topfield

Thank you for all the interesting replies.

I feel however that the point has been missed !

The rules and laws restricting the freedom of movement under EU law must come from/originate from Brussels not London.

We all know that the EEA FAMILY PERMIT rules are quite separate from the domestic UK immigration rules.

No particular Embassy has the power to unilaterally and arbitrarily restrict freedom of movement on EEA nationals and their family.

Yes , public policy is a reason but then there must be a strong case to show that Thailand is a country where TB is endemic and represents a threat to health.

I am pretty sure this is not the case and that the W.H.O has not made such a judgement.

The rules applying previously allowed each posting to decide whether a medical was to be compulsory before a visa ( not Family Permit..a separate issue) was issued and Thailand was not on the list...India I believe was. The state of health care in the country concerned, was the deciding factor.

This therefore raises an important issue . Has Thailand been downgraded and no longer considered a country with high standards of health care ?

Again, away from the European point is the whole question of the IOM and the rules applying.

Could there be a smell of corruption here one wonders ?

Before the current rules were introduced wives would obtain their TB medicals at large government teaching hospitals such as Chulalongkorn. The fee was always around Bt 500.

Private hospitals such as Bamrungrad charged Bt 1000.

Now with the IOM, the applicant is charged four times or twice the price for THE SAME HOSPITAL !

The IOM is raking in the money with a monopoly status as certicates from these hospitals are no longer accepted by the Embassy unless the IOM has had its cut. OUTRAGEOUS !

Next the Embassy will be insisting that all translations be done by a certain office to which they are affiliated with fees ten times higher !

A final point : this requirement by Bangkok is NOT the norm. Several embassies I emailed stated there was no medical requirement at their posting for Thais who wished to settle in the UK.

More and more one cannot help feeling there is more to the new IOM requirement than purely medical ($$$$$$$$$$$) ?

WHO IS PROFITING AND GATHERING IN HUGE SUMS OF MONEY FROM THIS ? WHO IS THE IOM ? THREE HUNDRED PERCENT PROFIT IS NOT BAD FOR JUST STAMPING A FORM IS IT ?

ps The Bangkok Embassy info above is NOT the norm either. Please look up the Phnom Phen Embassy and it not only does NOT say ALL APPLICANTS as Bangkok does, but lists the categories and also exceptions ( which Bangkok does not do).

The moral : GET THE FACTS FROM LONDON & BRUSSELS . THE BANGKOK EMBASSY EVEN THOUGH LARGE DOES NOT HAVE A SINGLE SOLICITOR OR LAWYER IN THEIR STAFF. Astonishing !

Did you read that article in the Bangkok Post (front page) two years ago about the 92 year old man...filthy rich , the owner of Tipco, (the asphalt co and not the fruit juice co) ?

He had reported his 18 year old wife to the police for theft .

Reason ; She had stolen/discarded his supply of Viagra tablets.

[True story...you can probably find it in the Bangkok Post archives if you look under Viagra.]

The British Embassy are now refusing all EEA Family Permit applications unless accompanied by an IOM medical test certificate. Yet their website does not list family permits in the category list of those requiring IOM certificates .

Since the principle of free movement in EU countries is sacrosanct surely the Embassy are acting illegally in refusing applications by the spouse of EEA nationals ? In doing this they are erecting a barrier to free movement and thus preventing that spouse and others from entering the UK .

As the rule has always been that the spouse of the EEA national should enjoy the same rights as the EEA national him/herself and be subject to the same obligations , then unless the national him/her self needs the certificate to enter the UK, then surely the spouse does not ?

Please note this posting concerns only the blanket requirement for these certificates as of course they can be required under public policy where it is known that a specific person is ill and needs to be examined.

Yes this important EU matter has been raised with the Entry Clearance Manager but so far he has failed to reply or state his authority to do this , nor has he yet provided chapter and verse ...if indeed any such authority exists.

Can anyone shed any light on this matter ?

