the scouser

EEA nationals and their family members can choose whether to apply either under national law (i.e. the Immigrations Rules) or European law. The guidance that 7x7 has linked to above is relevant only to those who opt to use the national law route.

A family member can make an application under European law at any time, or at least in this case whilst the child is under 21. Regulation 7 of the EEA regs defines an EEA spouse's child as a family member. Reg. 11 defines the right of admission of a family member and Reg.12 defines the issue of a family permit.

Quite simply what you propose is called trafficking.

Even if they don't do you for that, they'll do you for assisting illegal entry (aka facilitation).

Enjoy your 14-year stretch.

It's not really possible to compare one visa-issuing post to another as local factors tend to be quite significant, even when the two posts' work appears at face value to be of a similar nature.

For example, having been an ECO in the Philippines, it is noticeable that the Filipinos/as manifest a much more marked inclination to submit either forged or counterfeit documentation than the Thai, the consequence of which is that the ECOs in Manila will verify documentation much more rigidly than their counterparts in Thailand.

That's very kind, thank you.

My PM inbox is full, so may I ask that you drop me an e-mail to [email protected] and I shall then reply.

Scouse.

If I remember correctly, the husband two years ago said we owed you a beer after my spouse visa success. Hopefully we will get a chance to meet you one day to eventually do it Make it two.. or three.. or four..

Five...six...seven!

Anyway, well done. If I recall, Andy is a Wigan supporter. I'm hoping to be at the game v. Liverpool at the DW in March. Perhaps you can fill me full of beer then?

Scouse.

...Von Blucher .... that wily old General of the German empire

Surely he was Prussian? Germany, and its associated empire, didn't materialise until 1871.

Just being a pedant.

However, the Directive does not provide for refusal on the basis of an adverse immigration history. Essentially, one is either the family member of an EEA national, or one isn't. Indeed, "Metock" established that national law (e.g. the Immigration Rules) cannot be applied to European applications.

However, I take your point that ECOs might either not be aware of such things, or refuse simply because they think the law is wrong.

Scouse.

Edit// I'm just being capricious.

It's not as simple as possible 12-month convictions attracting refusal. See paragraph 320(19) of the Immigration Rules, which allows the ECO, depending upon the overall circumstances, to refuse on grounds of character, conduct, etc., and does not require a conviction at all.

Likewise, I've seen a visitor refused a visa under para 320(18) because of a conviction in a Middle-Eastern country for prostitution, and for which she was sentenced to a term of imprisonment in excess of 12 months. The refusing ECO didn't have the nous to appreciate that the comparison is "if the offence had been committed in the UK", where prostitution, per se, is not illegal. Needless to say, the case was won at judicial review and the visa issued.

Scouse.

The concepts of registration of a birth (i.e. being issued with a UK-style birth certificate) and registration as a British citizen should not be confused.

In the OP's case, his daughter did not automatically acquire British citizenship at birth. Consequently, as things stand, it is impossible for the British embassy in Bangkok to legally issue her with either a British-style birth certificate or a British passport: she is not British.

However, as detailed in my earlier post, the facility is there for the OP and the child's mother to seek their daughter's registration as a British citizen under the auspices of section 3(1) of the British Nationality Act 1981 on the basis that her father is British "otherwise than by descent" (on the assumption that he is). As the child would be registered as a British citizen, it would not be possible for the embassy in Bangkok to issue a UK-style birth certificate because she wasn't automatically British at the time she was born. Instead, a certificate of registration as a British citizen is issued (very similar to naturalisation certificates), and this is then used for the purposes of applying for a British passport for the child.

Scouse.

Your wife, once she has ILR, can claim JSA; ...

Contributions-based JSA is not considered to be a public fund. Therefore, if aubutie's wife has paid sufficient contributions, she can legitimately receive JSA without holding ILR.

What are public funds.

Scouse.

Hamish,

As your daughter was born prior to 1 July 2006, she is not considered to have automatically acquired British citizenship by simple virtue of her birth. An application for your daughter's registration as a British citizen (not the same as birth registration) will have to be made to the UK Border Agency in Liverpool via the consular section of the British embassy in Bangkok. The cost is c. £540.00, being £480.00 for the registration application and c. £60.00 for the embassy forwarding fee. That said, as children born abroad to unmarried British fathers since 1/7/06 are automatically British, it would be perverse of the UKBA not to register your daughter as British simply because she was born prior to that date. Once she is registered as a British citizen, she will be issued with a certificate which can then be presented at the embassy in Bangkok as evidence of her entitlement to a British passport.

For the application to succeed, you will have to be British "otherwise than by descent" and, ideally, be named on your daughter's Thai birth certificate as the father. If you aren't, then another form of evidence of paternity will be required. You will also need to submit your long birth certificate, which, if you don't have it, can be obtained from the GRO in Southport, or, if you were born in Scotland, Edinburgh.

You can search the UKBA website for form MN1.

Scouse.

Beethoven's 5th? That's the one that starts off with the morse code for the letter V for victory. Whose victory? Perhaps his 9th would be more welcome, it containing the Ode to Joy.

Perhaps I'm sitting on the fence, but I can see where you are both coming from.

As Electra states, it is hard to perceive working as being an aggravating circumstance in relation to both overstayers and illegal entrants, as they are both without status and therefore not in breach of conditions should they take employment. However, I take Effin2ret's point that if an overstayer has worked in breach prior to the lapsing of his leave, then this might be an aggravating factor. However, it would be down to the enforcement IO to actually report this, rather than simply serving a 151A as an overstayer.

