should be permitted to use the same channel. I doubt there is though.

If it becomes apparent to an immigration officer that your wife is not resident in the UK but only using her ILR for visits, then whilst she would be allowed in on that occasion as a visitor; her ILR would then be canceled.

To answer your question; yes, I think it is worth your wife getting a British passport.

Not only because she can then leave and enter the UK as often and for as long as she wishes, but also because there are many countries where Brits don't need a visa to visit but Thais do.

Both the UK and Thailand allow dual nationality; so naturalisation as British wont affect her Thai citizenship in any way.

Many thanks for your reply.

7by 7, after my trip to Hong Kong, my wife and I plan to return to Thailand and settle there indefintely. I know you have mentioned that Thai people can have dual nationality; however friends of mine recently went to Thailand for a holiday and when they checked in at the airport to return to Britain, the immigration adviser realised they had two passports. Following this they stamped their Thai passports, made notes on a database and stated they could not have a Thai and British passport. This has worried me slightly. I am not questioning your knowledge (far from it) but I would like to know why this is a grey area? I have searched and searched for information regarding dual nationality but have been unsuccessful. We plan to buy property soon and need to be 100 per cent clear as I don't want anything to be comprimised.

Please can you advise on this.

Best wishes,

Bes

Your friends correctly used their Thai passports for exiting LOS. Thai passport holders have their passports stamped on entry and exit. The nice smiling immigration policeman (who probably said nothing of the sort as they are not known for their conversational skills) manually inputs nothing more sinister than the flight number . UK and Thailand recognises dual nationality. It is not a grey area. UK Border Agency | Can I be a citizen of two countries? will confirms UK position. A Thai aquiring British nationality does not lose Thai nationality unless he/she specifically request it. Nationality Law BE 2535 as amendedor somesuch. Try googling again

Op asks:

Hi quick question, my gf has just received a 6 month visit visa to the UK. Does a return ticket need to be purchased or can she fly with me and our son on a one way ticket? then i purchase a return once we are in the UK amd know an exact return date.

Ignore the rubbish written here. She does not need a return ticket. Accompany her through the non EEA channel in case the immigration officer has any questions.

Which is what he did, and reported back a couple of days ago, keep up Archie

Which is what he didn't. He went through the EEA channel and then wandered back down to the non EEA channel. Nonetheless you make a fair point.

Its a family visit visa you require if she had a British passport then you would not require a visa.

UK/BA

VAT2.4 What is a family visitor?

The same as for a visitor. Under the Immigration Appeals (Family Visitor) Regulations 2003, a family visitor is defined as someone who intends to visit someone who is related to them in the following way:

1. the applicant's spouse, father, mother, son, daughter, grandfather, grandmother, grandson, granddaughter, brother, sister, uncle, aunt, nephew, niece or first cousin (note: "first cousin" means, in relation to a person, the son or daughter of his uncle or aunt);
2. the father, mother, brother or sister of the applicant's spouse;
3. the spouse of the applicant's son or daughter;
4. the applicant's stepfather, stepmother, stepson, stepdaughter, stepbrother or stepsister; or
5. a person with whom the applicant has lived as a member of an unmarried couple for at least two of the three years before the day on which his application for entry clearance was made.

Regards Paul

Anyone know the cost of this family visit visa and how long it takes to obtain one

3400THB. Usually 2-3 working days excluding the day you apply and the day you collect.

Op asks:

Hi quick question, my gf has just received a 6 month visit visa to the UK. Does a return ticket need to be purchased or can she fly with me and our son on a one way ticket? then i purchase a return once we are in the UK amd know an exact return date.

Ignore the rubbish written here. She does not need a return ticket. Accompany her through the non EEA channel in case the immigration officer has any questions.

Agree 100%. Where I live there is a large ethnic Pakistani community. Most are by now second and third generation, but their parents and grand parents could not speak English when they first arrived. Most of the men learned, they had to to find work, but some who didn't were exploited by their fellow language speakers; working for long hours and low pay. Most of the women didn't have the opportunity to learn English and so were trapped within their community, unable to communicate with anyone from outside.

Is such ghettoisation what people really want?

So what, thats is in the past? How many female immigrants of our generation who have entered UK without a knolwedge of English have not subsequently learnt it? Factual answers only please

Being overdrawn at times is not a problem in itself as long as you can show you have enough income/savings to support your wife without her having recourse to public funds. But if you do supply statements showing you have been/are overdrawn you MUST also include a letter from your bank confirming both your agreed overdraft facility and the limit. If you don't the ECO will assume it's an unauthorized overdraft and question your ability to support your wife. I remember one self employed person who had an authorized overdraft (for cash flow purposes) but didn't supply confirmation from his bank and his wife's visa was refused because of insufficient funds. This particular case was overturned when he supplied the details, but the ECO can only make a decision based on the paperwork actually supplied.

This must have been a long time ago. All personal UK bank a/c statements must now clearly show authorised available funds. Time marches on.

No she does not qualify under the circunstances you describe. You imply she wishes to come to the UK and support herself by working,She may not work. You however can support her.

If your circumstances are as you described you are guaranteed a decision on your partners application. Good luck to the ECO..

So now UK has one-upped Arizona and proves that it is as racist as any place in the world. The question is not about the value of learning English, it's about the right of a government to demand it, and then proceed to enforce it at its own whim and discretion. Why don't they require Brits to learn at least one foreign language? Or better yet, require everyone in Wales be able to speak Welsh, ditto Scotland and North Ireland. Do that first, then bash the foreigners...

I think you're making a valid point when you say "The question is not about the value of learning English, it's about the right of a government to demand it, and then proceed to enforce it at its own whim and discretion". This is where the issues of 'proportionality' and 'legitimate aim' comes into play. More so, as KoL and ESOL (for ILR) already exist to ensure the legitimate aims & objectives of the Govt, what is the evidence- based legal justification for imposing further language restrictions on non-EU applicants? As I indicated earlier, any legal challenge is likely to fall under Article 8 & 14 ECHR/HRA 1998. I believe,proving the 'proportionality' of this new move would be the more difficult task for the Govt rather than satisfying the 'legitimate aim' requirement. Potential breach of Article 14(discrimination), as clearly this is a race-specific measure, would be another hurdle the Govt may have to cross at the appropriate time. Of course, legitimately, one could enter the UK from an EU country without any English-competency requirement, and albeit, lawful, this may well be a sound comparison-argument to show the dual standards applied here.

Quite right. Like I said, open to judiical review. But best not to test quasi legal argument in this forum.

Ask yourself, can you honestly support your wife on your sole NET income? If yes, don't worry. Submit bank a/c details as required. Going overdrawn is a fact of life and will not count against you.