REPLY TO UDOM : HELP TO COUPLE BEING OFFERED FREELY AND WITHOUT CHARGE.

REPLY TO VINNY : YES I KNOW THE SCADPLUS WEBSITE ON TESTS FOR MARRIAGE OF CONVENIENCE. THIS COUPLE FELL OUTSIDE ALL THE TESTS WHICH SHOW MARRIAGES OF CONVENIENCE. ALSO THE ECO FAILED TO CARRY OUT THE RECOMMENDED INTERVIEW OF THE EEA NATIONAL . INDEED REFUSED EVEN TO SPEAK WITH HIM.

REPLY TO GU22 : YES ONLY 3 REFUSALS IN FIVE YEARS THE FIRST TWO BEING MOTHER AND DAUGHTER 2003/4 WHERE THE ECO WAS OVERULED AND TOLD BY THE APPELLATE COURT THAT HER DECISION WAS UNLAWFUL . THE RECENT ONE WAS TWO WEEKS AGO AND NOW CONSIDERING WHAT TO DO.

REPLY TO THE SCOUSER : MANY THANKS INDEED. WILL TAKE YOUR ADVICE AND CONTACT THE HEAD OF UK VISAS AND LET YOU KNOW THE RESULT.

Dear GU22

Your very critical reply is very much appreciated.

There were clearly several misunderstandings mainly due to there having been 2 applications.and I shall now attempt to clarify them.

1. re documents for the second application, which took place around 10 days later.. The Embassy already had every document carefully photocopied so only the application forms and passport was required. Some additional evidence in the form of a Cyprus visa and photos of the couple were also submitted.

2. Correct ! The wife was not seen or interviewed on the second application even though she has expressly requested one in the application form stating this would provide an opportunity to clarify any possible misunderstandings AND to provide further evidence. Both the ECO and the ECM had made themseles unavailable for a whole week after the first interview so this was to be the only was to find out the true reasons for the refusal. But it was not to be !

3. The quotation was indeed from the first interview. No other interview was given

4. Re there being two cases : yes one took place 2/3 years ago and involved a different lady and her daughter refused for a EU PERMIT. This one ECO therefore is the only one to issue refusals in

4/5 yrs according to the statistics given above. It just CANNOT be co-incidental as the were no other refusals in Bangkok ! In view of this being the ideal middle aged couple who qualified in every conceivable way for a EU permit one HAS to seek the reason why they and nobody else had been refused in two/four whole years.

re ECO'S signature : Yes, the signature of the ECO (who did the interview) was completely different to the one she used on her refusal notices three years ago...futhermore her name was not stated on any document, pending notice included.

I trust this clarifies the contradictions you believed you saw in previous posting .

A final point dear Thaivisa forum readers: the refusal only stated that " all you provided to prove your relationship was your marriage certificate . You did not provide evidence of cohabitation".

What the ECO wrote is absolutely true ! Look at any of the hundreds of websites on Family Permits .

Do any state that when you go for interview you are to bring corobberating third party evidence of cohabitation ??? The rules state only evidence of marriage ! Yes, its true that the ECO at the interview may call for further evidence to show the marriage was not a sham...but she did not do so.She issued a pending notice to say wait but no request whatsoever was made for further infomation or evidence.

No evidence was requested otherwise it would have been provided ie a letter from the hotel.

Instead....a refusal notice was issued and on it no reson was given.

[quote name='GU22' date='2006-05-03 03:

I'm getting confused.

You originally said that she didn't submit any documents with the second application, now you are saying that she did. So did she or didn't she?

You said that the second application was refused without even an interview,

A fresh ECO dealt with the second application and issued a refusal notice without even an interview or seeing or speaking to the wife

yet you also say

The wife wrote down all questions and replies after the interview and nothing was unusual or questioned....EXCEPT ...the ECO asked about the lawyer involved in the case 2/3 years ago

So was there an interview or not?

