durhamboy

Yes it's only large post offices that have this service. In our case it is a 100 mile round trip each time. God forbid if you live on a remote Scottish island!

Is it really zero risk?

As I understand it stuart is proposes to pay his wife from his own company.

If the company is, for example, trading at a loss and was otherwise insolvent but for, say, bank loans wouldn't that be in contravention of the rules. It could certainly be construed as circumventing the rules in those circumstances.

Btw, I'm not in any way suggesting stuart's company is insolvent and may well be very profitable for all I know. The point being that I don't think it is that simple when a husband and wife are paying themselves.

Actually TCA you pay £19.20 to the Post Office when your wife goes there to have her biometrics taken. Also, everytime you do an FLR and ILR you have to have another new BRP done each time - see another recent topic about that.

Congrats. I'm glad that was just a mix up but tends to show what morons are working on our expensive visas!

Seems to me like we are getting into the realms of James Bond!

I bet you a pound to a penny that fingerprints are not routinely checked against those in a previous BRP. I doubt that they are ever checked in spouse/partner FLRs and ILRs.

It is just another example of the hassle that applicants have to go through because the Home Office owes no duty of care to applicants or sponsors.

Sorry guys, I may be missing something but I still cannot see the point of people having to resubmit biometric data for FLR, ILR etc.

Assuming the Home Office keeps a record of their previous biometrics do you really think anyone checks that the fingerprints are the same? Given all the information that is required in applications for FLR and ILR is it really possible (within the bounds of reason) for someone to impersonate someone else and pay for the visa fees etc? Surely if someone is going to attempt to do that it would be a lot easier to forge a UK passport - so why no updated checks for that?

I think as bobrussell said earlier - they do it because they can!

So they are not "joined up". Unless things have changed recently, when we Brits renew our passports we do not have to attend for a biometrics session. Why can't UKVI have a system that stores people's data so they don't have to be put to this additional expense and hassle?

Basil - I'm not sure it is all there on their computers. A few months ago there was an Indonesian man with ILR (wife and kids in the UK). He lost his passport in Indonesia and couldn't get back to the UK for about 6 months because no one knew if he was telling the truth or not. He was in fact telling the truth.

Also, if things are so "joined up" then why on earth do people have to get (and pay for) another BRP for ILR when they have already got one at the FLR stage? Surely UKVI have all the details - photo, fingerprints etc. so why can't they just issue an amended one?

Thanks 7by7 and Bob. I got her to supply the Home Office with details of her home owned outright, employment, inheritance and current cash funds. I hope this is what they are looking for and shows that she has established a life in the UK post her husband's death and she is not likely to be a burden on the state.

Thought I'd just give an update on this.

She just got a letter from the Home Office :-

1. Despite already having a BRP she is being instructed to attend the Post Office for another one. Is that usual for ILR applications?

2. They have sent her a little form asking if there are additional grounds for her to stay in the UK. This is a bit worrying. I thought the fact that her husband had died was sufficient grounds to stay. Anyway, on my advice, she has put that she now has roots here and owns a house and has a job. This was not asked about in the 84-page form she originally submitted.

3. They are saying that they will decide her application "within 6 months" - seems an inordinately long time especially as I thought that bereavement cases were decided very quickly i.e. in a few weeks.

7by7 - no need for an apology. You were doing your best to advise people in what is one of the most confusing areas.

The people who should be apologising are the managers at UKVI for making things so confusing. I won't hold my breath on that one!

Not sure what you are saying 7by7. Very often we use the terms HMG, Home Office and UKVI synonymously. It's hard to differentiate them and, in my opinion, they are all collectively culpable. At the end of the day, they are all part of the same organisation.

Yes, MR. It's what I suspected all along. They have made the rules so convoluted that they themselves don't understand them anymore! Shambles.

