Eff1n2ret

Effin2ret

You mention that illegal working might be worthy of consideration by a judge in determining if the rules may have been frustrated et al. I'm not sure this can be right.

I'm not sure either, but I don't know how far 320(11) has been tested in the courts. I take the point that in dealing administratively with an offender, an IO will serve a notice detailing only the most obvious and significant offence, be it illegal entry or overstaying (an overstayer may also have worked in breach during his period of leave). But, for example, illegal entrants and overstayers are frequently caught working under a false identity and I can imagine that this might provide grounds for a predatory IO or ECO to refuse under 320(11). The argument by the Presenting Officer at the appeal would be "not only did the appellant enter the country illegally, but he/she remained there for x years (length of time might be relevant) and worked illegally (no mention of "in breach of leave", but it was nonetheless illegal) under a false identity." No single bit of that might be construed as a sufficient "frustration of the intentions of the Rules" but the cumulative history might do, and I think circumstances will alter such cases.

I'm trying to decide whether churning through this guff is a greater masochism than watching England's demise at Headingly on the telly, but I think I'll steel myself and go for the latter.

Where's the Scouse when you need him

2) More to the point, the ECO cannot just pluck Para 320(11) out of the hat as an excuse for a refusal; to refuse under Para 320(11) the applicant must have previously contrived to frustrate the intentions of the immigration rules. For example, previously entered the UK illegally; which is the situation in the two cases current on the forum.

Sorry, I can't quite follow the logic here. Illegal entry and overstaying and the penalties for doing so are dealt with in Para 320 7 B, and there is an exemption for (inter alia) spouse applicants in 320 7C. I can't see any appeal court accepting that an ECO can say, "OK, there's no ban under 320 7 B on this applicant who previously entered the UK illegally, but I can use 320(11) as a catch-all and refuse under that." There has to be some further transgression before 320(11) is engaged, and the examples given are such serious matters as failure to comply with reporting restrictions, using false identities, facilitating illegal immigration of harbouring offenders. Whether Castor's lady's illegal working is a sufficiently serious "frustration of the immigration rules" is for an immigration judge to decide.

These provisions of the rules are relatively new, and it is hardly surprising that there may be some ECOs who want to push the boundaries to deal with cases where for whatever reason they are unhappy with an applicant, but haven't sufficient to refuse otherwise. It's hardly helpful to peddle old nostrums such as "If you can't do the time....etc", and characterise a previous transgression as justification for a decision made as a "punishment". It doesn't work like that, nor should it.

I don't understand why you find it so difficult to access the appropriate information, which is on the Swedish Embassy Bangkok website on this page:-

http://www.swedenabroad.com/Page____16990.aspx

It gives a full list of the paperwork required to make a settlement application, and a link to the application form.

I congratulate the OP on the juxtaposition of one of the most arresting Topic titles I have ever seen on TV with such a total load of non-sequiturs.

You've said you want to live and work together in the UK, so the only way you can do that is via some form of settlement visa. The previous refusal is not a total negative, because you have already established an ongoing relationship, which is the most difficult thing to demonstrate - support and accommodation can be shown on paper, the true intentions of an applicant can't.

You can either get married in Thailand, and apply for a spouse visa, or apply for a fiance visa which entitles travel to the UK in order to get married within 6 months, and then apply for the spouse visa there, but as that puts an extra step into the process it's more expensive.

If you can show that you've lived together in Thailand in a relationship akin to marriage for at least 2 years you can apply for an "unmarried partner" visa, which allows entry to the UK on the same basis as a spouse. You can then decide to get married later on if you want to.

By the way, you say you applied for a family visit visa before - did they give you a right of appeal? If so, did you exercise it?

^ Correct. Book a Thairentacar (TRAC) via fastcarhire.co.uk (FCH), which is where ThaiVisa car rentals url takes you, and get a better price and same excellent service from TRAC. I second the comment that they merely take your card details and never place any 'holds' on your plastic. One thing to note with FCH bookings; if there's any chance of bringing the car back earlier than booked, they will NOT process a refund. It's in the small print. So if you aren't sure of the exact return date, better to book 'short' and call in the extension before the end. They are happy with that and you will pay only for what you use.