You also seem to be saying that the second permit was refused out of spite because the ECO was humiliated by the first refusal being overturned. If the first refusal was overturned then she would have been given her permit. So, why apply for a second time?

You say

The ECO's signature on the refusal notice was totally different to that she has used on the earlier refusal. Wonder why !

Yet in the very same post you say

A fresh ECO dealt with the second application and issued a refusal notice without even an interview or seeing or speaking to the wife

So, was it the same ECO or a different one?

Either:-

You are unaware of the full facts of this case, in which case I suggest that you find them out or get the couple concerned to post themselves.

Or:-

You're making it all up and don't have the nous to make notes so that you can avoid the trap of contradicting yourself.

On the basis of what i have quickly read and correct me if i am wrong but he is a dual national - in effect holding a british passport? this may be the reason for refusal under the EEA rules.

Thanks for that good point.

In fact most applicants for family permits in Bangkok are dual nationals namely people from Northern Ireland who hold dual nationality under EU law and are Irish citizens under Irish law.......British and Irish.

This point is covered in the diplomatic procedures rules which says the EEA family member has the choice of applying for either a visa under domestic law or a family permit under EU law.

Up to last year it wasn't even a practical choice ! What with the Family permit offering an immediate no fee service everyone opted for the family permit.

Since last year since a EU case involving a Marrocan husband with a British wife living illegally in Dublin,things have changed.

To apply from an EU country the applicant must have a residence permit in the EU country they are applying from. In addition some British Embassies/ High Commissions are also demanding that the applicant has been legally resident one year in the EU country they are applying from.

Therefore for some people with dual nationality the only choice for the wife is to go through the non EU country ie Bangkok with standard visa procedures fees and waiting times. Of course in Bangkok the issue of a residence permit does not arise.

FIRST REPLY ABOVE SENT OFF BY COMPUTER ERROR BEFORE POSTING FINISHED

Thank you for all the replies.

The point I am making is that the ECO is ignoring/ failing to follow both the EU law and the diplomatic procedure rules.

Of course the Embassy was Bangkok. No other Embassy would behave with such arrogance and disregard for the law !

In the Family Permit case two years ago ,the very same ECO was overuled on appeal in an almost identical case. the Adjudiator stating that the ECO had acted outside the law and the immigration rules ! The ECO, to justify her refusal, had lied in her reasons , (a Thai police report illustrated this clearly was so by contradicting her allegations.) ! The Adjudicator in overruling the ECO stated that the reasons she gave were "irrelevant".

The ECO in question knew the two cases were connected (as she asked) so hard cheese and personal hatred may be the true reason for her outrageous behaviour as a civil servant. The ECO's signature on the refusal notice was totally different to that she has used on the earlier refusal. Wonder why !

So this poor middle aged couple intent on spending their life together were refused twice in succession , the first time, no reason whatsoever being given nor evidence/ documents whatsoever requested. The refusal just stated that this middle aged couple was a marriage of convenience ! Huband was not seen , indeed...was told he was not needed !

A fresh ECO dealt with the second application and issued a refusal notice without even an interview or seeing or speaking to the wife .....or her husband !

The ECO gave her reason on the refusal notice that no evidence had been produced to prove the couple were cohabiting. But no evidence had been requested ( the wife's own statement in the first application was that they had been living together since marriage. )WHAT DID THEY WANT...A VIDEO OF THE COUPLE IN BED ?

The EU Scadplus website lists 7 test to indicate a marriage of convenience and recommends the spouse be interviewed in cases of uncertainty. . Not a single one of these tests indicated a marriage of convenience and the husband was not even permitted to see the ECO let alone be interviewed by her !!

Appeal ? Must be joking ! The appeal mentioned took one and a half years from start to finish with the main reason being the Embassy's four months (intentional) delay in sending send the papers to London. Yes , this couple will undoubtedly win any appeal and the ECO yet again will be overruled but they will have lost 18 months of their life waiting for the decision.

