Seekingasylum

I don't think you have taken on board the need for you to get urgent legal advice before proceeding further. By all means appeal now, you have nothing to lose, but the decision to lodge another application is really one only an experienced Counsel can advise you on. Frankly, you are risking another £1000 and I fear you will simply walk into another refusal on the same grounds relating to sole responsibility. It is not just a matter of judgement to be weighed by a lay person. The issues involved have been shaped by case law and judicial findings. Only an experienced law practitioner can assess the circumstances of the case and the evidence produced by you in meeting the requirements of the rules and determine if the refusal was flawed.

Colin Yeo is a respected barrister in this field. He is a direct access lawyer which means you do not have to engage a solicitor to get his opinion. Go google him and contact his chambers.

Oops! Mea culpa Tony. I mistakenly believed the review system had already been implemented. Still, the thrust of my post, although somewhat premature, is still valid and certainly will be the case in the near term.

I rather think this is a salutary lesson for all who may have thought that the British Home Office was a competent organisation, staffed by intelligent people and resourced to a degree commensurate with its economic standing in the world.

It is probably on a par with Cambodia, India and the Sudan but one may be somewhat uncharitable to those countries in making such a comparison.

Stupid is as stupid does. And these days one truly struggles to find worse. My dealings with them have certainly made me rethink how the Thai operate.

How long does it take to get a passport now? Six months seems to be the period although that assumes they haven't lost the application form, eaten a page with their sandwiches or just forgot to go to the right desk that day.

I recall many hoteliers and tourist outlets who bemoaned the thriftiness of Chinese tourists, their appalling manners and innate rudeness. Funny how TAT seem to ignore the reality. Also, Chinese do not like to frolic about the beach for two weeks, getting drunk, bopping in local clubs nor do they eat anything other than prawns and Chinese food. Actually, I don't see Chinese tourism in Thailand being anything other than a flash in the pan. Most of the 200 million moneyed Chinese simply want to go to Europe. Thailand is a cheap skate secondary destination of little consequence. Thank God.

Oh dear.

Sponsoring child settlement is difficult. The criteria for interpreting sole responsibility is narrowly interpreted by the Home Office. The Home Office now permits no appeal except on grounds not available to you. There is an administrative process whereby you could,challenge the decision but this is unlikely to succeed since the same folk who refused the child will be the folk who decide the review outcome.

You can challenge the decision at the High Court by seeking a judicial review. This is not cheap and will require a lawyer. Budget for about £2500. However, you could instruct a lawyer to draft a letter of submission to be served upon the Home Office stating the grounds why you think the decision to refuse is flawed. This is called a pre - action protocol letter. A decent lawyer will charge about £500. The Home Office must respond to this and have a short time in which to do so. If the the PAP letter is well drafted and the the grounds for refusal are shaky then a senior officer may decide to concede the case and issue the visa. He may not in which case you will need to seek leave to move at the High Court. A judge will consider the case on papers and may conclude there is a case to go before a hearing. He may not in which case you will have to decide to seek a further review with the risk of paying costs for all.

Some lawyers feel an appeal on Human Rights grounds can be made to an immigration judge. This is potentially less expensive and in considering HR he will first review the factual grounds for the refusal. If he thinks the decision is wrong then he will rule accordingly and not consider the HR aspect. He however could find for the Home Office.

Get a lawyer's opinion.

One can only speculate on the degree of civilization, or lack of it, when an organisation can grant a mother's application but not her child. I sometimes think the British are sleepwalking into a Nazi Republic. Teresa May is a barren, shrivelled old hag so I suppose empathy is not an option although it should be noted all three political parties supported the move to deny the right of appeal in these cases. And how many did they lose when there were appeal rights? About 50- 70 %, annually.

Jesus wept..

The "friend" will have as much chance of obtaining an ED extension as I would have of swimming to the moon. The new policy which takes into account one's previous history in Thailand over the past two years would alone prejudice his chances.

Indeed, TonyM, it's a brave man who completes his wife's settlement application, based upon his co directorship of a limited company where his income is augmented from other sources, without having gone through the process previously. Similarly, sponsoring a child's settlement application and drafting a submission in support of the application form dealing with the issue of sole responsibility in terms of precedents and case law must be a piece of cake for anyone who can tick a box.

Or a visit visa application where the applicant has an adverse history and the prior refusal was flawed but had gone unchallenged at the time. Or a settlement application in which the applicant is a previous overstayer.

Sure, who needs professional help when all one needs to do is to fill in a form or two?