The two or three times I've booked through fastcarhire, they've only taken a sterling deposit and stated the balance in Baht to be paid direct to ThaiRentaCar, I suppose that protects them from any violent changes in the exchange rate. So I guess you'd have to try and get a refund from TRAC, but in principle I agree with that advice. There's certainly no problem about extending a rental period, albeit at TRAC's going rate rather than the original quote. We had an extra week's holiday last November thanks to the yellow-shirt protesters, and TRAC were a bit twitchy at first when I couldn't tell them exactly when we would be returning the vehicle, but in the end they were very helpful, and their chap was waiting on the steps of the Bkk Exhibition Centre (where we had to check in) to take it back.

Not sure what you mean by blocked. When i rent a car they simply hold onto my credit card details. No money is taken nor is any money "blocked".

BTW - i highly recommend Thai Rent a Car. Excellent service, good cars, and quite often cheap deals. I just rented a Fortuner from them for just 2000 baht a day.

Seconded re ThaiRentaCar - excellent company. They only take an impression of your credit card for the deposit, and give it back to you to tear up when you return the car, never had a problem.

BTW, compare their quoted rates direct with booking them via the ThaiVisa car Rentals link on this forum. I've found the latter to be cheaper, and the service from the company is the same.

Could one not argue the first 12 month period ended as she returned to Thailand, in that she ws in Thailand for 6 months prior to coming to the UK ? The second 12 month period would then start immediately, allowing her to come straight back to the UK. She would still only be eligible for 2 x 6 month stints to the UK within 2 years and would satisfy that rule.

If you were an MP, you'd have been switching your second home every year.

I recall a training session a long time ago by a customs officer, who said that the illegal substance, THC, was not present in the seeds, so when they encountered passengers carrying them they had no grounds for seizure or prosecution. However, the seeds would be taken into the back office "for examination", where a few seconds in a microwave ensured that they would never germinate...

The same negatives could apply to many capital cities throughout the world - London, Paris, take your pick. However, I find driving outside Bangkok less stressful than in the UK.

Any ideas on how long the couple have to live in another EEA state before they can apply? The guidance doesn't make it clear.

There is no set minimum. A European Court judgement some years ago accepted that a short fixed-term contract of 10 weeks employment was sufficient to qualify as a "worker", but that's not laid down as a minimum. Some time ago I saw a report on another case, which I can't find now, I think it was in Denmark or Sweden, where the outcome suggested that you could take a couple of weeks holiday together in another EEA country, get a job, get married (if you aren't already) then march into your embassy, slap down the payslips and say "family permit please". But I don't know if anybody has tested it to those limits.

This is how that judgement is expressed in the instructions to Visa Officers:

"EUN2.14 Can family members of British citizens qualify for an EEA family permit? ('Surinder Singh' cases)

A British national and his/ her non-EEA national family members can only benefit from free movement rights if they meet the criteria established in the ECJ case of Surinder Singh. The case stated that nationals of a Member State who are exercising an economic Treaty right (i.e. as a worker or self-employed person) in another Member State will, on return to their home state, be entitled to bring their non-EEA family members to join them under EC law.

Example: A British national is exercising an economic Treaty right in Germany and living with his non-EEA national spouse and children. On the British national's return to the UK, his non-EEA national family members can apply for an EEA family permit to join him under EC law.

The Surinder Singh judgement is incorporated into the EEA Regulations in Regulation 9. Family members of British nationals who meet the requirements of Regulation 9 are treated as family members of EEA nationals for the purposes of the EEA Regulations.

Applications for EEA family permits must meet the following criteria:

The British citizen is residing in an EEA Member State as a worker or self-employed person or was doing so before returning to the UK.

If the family member of the British citizen is their spouse or civil partner, they are living together in the EEA country or they entered into the marriage or civil partnership and were living together in that EEA country before returning to the UK.

Because EEA nationals have an initial three months right of residence in the UK, there is no requirement for the British national to be a qualified person on arrival. Therefore, an EEA family permit can be issued to the non-EEA national family member of a British national even if they are only visiting the UK with the British national before returning to the Member State where they are resident.