This couple will have to seek redress elsewhere. Any ideas ? The C& FO Complaints Section says only the matter will be refered back to the ECM who is almost certainly colluding with the ECO.

I remember well how before 1997 marriage visa refusals were issued willy nilly and indeed in accordance with government policy by simply stating ' we are not satisfied that the couple did not marry to come to the UK '

Now with family permits it's " your marriage is one of convenience"

Try proving conclusively it's not , if the ECO does not say what it is she wants to see, as proof.

A final question : ever heard before of a refusal of a formal application in a settlement or EEA case where the applicant was not interviewed nor allowed to speak to the ECO ?

................................................................................

....................................................

Many thanks GU22 for your kind interest in this most exceptional case .

Yes of course every document was submitted. Original Cyprus passport, marriage certificate, British passport ( husband is dual national) and income statements. Evidence huband own his own home. Thai passport , deeds of house, evidence of previous work as marketing executive earning 30-50 thousand baht a month. Evidence wife previously unmarried, husband a widower.

As mentioned in posting ...no reason whatsoever given on refusal notice or verbally during interview .

At the second application with a different ECO there was no interview even though on the application form the wife wrote requesting one so she could clarify possibly misunderstandings and produce fresh evidence. The ECO made her decision blindly without even seeing the applicant or talking to her ! Clearly she rubber stamped the first ECO'S decision refusing to even see the applicant.

Can that be legal ..a breach of a fundamental rule of natural justice 'AUDI ALTEREM PARTEM"and in accordance with diplomatic procedures, to ignore the applicant ?

On the refusal notice of the second application there WAS a reason given namely "all you produced was a marriage certificate and no evidence of cohabitation"

The wife had stated she had cohabited with her husband since marriage and gave the name of the Bangkok hotel where they were staying. She had explained she did not want to live in the house she owned as the standard there , toilets etc were not western standard. ( Presumably she did not want to embarass her husband with the squat toilet they had at home like most Thais) . The wife wrote down all questions and replies after the interview and nothing was unusual or questioned....EXCEPT ...the ECO asked about the lawyer involved in the case 2/3 years ago where she (the same ECO ) was overruled and humiliated by the Adjudicator. The ECO had fabricated a string of lies which the adjudicator diplomatically stated were "illelevant" to the case On that ocassion the Adjudicator ruled that the ECO'S decision in a similar case said and I quote " was not in accordance with the law and the immigration rules applying" and the family permit was granted against all the ECO'S protestations .

On the basis that the above is all true and correct, could there be any logical explanation other than that this couple were refused the Family permit solely because the ECO bore a personal grudge in view of her previous humiliation at the hands of the Adjudicator and the poor couple were innocent victims of this woman's malice ? Would be happy to answer any further questions on this case and hopely find out what the next step for the couple is without having to wait one and a half years or send 20,000 pounds for a judicial review of the ECO's actions.

PS. FOR THE SECOND APPLICATION THE COUPLE SUBMITTED NUMEROUS PHOTOGRAPHS AND THE WIFE'S CYPRUS VISA AS PROOF IT WAS NOT A MARRIAGE OF CONVENIENCE . INDEED IT WAS A MARRIAGE OF... INCONVENIENCE.... FOR THE WIFE WHO HAD TO GIVE UP HER HOME, CAR AND AN EXCELLENT INCOME BYTHAI STANDARDS. NOT KNOWING A SOUL IN THE UK OTHER THAN HER HUSBAND, NOT SPEAKING GOOD ENGLISH IT WAS INCONCEIVABLE THIS WAS A MARRIAGE OF CONVENIENCE.

FIRST REPLY ABOVE SENT OFF BY COMPUTER ERROR BEFORE POSTING FINISHED

Thank you for all the replies.

The point I am making is that the ECO is ignoring/ failing to follow both the EU law and the diplomatic procedure rules.