Guys, I have done a bit more research on this by way of a google search today of UKVI guidelines. So this should be the current status :-

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/419920/Appendix_FM_Section_1_21.pdf

"Paragraph 32A of Appendix FM-SE makes clear for the avoidance of doubt that paragraphs 27 to 32D of Appendix FM-SE apply to fiancé(e), proposed civil partner, spouse, civil partner, unmarried partner and same sex partner applications for limited leave to enter or remain made under Part 8 of the Rules where English language requirements apply, regardless of the date of application." (my emphasis).

So further searching Appendix FM-SE (as referred to above) :-

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/immigration-rules/immigration-rules-appendix-fm-se-family-members-specified-evidence#

"32D. If an applicant applying for limited leave to enter or remain under Part 8 or Appendix FM submits an English language test certificate or result and the Home Office has already accepted it as part of a successful previous partner or parent application (but not where the application was refused, even if on grounds other than the English language requirement), the decision-maker may accept that certificate or result as valid if it is:

1. (a) from a provider which is no longer approved, or
2. ( from a provider who remains approved but the test the applicant has taken with that provider is no longer approved, or
3. © from a test centre which is no longer approved, or
4. (d) past its validity date (if a validity date is required under Appendix O), provided that when the subsequent application is made:
   1. (i) the applicant has had continuous leave (disregarding any period of overstaying of no more than 28 days) as a partner or parent since the Home Office accepted the test certificate as valid; and
   2. (ii) the award to the applicant does not fall within the circumstances set out in paragraph 32B of this Appendix."

So it is as clear as it can be in Home Office speak that a BULATS cert originally accepted as part of a successful settlement visa application is still acceptable for FLR.

Finally, may I say what an absolute pig's dinner made by the Home Office of what is supposed to be a simple requirement for people to speak English. It is an utter disgrace that things are made so complicated and unclear as to cause great distress for those merely trying to get FLR for their spouses who have already passed required English tests and lived here for 2 1/2 years speaking English everyday. Words fail me as to what I really think of those cretins in government administration. Good luck to all those applying for FLR.

7by7 - where it says :-

Anyone who has taken a previously approved test on or before 5th April 2015 may still use it in a UK immigration application until 5th November 2015..........

I think that this is intended to relate to transitional arrangements for people who had taken the English test in Thailand before 5th April 2015 and had not yet submitted their SV application. So it gave them a period of grace of 7 months which makes sense.

Also you make the point that under para 32D a "an old certificate may be accepted (note 'may' not 'will'!) if it has previously been accepted in a successful application......"

Yes that is true - it says "may" not "will" because if you read the statement there are certain quite understandable conditions attached to its acceptance, foremost of which is that the certificate wasn't obtained fraudulently hence the possible problem with the TOEIC certs.

So I am still 99% certain that a BULATS test is acceptable but I totally understand MR's (and his wife's) state of confusion and panic over this. The trouble is who can he ask? No one seems to be able to give a definitive answer. HMG keep making rule changes not realising the confusion it causes with rules still in place. In my opinion para 32D is quite clear and I referred to it strongly in my wife's recent successful FLR application albeit that her application was before 5th. November.

7by7, MR - I think there is a lot of confusion about English tests. I am 99% certain that a BULATS A1 English pass that was used for the initial Settlement Visa is valid for all future FLR applications. This is what is said in s32D :-

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/419920/Appendix_FM_Section_1_21.pdf

I think the 5th November (Guy Fawkes come back all is forgiven!) deadline relates to a reorganisation of the approved lists for tests taken for future SVs.

The TOEIC cert may be a problem. The problem is not the expiry date - all certs are accepted regardless of the fact that they may have expired - but unfortunately TOEIC was struck off for fraud - remember the Panorama programme about 18 months ago? My wife's expired BULATS cert was accepted recently when she got her FLR. I have not heard of anyone being accepted or rejected with TOEIC so you probably need to do more research on that.

You do the biometrics for the BRP when they send you a letter AFTER you submit your FLR application. Bank statements/payslips are either for 6 months or 12 months depending upon what financial requirement criteria you are relying on - savings or income.