It does not matter if the only reason the British national went to another Member State was to exercise an economic Treaty right was so that he/ she could come back to the UK with his/ her family members under EC law."

If, as you say, you and your wife have already been accepted as exercising your treaty rights by the Greek authorities, you should have no difficulty getting an EEA Family Permit for her to come to the UK - and it won't cost you a bean. What's even better is the bit I've highlighted in bold, so that she is entitled to a visit visa on the same basis.

Shame UKVisas don't weem to know any of this

"2) If/when you decide to return to live in the UK, a (spouse) settlement visa will be required for her purposes."

UK Visas actually told you that? It's utter tosh.

Email them back and ask "What about Surinder Singh cases?" The Surinder Singh judgement long ago established that where an EEA national has been exercising their treaty rights outside their own country, they have the same status when they come back to live and work in their own country, so their dependants qualify for EEA Family Permits which are free of charge. This is now enshrined in the EEA (Immigration) Regulations 2006.

There are so many people who have got themselves into positions of authority in UKBA whose level of knowledge of immigration matters is as little or less than most members of this forum, that one can have no confidence in it becoming an efficient and effective organisation. We'd be better off with no immigration controls, and just let the police go out and shoot a few of the riff-raff now and again - just like Thailand, eh?

When she arrives in the UK she will be given a stamp in her passport saying when she has to leave the country. It will probably be for 6 months.

Not any more - the dates of the visit are endorsed on the visa when it's issued, and that's that - it nearly always says 6 months, whatever the length of visit requested.

If she stays for 6 months, they will look closely at the next application to ensure that she's not spending more time in the UK than in her own country, but if she's complied with the previous visit and they've no evidence that she broke any laws while she was in the UK, they haven't any real reason to refuse.

If you have been married for 3 years, and in the UK for at least one year before getting divorced, your wife will retain her right of residence under EEA regulations.

If the 2 sons are your wife's direct descendants, they also qualify as your family members, but for an EEA permit they have to satisfy the following criteria:

"........, the ECO should be satisfied that:

the applicant is the family member of the EEA national (marriage certificate, birth certificate or other evidence of family link)

the EEA national is residing in the UK in accordance with the EEA Regulations (as qualified person if more than 3 months) and the non-EEA national is joining them; orthe EEA national intends to travel to the UK within 6 months and will have a right to reside under the Regulations on arrival, and the non-EEA national will be accompanying or joining the EEA national; and

if applying as a spouse or civil partner, there are no grounds to consider that the marriage or civil partnership is one of convenience (see Annex ….); and

if applying as dependent family members (dependent children 21 and over and dependent relatives) they are dependent on the EEA national or the EEA national’s spouse or civil partner; and

neither the applicant nor the EEA national should be excluded from the UK on the grounds of public policy, public security or public health."

So whilst your own lack of employment need not disqualify them if they could show your wife can support them, the bit I have highlighted in bold probably puts the mockers on it. I think the ECO could reasonably object if he is aware that they would not be joining you. I think your wife can sponsor them once she obtains permanent residence (but that might be dependent on their ages then).

The applicant must spend 6 months in her host country before she can apply, otherwise she may be classed as a resident in the UK.

A Tourist visa is for a short stay.

Nothing to stop her applying straight away for an unmarried partner visa. The visit visa refusal should not count against her if she has all the evidence of at least 2 years' cohabitation.

Now they have applied and been refused a second 6 month visit visa and told the embassy that he has got a 6 month extension on his contract, his settlement visa will have to overcome the fact that the embassy will think they are now doing anything and everything just to get her into the UK, including putting a settlement visa application in when she probably has no real plan to settle. This may raise some additional questions in the mind of an ECO.

It's not been stated how long his contract extension is.

As far as "doing anything and everything just to get her into the UK" is concerned, there's no suggestion that she has any other motive in going there, other than to be with him. If she had, she could have overstayed the previous visit. As he is a British Citizen with right of abode, he is entitled to say that his only current prospects are of working in the UK, and he is entitled to seek to take his partner with him if they qualify under the Rules. They simply applied for the wrong visa last time.

The applicant must spend 6 months in her host country before she can apply, otherwise she may be classed as a resident in the UK.

