Richard W

Is this a straight forward process or lots of hoops to jump through?

If the UK votes to REMAIN in the UK today (one hour left to voting), the process will get a lot whole lot more complicated in a few months time if she is moving to the Netherlands from outside the EEA.

?? the freedom of movement directive stands as it is as I haven't heard on the EU council letting the UK step out of it. So with a remain nothing will change, moving to an other EU/EEA/CH nation as a EU national with non EU partner will remain as easy as it is right now.

If the UK leaves the EU it would all feoend on how fast they get out, may take up to two years. And then it would temain to be seen if the UK could do without freedom of movement. For limitless access of goods etc you can bet various EU nations want to keep freesom of movement of people aswell. Norway and Switserland, which are seen as great examples for EU critics are also bound to Directive 2004/38. Just maybe the UK could get a deal without that directive but rven such a scenario would probably not come to pass in a matter of months.

Besides, the OP is talking about a German national with Thai wife. Both NL and D are and will remain in the EU and freedom of movement. With or without the UK in the EU.

I refer you to EUCO 1/16 European Council meeting (18 and 19 February 2016) – Conclusions Annex VII Paragraph 2 (on p35, the 36th page of the PDF):

The Commission intends to adopt a proposal to complement Directive 2004/38 on free movement of Union citizens in order to exclude, from the scope of free movement rights, third country nationals who had no prior lawful residence in a Member State before marrying a Union citizen or who marry a Union citizen only after the Union citizen has established residence in the host Member State. Accordingly, in such cases, the host Member State's immigration law will apply to the third country national. This proposal will be submitted after the above Decision has taken effect.

Rights under national law vary, and it is conceivable that there may be relaxation for EU citizens. Some countries, e.g. Spain, allow foreigner's wives to join after one year's residence, while the UK requires 5 years. France seems to require that a foreigner have a visa, which could be tricky for an EEA national to get.

Are you sure of your facts here? I do not think that the UK allows spouses to join partners in the UK based on 5 years of marriage elsewhere, if that is what you are saying.

No, I'm saying that 5 years residence in the UK generally qualifies you to sponsor a spouse for settlement. The technical requirement is to be 'settled', which if you live in the UK can be achieved by:

1) Having right of abode (all British citizens have right of abode, and becoming a British citizen is now the only way to acquire it.);

2) Having Indefinite Leave to Remain (ILR);

3) Having Permanent Residence, as defined by Directive 2004/38/EC; or

4) Being Irish, and entering from Ireland without leaving the Common Travel Area.

(I may have overlooked other routes.)

Is this a straight forward process or lots of hoops to jump through?

If the UK votes to REMAIN in the UK today (one hour left to voting), the process will get a lot whole lot more complicated in a few months time if she is moving to the Netherlands from outside the EEA.

He also said marriage certificate must be registered in the Uk another load of rubbish as there is no mention of this in Eu law............all followed by "this is our rule"

There seems to be a requirement that the marriage be valid in the law of the sponsor's home country, which is a bit tricky. The UK government is tries to use that rule to reject proxy marriages of non-EU and foreign EU citizens.

Is there a difference between getting a British passport and getting British citizenship? I have a daughter born in Thailand to a Thai wife and myself as the British father and would like to get her British citizenship. Any advise greatly appreciated.

Your daughter is probably already British. If she isn't, it may cost the best part of £1,000 to buy her British citizenship. If you were born in the UK, she was born after 16 July 2006, and you were married to her mother at the time of birth, she's British.

If Britain chooses to stay in the EU, the EU-based right of an EU citizen to have his non-EU family with him in a foreign EU land in which he is working will be removed in about 6 months time. I'd say there's a three month uncertainty in that date.

Rights under national law vary, and it is conceivable that there may be relaxation for EU citizens. Some countries, e.g. Spain, allow foreigner's wives to join after one year's residence, while the UK requires 5 years. France seems to require that a foreigner have a visa, which could be tricky for an EEA national to get.

So if we can't live together as a family in the UK or Laos, we can't live together.

There's always the possibility of the EEA (less Liechtenstein), depending on your skills. I'm not even sure that UKVI would consider requiring a spouse to reside illegally in his spouse's country as unreasonable.

1) Suggest you seek legal advice, as with your situation you may be able to claim asylum, quoting the arrest possibility in Laos.

You're confusing GarryUK's highly possible problem with BrewsterBudgen's worst case scenario.

HI, I'm sorry to hear about your difficulty. It's an absolute disgrace and an outrage that a British Citizen is subjected to this horrendous and discriminatory rule about minimum income when they are MARRIED and even more so if they have a child together born in the UK.

Fortunately for the OP (and for BrewsterBudgen's disaster planning, if that is what his interest is), nothing seems to hinge on whether the British citizen child was born in the UK.