I do hope you won't think me rude but I have no intention of engaging in pointless, nit picking ping pong games.

I know. That's why I said " presumptive ".

Essentially, a visa confers a presumptive right of entry. Provided that there has been no material change removing the basis of the visa issue the holder has an expectation of being granted admission in line with their stated intentions. Usually, and in most other visa regimes in the developed world, a right of appeal against an adverse decision is granted to the holder, whether it be exercisable from abroad or within the country where they may be seeking entry. A visa is simply an entry clearance and indicates that the bearer has already demonstrated to the issuing officer that he has complied with the immigration rules relating to the category in which he is seeking entry.

Ok?

Did we find out if JDgruen's German chums finally made it through the control?

For the Thai to refuse a visa holder on the basis of evidence that was already before the officer who issued the visa in the first place is a radical move and undermines the principle of a visa regime.

As the plight of the German couple so vividly demonstrates, the Thai are quite incapable of distinguishing between genuine travellers and those visa runners seeking to maintain a de facto residence.

Important principle at stake here but I should imagine the Thai will ignore it like they seem to do with anything they can't manage or comprehend properly.

The Appeal judges were obviously unhappy at Blake J's approach and have ruled that, irrespective of the anomalies apparent in May's nasty piece of work, the minimum criteria were introduced rationally and with due consideration of their impact upon other rights. Not for judges to usurp the elected legislature and the executive's right to implement their laws according to government policy.

The anomalies of course remain. I found it quite amusing that the Appeal judges found the Home Secretary was right to strike the balance between rights of families and the need to protect the public interest vis a vis the stresses and strains imposed by these migrants. Apparently the recent report published in the press that migration has had no radical effect upon wages or provision of services within the Uk over the past 10 years was not available to them.

Of course the minimum requirements are too high, unfair, illogical and unnecessary but as a point of principle it seems their imposition is quite lawful.

The law is an ass, but then we all knew that. Although I could find no reference to it, I assume the respondents were refused certification to take the matter to the Supreme Court.

Still, one can vote and together with the legion of public servants we can all register our disapproval by voting the Tories out next year. Probably won't affect the law but at least May can be consigned to the trash heap of political oblivion.

Birmingham is no better than Hull. Go to Cardiff or Liverpool. If all else fails get a double/ triple entry visit visa and when you are sorted in Thailand convert your visit visa into a Non immigrant O and then submit your spouse extension application. I think this is still possible but it is important to ensure that your current visit visa has at least 21 day unexpired.

Unbonjoe should be able to confirm if this route is still available.

Indeed, avoid Hull and the embassy like the plague. Hull have to refer everything to London except visit visas having transgressed in the past. The embassy seem to be entirely ignorant of their own laws and have introduced this daft income rule of their own volition. As above says, stick to Cardiff and Liverpool. However, who knows what the future holds. There are plans afoot to submit all applications electronically and presumably they may all be dealt with by London. Heaven help us.

Socially, you are, as a farang, outside the pale. Drinking beer with the security guard on duty simply confirms they are right to judge you as a loso.

Appearances are everything here and fraternising with the lower end of society puts you firmly in the same camp.

Are you a Tefler or just another itinerant?

First off, I think that most of us here on TV support what the general is trying to do. It has only been a week, so lets cut the man some slack. At the moment he has quite a few irons in the fire and is having to shuffle them around constantly. The man has done more in 1 week than I have seen in the 10 years I have been here, I applaud you sir. We have our tv's back working for the most part, while the internet is slow and some sites not available, it has not stopped. We all like to live our lives as we see fit, but we made the decision to live in Thailand, so we should accept the curfew for the little while it is in force.

We all have our ideas about what needs to be done, but lets cut the man some slack.

Very amusing irony. However, I should imagine some might think you were serious and just another raving lunatic labouring under a congenital deformity and entering senility.

If the OP is an EU national and is here in Thailand, is married to a Thai wife and is off to visit an EU country of which he is not a citizen then his spouse does not need a visa. However, no airline in the world will let her board the aircraft. She would need an EEA family permit issued by the embassy of the EU state they intend to visit. If the OP happened to reside in an EU country and his spouse held an EEA residence card then she would require no further permit to visit any other EU state provided she was accompanied by her EU spouse or he was already in the destination country.

Why don't you google UNHCR for the basics. Signatory countries who observe the various protocols honour the principle whereby an applicant may apply for asylum because they fear persecution in their own state on the grounds of their political, religious, social, etc, beliefs or membership.