A Tourist visa is for a short stay.

Nothing to stop her applying straight away for an unmarried partner visa. The visit visa refusal should not count against her if she has all the evidence of at least 2 years' cohabitation.

If they can show that they have been living together with her in a relationship akin to marriage for more than 2 years, she could apply for settlement as an "unmarried partner". This is a more expensive process than applying for a visit visa, and not totally appropriate if they are not intending to stay in the UK long-term, but it gets round the problem mentioned by the previous poster, that visitors are not expected to spend more than 6 months in any 12 in the UK. Such a visa would be granted for 2 years, and an advantage would be that she could work if she wanted to.

It really depends how long the guy expects to be on contract in the UK, and whether he thinks the cost of the visa is worth it.

It probably never occurs to them that they're not insured because they're used to getting similarly incapable back home and being treated for free. A & E departments of hospitals throughout the UK are plagued by such drunken scum. If the NHS is short of money (which it always seems to be), they should be able to charge for having to treat these antisocial nuisances.

I'm sorry to say you may have created a severe problem for future applications, because of the "deception" element, even if it was an innocent mistake on your part. Does the refusal form mention Para 320.7A of the Immigration Rules? If so, then any future application for any purpose, even settlement, may be refused for the next 10 years. If not, then if you can show a genuine continuing relationship over a longer period, you may have a better chance in the future.

after reading the post on this board I wonder if I should plan on being a long term vacationer rather then having a permanent address.

I suspect that for most foreigners (other than those actually here on a work permit) there isn't much difference. Getting 'O' visas one year at a time doesn't necessarily guarantee permanence. If you or your missis have already shelled out for property in Thailand, you haven't much to lose by giving it a go, and the smart thing to do seems to be to have something back home in case things don't work out. The naysayers on this forum are less to be trusted than your own instincts and experience.

The visa is still valid, even if the passport it is in is now expired.

The simplest and cheapest solution would be to carry both old and new passports when she is travelling to the UK.

That is certainly the case.

However, if you do want to bother, the info isn't that hard to find. The Entry Clearance Guidance gives instructions on this page: http://www.ukvisas.gov.uk/en/ecg/ecbasics/...wpassp#15807391

and if you can find the page of visa application forms and scroll down through all the "Non-points system" forms you will see there is one for Transfer of conditions.

The fee is less obvious, but in the list of fees there is one designated "Vignette transfer" - 4350Baht, which is probably right.

The prohibition relating to visitors is against work "paid or unpaid". It doesn't look as if you'll have much problem establishing your relationship if you've already successfully sponsored a visit visa, and she doesn't need a character reference. No harm in mentioning that she has a job offer, but best not to mention any previous work in the UK.

I suppose there is a sort of ambiguity because the blurb on the page "Transfer your visa to a new passport" accepts that passengers can present a current passport supported by an ILE/R endorsement in the old one, but the guidance notes say quite clearly that naturalised Brits should not apply for an NTL endorsement, but they can have a Cert of RoA in their foreign passport if they haven't acquired a British one.

Perhaps they don't expect any dual passport holders to present themselves as foreigners once they have the British passport. I wonder how many do. I don't know if there are any instructions about what IOs are supposed to do in such situations.

Apologies to the OP, to whom most of this is irrelevant.

Are you sure about this Effin2 ?

I thought they were just trying to restrict the number of documents in circulation giving ROA by excluding CoE holders from obtaining replacements if they also held UK passports. Surely that didn't also extend to dual national ILR holders, an endorsement meaning something else entirely ?

This is from Caseworking instructions issued in 2006 relating to "No Time Limit" applications:

"Applicants who are British citizens or otherwise have the right of abode

18. Anyone who is a British citizen has the right of abode in the United Kingdom and is therefore not subject to immigration control. The only lawful documentary proofs of that status are a United Kingdom passport or a certificate of entitlement to the right of abode. Where they have dual citizenship, it is not lawful to place an NTL stamp in another national passport."

I can't immediately find a direct reference to ILE or ILR applications, probably because they wouldn't expect an ab initio application from someone who's already a Brit Cit, so I would say the NTL instruction covers anybody with Indefinite Leave.