Of course the Embassy was Bangkok. No other Embassy would behave with such arrogance and disregard for the law !

In the Family Permit case two years ago ,the very same ECO was overuled on appeal in an almost identical case. the Adjudiator stating that the ECO had acted outside the law and the immigration rules ! The ECO, to justify her refusal, had lied in her reasons , (a Thai police report illustrated this clearly was so by contradicting her allegations.) ! The Adjudicator in overruling the ECO stated that the reasons she gave were "irrelevant".

The ECO in question knew the two cases were connected (as she asked) so hard cheese and personal hatred may be the true reason for her outrageous behaviour as a civil servant. The ECO's signature on the refusal notice was totally different to that she has used on the earlier refusal. Wonder why !

So this poor middle aged couple intent on spending their life together were refused twice in succession , the first time, no reason whatsoever being given nor evidence/ documents whatsoever requested. The refusal just stated that this middle aged couple was a marriage of convenience ! Huband was not seen , indeed...was told he was not needed !

A fresh ECO dealt with the second application and issued a refusal notice without even an interview or seeing or speaking to the wife .....or her husband !

The ECO gave her reason on the refusal notice that no evidence had been produced to prove the couple were cohabiting. But no evidence had been requested ( the wife's own statement in the first application was that they had been living together since marriage. )WHAT DID THEY WANT...A VIDEO OF THE COUPLE IN BED ?

The EU Scadplus website lists 7 test to indicate a marriage of convenience and recommends the spouse be interviewed in cases of uncertainty. . Not a single one of these tests indicated a marriage of convenience and the husband was not even permitted to see the ECO let alone be interviewed by her !!

Appeal ? Must be joking ! The appeal mentioned took one and a half years from start to finish with the main reason being the Embassy's four months (intentional) delay in sending send the papers to London. Yes , this couple will undoubtedly win any appeal and the ECO yet again will be overruled but they will have lost 18 months of their life waiting for the decision.

This couple will have to seek redress elsewhere. Any ideas ? The C& FO Complaints Section says only the matter will be refered back to the ECM who is almost certainly colluding with the ECO.

I remember well how before 1997 marriage visa refusals were issued willy nilly and indeed in accordance with government policy by simply stating ' we are not satisfied that the couple did not marry to come to the UK '

Now with family permits it's " your marriage is one of convenience"

Try proving conclusively it's not , if the ECO does not say what it is she wants to see, as proof.

A final question : ever heard before of a refusal of a formal application in a settlement or EEA case where the applicant was not interviewed nor allowed to speak to the ECO ?

................................................................................

....................................................

Many thanks GU22 for your kind interest in this most exceptional case .

Yes of course every document was submitted. Original Cyprus passport, marriage certificate, British passport ( husband is dual national) and income statements. Evidence huband own his own home. Thai passport , deeds of house, evidence of previous work as marketing executive earning 30-50 thousand baht a month. Evidence wife previously unmarried, husband a widower.

As mentioned in posting ...no reason whatsoever given on refusal notice or verbally during interview .

At the second application with a different ECO there was no interview even though on the application form the wife wrote requesting one so she could clarify possibly misunderstandings and produce fresh evidence. The ECO made her decision blindly without even seeing the applicant or talking to her ! Clearly she rubber stamped the first ECO'S decision refusing to even see the applicant.

Can that be legal ..a breach of a fundamental rule of natural justice 'AUDI ALTEREM PARTEM"and in accordance with diplomatic procedures, to ignore the applicant ?

On the refusal notice of the second application there WAS a reason given namely "all you produced was a marriage certificate and no evidence of cohabitation"

The wife had stated she had cohabited with her husband since marriage and gave the name of the Bangkok hotel where they were staying. She had explained she did not want to live in the house she owned as the standard there , toilets etc were not western standard. ( Presumably she did not want to embarass her husband with the squat toilet they had at home like most Thais) . The wife wrote down all questions and replies after the interview and nothing was unusual or questioned....EXCEPT ...the ECO asked about the lawyer involved in the case 2/3 years ago where she (the same ECO ) was overruled and humiliated by the Adjudicator. The ECO had fabricated a string of lies which the adjudicator diplomatically stated were "illelevant" to the case On that ocassion the Adjudicator ruled that the ECO'S decision in a similar case said and I quote " was not in accordance with the law and the immigration rules applying" and the family permit was granted against all the ECO'S protestations .