It appears that you and your wife have a British citizen child together. If so, and if the only problem is in meeting the financial requirement, I believe that if you apply for FLR(M) and do not meet the financial requirement, you will be automatically transferred from the 5-year route to the 10-year route to settlement.

That sounds encouraging. Can anyone confirm this and give details?

I'm not sure that it's automatic, though it might be, this route, as I understand it, is meant to cover those who wish to apply using the Human Rights provision of a family life.

The nasty bit is in Section 11.2.3 of Theoldgit's reference. Quoted paragraphs one (emphasis mine) is just what one wants, and then the unquantified sting comes in paragraph 3:

Where a decision to refuse the application would require a parent or primary carer to return to a country outside the EU, the case must always be assessed on the basis that it would be unreasonable to expect a British Citizen child to leave the EU with that parent or primary carer.

In such cases it will usually be appropriate to grant leave to the parent or primary carer, to enable them to remain in the UK with the child, provided that there is satisfactory evidence of a genuine and subsisting parental relationship.

It may, however, be appropriate to refuse to grant leave where the conduct of the parent or primary carer gives rise to considerations of such weight as to justify separation, if the child could otherwise stay with another parent or alternative primary carer in the UK or in the EU.

The circumstances envisaged could cover amongst others:

• criminality falling below the thresholds set out in paragraph 398 of the Immigration Rules;
• a very poor immigration history, such as where the person has repeatedly and deliberately breached the Immigration Rules

Conceivably someone like Mrs BrewsterBudgen could be excluded for doing repeated visa runs to Thailand, though I think that would be excessive.

I can't preclude them playing hardball with the requirement to intend to live in the UK permanently - an expressed desire to retire to Thailand could cause havoc.

It appears that you and your wife have a British citizen child together. If so, and if the only problem is in meeting the financial requirement, I believe that if you apply for FLR(M) and do not meet the financial requirement, you will be automatically transferred from the 5-year route to the 10-year route to settlement.

... Same top management so be warned about exceeding 1 million on deposit (maximum insured amount). I use a fixed deposit at Krung Thep bank with an APR of 4% with monthly interest payments for 5 years. ... After the first retirement visa get rid of the agent and do it yourself. Ubonjoe on this forum is a fountain of accurate info concerning visas.

seems like you have the same agent as the op who's in the know.so be warned about exceeding 1million on deposit ITS BS.

It seems more like fairly sound general advice on the use of agents. As to the money, what is the deposit guarantee limit then? 0฿? Are Thai banks sounder than Western banks?

They can't deport a Thai child.

How unlike the UK! British children can be removed from the UK with their parents, though it doesn't often happen.

You should have been given two originals (in Thai) - one each.

Not submitting an original could be fatal to the application. I don't know the policy on asking for an original when a copy is submitted as opposed to simply summarily refusing the application.

So after November the A1 cert is no longer useable even if it was accepted during the original settlement visa application and further leave to remain ?

Correct. The spouse is expected to have got better at English.

Note that the change is in October. FLR(M) following spouse visa in late October will require A2.

That is a way higher number of successful appeals than I imagined.

That's why the right of appeal had to be removed. Oddly, though, I had read that the rate of success of appeals at the time was closer to 50%. Perhaps it was in a different category.

If the Home Office pockets the fee when a family permit is approved by an ECM on appeal, that's quite an incentive to automatically refuse family permits, as an explicit charge is prohibited for them.

there is no visa on arrival in Schengen countries, your wife should get a visa in Bangkok before travelling to Europe.

Well, there is the 'visa' that EU family members are supposed to get when they arrive with their foreign EU national. As Thais can get to the French border from the UK without a visa, the family should be able to get 'visas on arrival' for France provided they have birth and marriage certificates and acceptable translations/legalisation.

It's even possible she need a visa for an overnight stop airside at the airport. We never resolved the issue for a Filipina at Heathrow.

My apologies if I'm made a mistake and have took this out of context but I'm English born and bred and can tell you that for the last 15 years or so showing my passport has been a requirement for employment to show I am able to work in the UK. This applies to both permanent roles and also contract positions. Especially the latter. If the passport was not a UK one then as well as the "photo-page" a copy of any work enabling visa stamp/documentation would also be required. I believe the fine for employing an illegal worker now stands in the region of £20,000 per individual found on the given premises. Hence, you can see why these checks have in fact became almost mandatory.

The key lies in the checks made. For a British passport, the likeliest problems aren't very likely at all, but exist. Actually, for someone born in the UK, a birth certificate and appropriate correspondence should be good enough.