Scouse.

Just be aware that because you may be in the south-east of the UK, doesn't mean that you have to pay south-eastern rates. Here in Liverpool, it's still possible to buy a pint for £1.59.

She can apply for naturalisation as an Irish citizen after three years of marriage. Once naturalised, she could then seek to bring her kids to the UK on family permits in her own right and without your involvement.

Well done Pingit! It seems you can lead a horse to water and make it drink.......well. at least occasionally.

You're welcome Boo but it seems any further advice will henceforth have to come from others, qualified or otherwise.

I am American with an English mother. i checked on this and unbelievable as it may seem in this day and age, I cannot get an English passport unless it was my father born in England. pretty sexist I would say. don't know about grandparents

Those born prior to 1983 can't automatically acquire British citizenship from a mother. However, you can apply for registration as British citizen through the UK Border Agency. If successful, you would be issued with a certificate of registration that you could then use to obtain a British passport. An application can be made through the British embassy in Bangkok.

Although I've foresaken this forum, I feel that intervention in this thread is required.

That a mother-in-law may have other relatives in Thailand is not relevant, per se, unless they are in a position to financially maintain her in addition to their own family unit(s). The likelihood is that other family members may have enough to provide for themselves, but not to support mum. Certainly, if you've been financially supporting her already, or she has been living with you, then that's more than half of the battle, although it will depend upon the overall circumstances.

Mum-in-law should be a widow of at least 65 who is dependent upon you (mainly or wholly) for financial support, and who can't rely upon the financial support of other immediate family members. This could be because they simply don't have the wherewithal: e.g. mum-in-law has two other children, both of whom are married and have children of their own; i.e. thay have other responsibilities. They may each earn, for example, 15,000 baht per month, but that money is more than catered for by the existence of their rent, spouse and children. They simply have nothing left with which to provide for mum, and , indeed, it is you who has been fulfilling that role for however long.

Game, set and match!

Primary purpose and intention to live together are not synonymous.

In the pre-'97 Rules, one had to demonstrate both that it was not the primary purpose of the marriage for the foreign national to gain entry to the UK and that the parties intended to live together permanently. This gave rise to a situation whereby someone in a perfectly genuine relationship could still be refused because, for example, they indicated a desire to work once in the UK. This could lead the ECO to conclude that whilst he accepted the intent to live together, it was the lure of employment that was the individual's motivation.

As Electra comments, if one were not to have to prove the authenticity of a relationship, and that simply to be married were enough to get a visa, then the door would be wide open to the abuse he describes.

Scouse.

As 'Effin Tourette says, have a look at the client care letter with which the IAS will have issued you. That essentially forms the basis of the contract and states any intial advice given.

I'll bet my bottom dollar that it states that the client was told that the Immigration Rules state that such an application is bound to fail, but that there is nothing preventing an in-country application being made on the basis of exceptional circumstances, although any grant of permission to stay will be solely at the discretion of the Secretary of State. If there is no client care letter, then there's no contract.

How many immigration advisers did he get free advice off?

From his PM to me:-

Enjibenji 2009-04-07 19:27:28

Senior Member

Group: Members

Posts: 230

Member No.: 61,016

Joined: 2008-04-20

Hey mate,

Just to say thank you for the help before.

.... That said, it was very helpful for me talking to you and I would have no problem using your service in future if needed.

Thanks for the tips and advice before.

even if that were the case (looks, sounds, walks like a duck in electra's phrase - of course doesn't mean it is a duck recognised by the laws of the ducks country ) and he is deemed to be of british origin the validity of his travel documents is not an issue at all?

No, it's not. With regard to someone travelling to the UK, if they're British then that's it - they have "the right of abode" and they can come in. If the individual is British but has somehow f'd-around with his passport, then that might be a matter for further investigation in the UK, but, quite simply, you can't deny a Brit's right to enter Britain.

a 'simple interview' can establish nationality? really??????? and even if it could, it could establish validity of travel documents?

Absolutely! In my immigration days, it was indeed through the medium of a simple interview that we would initially determine someone's entitlement to a British passport. It was only once suspicions had arisen that certainty would be established through forgery analysis of the passport.

As "Electra" states, albeit rather obliquely, if the bloke not only speaks with a British accent, but has a geographical awareness of where he purports to live, coupled with general knowledge of the UK, all of which can be established in the course of 5-minute chat, then the chances are he's a Brit. If, on the other hand, he speaks with, for example, a broad West African accent, thinks Big Ben is in Glasgow, and that Tony Blair is the Queen, the chances are he's not a Brit. There you go - problem solved without even looking at the passport.

That made me laugh with the guy being african

He's British, not "African". I am aware of Africa as a continent, but not as a nationality. Likewise, I am aware that many people who hail from the continent might be of either black, Asian, Arabic, oriental or white appearance.

I concur with "Electra" that the catalyst was the couldn't-care-less attitude of the embassy official who didn't want to delay his early dart on a Friday.

In response to the previous poster who suggests that it is of no concern to the Thai authorities that someone is trying to leave on a potentially forged/counterfeit document, I would only say that s/he has little understanding of the way these things truly work. If a document were to be either forged or counterfeit, and this were to be detected by the UK immigration authorities, the holder would be on a flight straight back to Thailand, whereupon it would be the Thai authorities' problem. They may as well deal with a perceived problem at source, rather than a day later.

Unfortunately, as already established, it was the British embassy bloke who created the whole problem.

SNAFU!