On the basis that the above is all true and correct, could there be any logical explanation other than that this couple were refused the Family permit solely because the ECO bore a personal grudge in view of her previous humiliation at the hands of the Adjudicator and the poor couple were innocent victims of this woman's malice ? Would be happy to answer any further questions on this case and hopely find out what the next step for the couple is without having to wait one and a half years or send 20,000 pounds for a judicial review of the ECO's actions.

According to Entry clearance - facts and figures the results of EEA family permit applications to the British Embassy in Bangkok are as follows.

2001/02. issued; 19 refused; 0

2002/03. issued; 34 refused; 0

2003/04. issued; 29 refused; 2

2004/05. issued; 59 refused; 0

Totals. issued; 141 refused; 2

Silomfan Topfield,

You can see from the above that the case you are referring to is an exception, not the rule. (First application 2 years ago, so that will be one of the refusals in 2003/04. The second 18 months later. Well, it's possible it missed the 2004/05 figures. It'll be interesting to see how many EEA permit refusals there will be in the 2005/06 figures. I know there will be at least one. I also know that that one is not your Cypriot friend.)

I have tried reading your rant to see if there is anything in there to indicate the reasons for the refusal, and all I can find is

the first time, no reason whatsoever being given nor evidence/ documents whatsoever requested.

and

The ECO gave her reason on the refusal notice that no evidence had been produced to prove the couple were cohabiting. But no evidence had been requested ( the wife's own statement in the first application was that they had been living together since marriage. )

WHAT DID THEY WANT...A VIDEO OF THE COUPLE IN BED ?

No, but a marriage certificate would have been a good idea. (Unmarried partners are not eligible for EEA Family Permits.)

A final question : ever heard before of a refusal of a formal application in a settlement or EEA case where the applicant was not interviewed nor allowed to speak to the ECO ?

No. But I have heard of plenty of cases where an applicant has been advised to withdraw the application and come back to resubmit when they have the relevant documents. Maybe this is what happened to the second application. I mean, applying as someone's wife and not even supplying a marriage certificate! They should also have provided evidence that the EEA national has right of residence in the UK. If he hasn't, then neither does his wife.

If you are really seeking advice for this couple, then I suggest that you construct a reasoned and understandable post giving as much information as possible on what evidence they supplied with the applications and exactly what the refusal notices said. The reason why the original appeal to the AIT was refused would be useful too.

FIRST REPLY ABOVE SENT OFF BY COMPUTER ERROR BEFORE POSTING FINISHED

Thank you for all the replies.

The point I am making is that the ECO is ignoring/ failing to follow both the EU law and the diplomatic procedure rules.

Of course the Embassy was Bangkok. No other Embassy would behave with such arrogance and disregard for the law !

In the Family Permit case two years ago ,the very same ECO was overuled on appeal in an almost identical case. the Adjudiator stating that the ECO had acted outside the law and the immigration rules ! The ECO, to justify her refusal, had lied in her reasons , (a Thai police report illustrated this clearly was so by contradicting her allegations.) ! The Adjudicator in overruling the ECO stated that the reasons she gave were "irrelevant".

The ECO in question knew the two cases were connected (as she asked) so hard cheese and personal hatred may be the true reason for her outrageous behaviour as a civil servant. The ECO's signature on the refusal notice was totally different to that she has used on the earlier refusal. Wonder why !