Trevor, you seem to be taking quite taking quite a bit of flak from some senior members both in this topic and others. For what it's worth, I have some sympathy for what you have been saying. Only you and your wife know what occurred and the manner in which it occurred. Yes, Border Force officials do have to ask a lot of questions sometimes and they have to be savvy enough to weed out abuses in the system. Unfortunately this does allow them to abuse their powers if they wish in some circumstances. I do think that someone with a settlement visa should be able to pass through ports of entry with the minimum of hindrance especially when you consider all the forms, photos, fingerprints, brps that people with SVs have gone through. The system should easily identify such people. It still amazes me that FLRs are not stamped into people's passports.

I'm a bit puzzled why your wife is an ex national of The Philippines. The Phils. recognises dual nationality so was it a US requirement that she give up being a Filipino national?

I've been to The Phils more times than I care to remember (although last time was in 2010) - I have never experienced anyone looking at my return ticket either at check in or on arrival.

Also you might want to check out their "balikbayan" arrangements where they give extended stays (a year as I recall) to Filipinos and their spouses who have gone abroad. I think this might extend to Filipinos whose passports have expired but I am not sure.

Yes really! The OP was given a 6 month visa which he/she was legally entitled to stay in the UK for 6 months. His/her original plan may have been for a stay of 4 weeks and they then changed their plan. Have you or anyone else here never changed your plans and extended a visit? For you to just say that they simply lied on their application demonstrates a total lack understanding of the possibilities of the situation and is therefore total rubbish.

Nope. It doesnt work like that with a visit visa for the UK. Might be valid for 6 months but if the visitor doesnt visit on the dates that are specified there could be consequences as there has been here. I know this from personal experience with a visa application for an exwife. Since then Ive completed over 10 successful applications for current wife and friends.

Get you some of that. Wooooo

If you've successfully completed over 10 applications then you should be eminently aware that people's plans change and therefore you should not dismiss them as liars when said plans change. I am not challenging your view on how the system is supposed to work - what I object to is your assumption that ALL people are lying when they legitimately stay longer than they had said they would originally. I also object to the condescending dismissal of such people with your "simple as" comment.

Richard - I think we basically agree that the system that was supposed to be in place was unworkable. I agree that it was not EVA making the connection but the Border Force and that would have been based upon EVA's collection of data. How many millions of international passenger trips are made from/to UK ports of entry/exit in a year. Impossible to keep accurate track of imo.

At this stage all I can think is that maybe you accidentally ticked one of the wrong boxes when indicating the category you are applying under. Did you keep a copy of your completed application form? Certainly looks like a strange response from the Home Office on the face of it.

On the UK visa application it specifically asks length of stay.

If someone says they will stay for 1 month then stay for 5 its classed as lying on the application.

Simple as.

Total rubbish!

Really?

On the declaration at the end the applicant has to sign to say that its been completed to the best of their knowledge. They have just signed to say that they will visit the UK for 1 month. They didn't stay for 1 month they stayed for 5. Hence the reason this application was rejected.

Not total rubbish now is it?

Its there in black and white. "DECLINED"

Yes really! The OP was given a 6 month visa which he/she was legally entitled to stay in the UK for 6 months. His/her original plan may have been for a stay of 4 weeks and they then changed their plan. Have you or anyone else here never changed your plans and extended a visit? For you to just say that they simply lied on their application demonstrates a total lack understanding of the possibilities of the situation and is therefore total rubbish.

Richard, I don't think any connection was made. At that time she did not have a BRP (she only got that very recently). She left the UK on her new (married name) passport which was just given a cursory look by EVA staff at check in (they were a lot more interested in checking my credit card details to match it with the name on my ticket!). There were no passport checks when she left Heathrow.

When she returned she showed her old passport (with the visa in it) plus her new one (which immigration stamped). They asked us how long we had been away.

Therefore anyone going back to Thailand at that time who had been on a visit visa would not have had there details recorded. The only way is if the airline had done so but I really can't see that such a system would have been feasible. If so, why have they now reintroduced passport checks on exit from the UK?