theoldgit

Your post has nothing to do with visas from Thailand, I’ll move it to the Thailand visa section, where somebody may be able to assist. Shipping personal goods to Thailand can be a very complicated and expensive, I’ve used these in the past https://www.sevenseasworldwide.com, other members may be able assist.

Offensive post and response removed.

Countries in the Schengen Area have different levels of the daily amount, €50 is by no means the highest. We’re visiting the Netherlands in March for four nights, their subsistence level is €55, my wife’s visa was issued in less than a week and had a validity of five years, which means she’s good for numerous future visits. https://www.schengenvisainfo.com/schengen-visa-application-requirements/means-subsistence/

As the post is about Thailand Visas, I’ll move it to the correct forum.

I haven’t seen an update from the UKVI yet, but this is in the House of Commons Library, and seems to clarify some of the concerns. https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9920/#:~:text=The minimum income normally required,overseas graduates of British universities.

I’ve used the income method in Hua Hin for more than a decade, apart from the reams of paperwork, it’s never been a problem. That said the fact that the OP has transferred 65k for a few months may not resolve their issue, I’m led to believe that when transitioning from the deposit to income methods the income has to be for twelve consecutive months. I suspect that an agent splitting their fee with a corrupt IO may well be the best way forward for the OP.

Phil Douglas is actually the DG of the Border Force, so a tad senior than a Senior Officer (CIO old speak) But yes if anyone seeking asylum left the UK before a decision was made on their application, then they should forfeit their application. Mr Douglas didn’t explain how they would be able to board a flight back to the UK, as far as I’m aware the UKBA don’t issue re-entry permits.

The officer being interviewed actually stated that Asylum Seekers were being prevented from leaving the country whilst their asylum claim was still active. I understand that if they did actually leave the UK then their claim was withdrawn.

@sharksy I thought I'd take the time to address your concerns along with some of the other comments in your thread. When you agreed to be a Sponsor for your previous girlfrinends Standard Visit Visa application, you did so only fot financial and initial accomodation resons, the Entry Clearance Officer deciding on the application would have need to be satisfied that it was reasonable for you to do so, and affordable. The Border Force Officer on her arrival would need to have been satisfied that she was a genuine visitor, with somewhere to stay on her arrival, had sufficient funds for the duaration of her stay and that, on the balance of probabilities, she would leave the UK at the the conclusion of her her visit, and had the means to do so, a return ticket or the access to funds. You would not have been responsable for her leaving the UK or anything she got up to during her visit, there are no enforcalbe laws within the various Immigration Acts to make you accountable. You say that she had a multi entry visa, which the vast majority are, you don't say what the validity was, initial visitors would normally be for six monthe which would allow the holder to travel to the UK Border a number of time during the validity of that visa. Other visas can be issued for twh, five or ten years, and are normally issued to visitors who can demonstrate a genuine need to travel to the UK on a regular basis, but on each entry they will be required to satisfy the Border Force Officer that they remain genuine visitors, and can afford the trip, they may be asked for details of where they intend staying, you as the original sponsor and not being part of her life would't be a deal breaker. One poster mentioned refusals for a "material change" whilst a material change can lead to a refusal, what you describe is unlikeley to fall into this category. It's highly unlikely that there would have been any terms applied to her initial visa, so there would be nothing for her to adhere to.

You heard wrong

Don’t count your blessings just yet, let’s not forget that some of those entering on the old route and fail to meet the current threshold could, and l stress could, be switched to the ten year route. I think we really need to see what the requirements will actually be when they’re eventually published before we jump to any conclusions.

Neither did I, I was referring to the “royal we”

Let’s put this in the correct forum.

I printed of a statement from Kasikorn earlier this year, that was fine. There numerous agents that will carry out the task, Thai Visa Express can do and your friend can post him his passport and all the forms. l think 5,000 Baht is the standard fee, plus the fee for the passport. I believe there are agents in most larger towns.

We voted for this, that’ll teach ‘em a lesson 🥸

I’d be interested to learn how you reached that conclusion, is it based on personal experience, knowledge of Immigration Law or just hearsay? In my experience and fully qualified agent fully understands the application process, how to draft a meaningful application and even how to advise an applicant when not to apply.

Yes it’s a shame thar despite my earlier concerns such an important topic, that could affect many members, has been hijacked. The OP’s question has been answered, yes he “did hear it right” so this particular topic can be closed. There are a few more threads on this topic still running for those members who wish to discuss the progress of these proposed changes and how some of us may be affected.

OK can we reign this in a bit now, this thread was started to ask and comment about the proposed new fees for UK Visas and the NHS Surcharge, and its implications, not religions, so can we stick to that please. It’s maybe worth noting that the increased NHS Surcharge was actually announced by Sunak when he was Chancellor.

It might seem fine to you but it might not seem fine to the Brit who owns his own home, has a reasonable pension of say £25k, his circumstances have changed and he finds himself on his own. During has travels he meets and finds happiness with a foreign national, he wouldn’t be able to live with in his home, despite the fact they could live reasonably comfortable and be no burden on the State.

She would need a visa whichever passport she used, the fact that she has an interest in a property in the UK where she intends to spend half of the year will make it difficult to satisfy the decision maker that she’s a genuine visitor. She will need to satisfy the decision maker that she has compelling ties to her own country, whichever one she calls home.

Yes and that’s what the media are reporting, we need to keep in mind that whilst the new figures are more than the average wage in the UK, for FLR and ILR applications both the applicants and sponsors salaries can be combined to meet the threshold, along with any savings they may have. I suspect most couples will make the cut, but sadly not all.

The issue is that there are not hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants, the hundreds of thousands are legal immigrants, hence the crackdown. Bizarrely you will probably find that there are less immigrants arriving via the English Channel than arriving legally at airports with their partners. The Goverment are playing the numbers game and looking for a quick fix, l suspect in the full knowledge that many Daily Mail readers support the policy.

The Ascension Islands were apparently considered at one stage but not picked due to other concerns.

These are the current guidelines https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1187167/1.7+-+Financial+requirement.pdf

We’ll have to wait until the new plan is published, but currently the figure has to be met on initial application, and again at the FLR and ILR stages when any salary earned by the applicant can be used. The current guidelines already detail the various scenarios that are acceptable, sponsor already working in the UK, sponsors with job offers, pensioners and those relying on an element of savings, no doubt new rules and guidance will be issued in due course. The BBC is already claiming that only those who continue to meet the requirements would be allowed to remain and are quoting families who think their plans have been scuppered, it’s all conjecture at this stage. In the event that a sponsor passes away, there is currently a route for those currently in the UK to immediately apply for ILR, hopefully that option will remain.