So this poor middle aged couple intent on spending their life together were refused twice in succession , the first time, no reason whatsoever being given nor evidence/ documents whatsoever requested. The refusal just stated that this middle aged couple was a marriage of convenience ! Huband was not seen , indeed...was told he was not needed !

A fresh ECO dealt with the second application and issued a refusal notice without even an interview or seeing or speaking to the wife .....or her husband !

The ECO gave her reason on the refusal notice that no evidence had been produced to prove the couple were cohabiting. But no evidence had been requested ( the wife's own statement in the first application was that they had been living together since marriage. )WHAT DID THEY WANT...A VIDEO OF THE COUPLE IN BED ?

The EU Scadplus website lists 7 test to indicate a marriage of convenience and recommends the spouse be interviewed in cases of uncertainty. . Not a single one of these tests indicated a marriage of convenience and the husband was not even permitted to see the ECO let alone be interviewed by her !!

Appeal ? Must be joking ! The appeal mentioned took one and a half years from start to finish with the main reason being the Embassy's four months (intentional) delay in sending send the papers to London. Yes , this couple will undoubtedly win any appeal and the ECO yet again will be overruled but they will have lost 18 months of their life waiting for the decision.

This couple will have to seek redress elsewhere. Any ideas ? The C& FO Complaints Section says only the matter will be refered back to the ECM who is almost certainly colluding with the ECO.

I remember well how before 1997 marriage visa refusals were issued willy nilly and indeed in accordance with government policy by simply stating ' we are not satisfied that the couple did not marry to come to the UK '

Now with family permits it's " your marriage is one of convenience"

Try proving conclusively it's not , if the ECO does not say what it is she wants to see, as proof.

A final question : ever heard before of a refusal of a formal application in a settlement or EEA case where the applicant was not interviewed nor allowed to speak to the ECO ?

Thank you for all the replies.

The point I am making is that the ECO is ignoring the law and the diplomatic procedure rules.

Of course the Embassy was Bangkok. No other Embassy would behave with such arrogance and disregard for the law !

In the family permit case two years ago ,the very same ECO was overuled on appeal in an almost identical case the Adjudiator stating she had acted outside the law and the immigration rules ! The ECO to justify her refusal had lied in her reasons , and a police report illustated this clearly by contradicting her allegations. ! The adjudicator just stated that the reasons she gave were "irrelevant".

So this poor couple were refused twice, the first no reason whatsoever being given nor evidence/ documents whatsoever requested. The refusal just stated that this middle aged couple was a marriage of convenience !

A fresh ECO dealt with the second application and issued a refusal notice without even an interview or seeing or speaking to the wife or her husband ! She gave her reason that no evidence was produced to prove the couple were cohabiting. But no evidence had been requested other than the wife's own.words that they had been living together since marriage.

tHE EU S

Appeal ? Must be joking ! The appeal mentioned took one and a half years from start to finish with the main reason being the Embassy's four months (intentional) delay in sending send the papers to London.

SO SORRY, MAESTRO BUT I CANNOT READ YOUR POSTING WHICH I AM SURE WAS VERY HELFUL AND INFORMATIVE. .

MY WIFE USUALLY HELPS ME DUE TO THE FACT THAT I CANNOT READ TINY LETTERS. I HAVE A CATARACT . SHE IS IN BED NOW AS IT IS MIDNIGHT SO I WILL STUDY YOUR REPLY TOMORROW. .

I THANK YOU ANYWAY FOR READING MY POSTING AND REPLYING SO QUICKLY.

quote name='topfield' date='2006-04-29 21:52:50' post='732199']

( PLSE EXCUSE CAPITAL LETTERS DUE TO EYESIGHT PROBLEMS)

Regretfully, due to eyesight problems I was unable to read your post all in capital letters.

---------------

Maestro

( PLSE EXCUSE CAPITAL LETTERS DUE TO EYESIGHT PROBLEMS)

Regretfully, due to eyesight problems I was unable to read your post all in capital letters.