Theoretically, anyone who demonstrates that they have a well founded fear of such persecution would be granted asylum and accorded refugee status.

As a caveat to this one would also have to show that the state was complicit in the persecution, either by commission or omission, and that the prospect of internal flight is not realistic or practical.

I understanding where you are coming from but ... but maybe this subtle adjustment ...

"Theoretically, anyone who demonstrates that they have a well founded fear of such persecution would be granted assessed for asylum and accorded refugee status."

Err, no. If one submits an application to a signatory to the Convention then they must have it considered, whether or not it transpires to have merit or otherwise. Additionally, a subsequent protocol added a right of appeal in the event such an application was refused. At no stage throughout the process can an applicant be removed until such rights have been exhausted

Most western countries' immigration laws were successfully circumvented by the bogus asylum route from 1980s onwards not least because the sheer number of such applications overwhelmed their systems and there was no capacity to detain within what were liberal, democratic societies where internment on such a scale was utterly alien.

The phenomenon accelerated the proliferation of visas as a prerequisite to travel and ushered in the concept of document/visa inspection by the airlines before check-in.

.

Why don't you google UNHCR for the basics. Signatory countries who observe the various protocols honour the principle whereby an applicant may apply for asylum because they fear persecution in their own state on the grounds of their political, religious, social, etc, beliefs or membership.

Theoretically, anyone who demonstrates that they have a well founded fear of such persecution would be granted asylum and accorded refugee status.

As a caveat to this one would also have to show that the state was complicit in the persecution, either by commission or omission, and that the prospect of internal flight is not realistic or practical.

So cause your wife had to wait in line like everyone else does, that's the issue?

Never had any issue with vfs, in fact have found them to be nice helpful folk. So you have to wait a while, big deal.

If you get someone to help you read the OP, you will find the issue is I paid $925 to book an appointment which was not kept by VFS. They may well be 'nice helpful people' but efficient they are not.

I don't know whether you are on a pension - your scoffing tone suggests you are too young for that, but one day, if you are lucky you will get to live in a beautiful country and because of the British Government's discriminatory policy against Thailand find you struggle to make ends meet because of Thai inflation as the frozen pension is eroded.

Ok old boy, after re reading your whine 3 times, you never mention once you had to pay $925 for an interview. I have never heard of anyone paying for an interview at vfs, you are paying for a visa(hopefully), let's clear that up.

You do however mention your wife had to wait for a long time, I know that can be annoying, but you aren't the only one waiting, no doubt vfs are going as fast as they can, we all know how frustrating government offices can be.

Finally you are right, no pension here....still slaving my ass off to help support the pension recipients.

Anyhow.....carry on.

Err, included in the visa application fee is an element charged by the VFS for their management of the queue including the appointment system.

Courtesy of a pensioner who paid contributions and taxes over 39 years.....

The problem when government contracts out its function to another body is the shift in responsibility. Complaining to VFS is pointless and akin to berating the monkey for the music the organ grinder is churning out. The OP should write in no uncertain terms to the Regional Inspector, UKVI, Bangkok, copying it to the ambassador and to the UKVI's current director, Sarah Rapson. Paying for an appointment to wait 4 hours is unacceptable.

There is no such rule expressed in the Immigration Rules that one cannot visit the UK for more than 6 months in any 12 month period. However, the ECO may refuse an application if he is not satisfied the applicant will leave the UK after the stated period of stay if the applicant has made successive and frequent visits to the UK to a degree that undermines the applicant's credibility.

In the absence of any appeal rights it is fairly safe to assume that ECOs everywhere will refuse on these grounds as if there were such a rule.

As I said before elsewhere, it's all about the money. Well, that and gleaning votes for coalition members.

The JR process will be expedited once all the existing appeal rights are mopped up and applications should theoretically revert to the schedule that prevailed a year ago. The cost to challenge UKVI decisions may even decrease as lawyers compete for the new business in the absence of that appeals work. In any event, taking into account the pre-action protocol letter and subsequent settlement of the grounds of the initial application seeking leave to move the cost will probably hit £1,500 at a minimum.

Of course, the propaganda currently put out by May and her spin doctors will simply lump such applicants into the category of those who have no right to stay, scarcely above the illegal entrant immigrant rapist, for the only reason they have been refused, whether lawfully or not. Quite Kafkaesque but then, when the executive assumes absolute power such a state of affairs becomes the norm. The in country applicants are truly facing a terrible prospect. Fight for your rights and risk insolvency or have your family split asunder. And the sad fact is, the British people at large don't care one jot.