A quite common situation seems to be a man with a residence card held because his wife is an EU citizen. In many cases, she has stopped 'exercising her treaty rights', with the result that he loses the right to be in the country, let alone work. Have you known employers check whether the EU spouse is still exercising treaty rights, or, even more complicatedly, has achieved undocumented permanent residence? However, if the residence card has not expired and the employer does not know the wife is not working, this card is good enough to provide a statutory check.

The point is that simple checks by carriers, employers and landlords should be good enough.

I do not know when the international law (if that's the right description) requiring airlines who knowingly carry a passenger who does not meet the entry requirements for their destination to cover the cost of returning that passenger to their departure point and also being subject to a fine of up to $20,000 came into effect; but I do know it exists and is applies not just to the UK; as far as I am aware it applies everywhere.

I agree that it does seem a bit of a stretch to regard Section 40 of the Immigration and Nationality Act 2002 as a 'law'. (Penalties were introduced earlier, but that is not my question.) Now that section makes a carrier liable to a fine if the passenger has no passport (or similar) and has no visa if one is needed. The corresponding Immigration Directorate Instruction is Chapter 33. However, I see nothing there that would make an airline liable for conveying an Australian to the UK without a visa if he intended to work there. Likewise, it would seem odd to fine the airline for carrying a Thai with a visitor's visa if she in fact intends to settle there, or, to give what appears to be a real undetected example, carrying a Filipina with a marriage visit visa when she is in fact settling in the UK with a Hungarian national after marriage. (She was told that she should and could obtain a fiancée visa.)

As Tony M, who has actual professional experience, and is far more knowledgeable in this area than you or I, said earlier in the topic

I used to work with the airlines, assessing whether passengers were properly documented or not. On many occasions, we denied boarding to ladies who were pregnant, and who were attempting to travel to the UK to give birth. If they had not informed the ECO that they were pregnant at the time of application, or if the they became aware of the pregnancy after the visa was issued, then there was a possibility that the visa could be invalidated.

UK immigration do care if an arriving passenger is pregnant, especially if that passenger is a visa national who hasn't informed the ECO of that fact. I know that, as I use to work for UK immigration.

There is no mention of an explicit fine here. It looks as though either the airline was trying to save the cost of unbooked returns or the Immigration Service was hiding behind the airline. Why didn't Tony M simply revoke the visas?

If the OP entered the country on a US passport he must exit on the same,

Not if he naturalised as Thai. Naturalisation is the one exception to that rule that I know of.

Except when checking in, show the airline whichever passport allows you entry to your destination as they want to be sure you wont be refused entry.

If the OP is naturalised as Thai, as opposed to being born Thai, it might be better not to show his US passport in Thailand lest he be accused of using it. His Thai passport should enable him to board the flight to Hong Kong.

2) Being aware of the above possibility her airline, if they discover that she is pregnant, and for her safety and that of her unborn child she should tell them, may refuse to carry her as they may be liable for the cost of returning her to Thailand should she be refused entry to the UK and possibly a fine of up to 20,000USD as well.

When did that oppressive law come in? I didn't think airlines were required to guess whether a visa would be rejected because of changed circumstances. After all, employers aren't required to check whether their employees are actually legally entitled to work unless they have reasons to suspect that they aren't. Establishing a statutory excuse suffices for employers.

The ECO is the “Export Control Organisation” and they issues licenses for controlling the export of strategic goods!

Neither your meaning nor the one most of us here understand shows up in Wikipedia. On this forum, ECO means Entry Clearance Officer. Comments like the one I'm replying to may dissuade readers from paying any attentions to your posts.

I have seen nothing which shows fiance visa holders are not classed as ordinarily resident and so cannot access the NHS.

Its clear you cannot get a NHS number until you have a settlement visa. Entering on a fiancé visa is not proof of settlement purposes.

There are some non-sequiturs here. For starters, one can access the NHS for STD treatment - it's in the public interest for STDs to be treated.

Secondly, visitors are treated by the NHS. It's just that they should pay. Furthermore, my understanding was that primary care was covered by the NHS for everyone.

Thirdly, students are not normally present on a settlement visa. However, those on long courses have to pay the IHS, albeit with a 25% discount. I rather think these students, at least, will acquire an NHS number.

Have you read your link Section 39 of the Immigration Act 2014?

It clearly states that the charges provisions apply to people who are not ordinarily resident!

Yes. Did you read Section 39(1)? Were you sure you read it properly? It says, amongst other things, that "persons who have leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom for a limited period" are included amongst "persons not ordinarily resident in Great Britain" when interpreting the NHS charging regulations. Thus, although common sense may tell you that someone in the UK on a fiancé visa avowedly intended to be ordinarily resident in the UK, they are not ordinarily resident for the purposes of the NHS charging regulations.