---------------

Maestro

( PLSE EXCUSE CAPITAL LETTERS DUE TO EYESIGHT PROBLEMS)

THE LAW ON THESE IS CLEAR. THE SPOUSE OF AN EEA NATIONAL IS ENTITLED TO A FAMILY PERMIT WITHOUT CHARGE TO STAY WITH THE EEA NATIONAL IN HIS HOME COUNTRY OF NATIONALITY AND WITH PRIORITY GIVEN BY THE EMBASSY.

A THOUSAND WEBSITES INCLUDING THAT OF THE UK GOVERNMENT WILL CONFIRM THIS AS WELL AS SCOUSER IN HIS POSTING.

THE FACTS ON THE GROUND IN BANGKOK ARE COMPLETELY DIFFERENT.

VERY RECENTLY AN EEA NATIONAL WAS REFUSED THE PERMIT BY THE ECO WITHOUT ANY REASON OR JUSTIFICATION AFTER AN INTERVIEW WHERE THE HUSBAND WAS NOT PERMITTED TO ATTEND

( HE WAS ASKED TO WAIT OUTSIDE ON THE STREET IN TEMPERATURES OF 100 DEGREES F AS HUSBANDS MAY NOT ENTER THE EMBASSY) ON THE GROUNDS THAT THE MARRIAGE WAS ONE OF CONVENIENCE ! THE COUPLE BOTH IN THEIR FIFTIES, A CYPRIOT WIDOWER AND HIS THAI SPINSTER WIFE WITH A JOB IN BKK AS MARKETING EXECUTIVE SALARY BAHT 50000 PM AND OWNING A HOUSE AND CAR.

BUT WAIT.....IT GETS WORSE

A SECOND APPLICATION WAS SUBMITTED WITH A REQUEST BY THE WIFE ON THE APPLICATION FORM THAT SHE BE ALLOWED TO PROVIDE FURTHER INFORMATION AND EVIDENCE .

THE SECOND ECO, WITHOUT EVEN AN INTERVIEW OR EXCHANGE OF WORDS OR EVEN GIVING THE HUBAND AND WIFE A CHANCE TO TALK, ISSUED BLINDLY A NEW REFUSAL NOTICE.

INCONCEIVALE, IMPOSSIBLE TO JUSTIFY OR EXPLAIN ,YOU MAY SAY AND YOU MAY BE RIGHT.

A FUNDAMENTAL RULE OF NATURAL JUSTICE 'AUDI ALTEREM PARTEM' (OR LISTEN TO THE OTHER SIDE) WAS BROKEN HERE.

INVESTIGATION OF THE FIRST LADY ECO REVEALED A SIMILAR REFUSAL BY THE SAME ECO IN A DIFFERENT CASE TWO YEARS AGO. THE CASE WENT TO APPEAL AND THE APPELLATE COURT RULED THAT THIS VERY SAME ECO HAD ACTED UNLAWFULLY IN REFUSING THE PERMIT AND HER DECISION WAS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE IMMIGRATION RULES. THE COURT ORDERED THE PERMIT TO BE ISSUED.

IT SEEMS THIS ECO , KNOWING AN APPEAL TAKES UP TO ONE AND A HALF YEARS TO BE HEARD , WAS BANKING ON THE FACT THAT NOBODY WOULD KNOW WHAT HAPPENED EARLIER . INDEED HER SIGNATURE ON THE EARLIER APPEALED REFUSAL NOTICE WAS COMPLETELY DIFFERENT TO THAT ON THE SECOND REFUSAL.

READERS ADVICE PLEASE ON WHAT TO DO NEXT TO OBTAIN JUSTICE WITHOUT WAITING NEARLY TWO YEARS FOR AN APPEAL TO BE HEARD.

PS A NOTE TO THE SCOUSER : A FEE WAS DEMANDED BY THE OUTSOURCING CENTRE A CLEAR BREACH OF EEA RULES WHICH STATE NO CHARGE SHOULD BE LEVIED.