paully

i make it quite clear. who ever trying with violence to put out a legaly electet goverment or trying to make a coup of state is for me a terrorist.

And who ever conspiring to bring back a convicted criminal hiding abroad in triumph and re-imburse him fully with his ill-gotten gains is a... what?

some people have been asked to present copies of the deeds or land registry to show details of where they will stay!

If the land in the UK is registered land (the vast majority is these days), then all the sponsor needs to show is an office copy of the Land Registry title entry available online for £3. The entry needs to show the sponsor as the registered propreitor (ie owner) of the land leasehold or freehold. Not too onerous.

However, the main reason I came to this thread was to comment about how badly she conveyed her answers to the interviewer. A lot of the time the interviewer had a deep frown on her face as if she was trying to understand what YS was saying.

YS was just babbling, almost panicking, and saying the usual words without forming many coherent sentences. It really was a poor performance. Even worse than her brother.

She speaks like a bargirl. No wonder the interviewer struggled, despite asking her questions really S-L-O-W-L-Y.

My question now is will our spouse visa application be negatively affected by previous visitor visa applications ?

Not if she keeps to the rules for visit visas, ie she doesn't overstay or give the impression that she is living in the UK. As you've been told, billy, there is no way of supercharging the situation and getting her to live and work in the UK overnight. It takes time and planning but your end game is eminently achieveable. Be patient.

Yes, there is no "live in the UK and abroad" visa. Even with Indefinite Leave you have to spend not too long out of the country. But if you're an EU citizen then you can do what you like.

I apologise if I seem to be blaming you. I'm actually enjoying the discussion.

Good!

But that's exactly the point, Tony: you quoted the example given for illustration purposes, I quoted the guidance the ECO is expected to follow. In context I'm afraid.

I'm not sure what you mean by an example "for illustration purposes" ? It is the guidance to ECOs on how to assess whether an applicant is a frequent or successive visitor, and this applicant doesn't seem to fall into the category of a frequent and successive visitor as given in the guidance I quoted. In fact, she seems to be far from it.

The guidance is available to applicants, sponsors and others. From the guidance quoted, I don't think the applicant would have expected to have her application refused. As 7x7 says, if the UKV&I are going to interpret their guidance this strictly, then applicants and sponsors should have an expectation to be informed before applying.

Examples are just examples, Tony. Examples are never the law. Yes, I've already said that the guidance should be clearer - I'm not the government, stop trying to blame me for what happened to this lady!

How long between visits is acceptable? 7 months, 8, 9, longer?

If ECOs, and presumably IOs at ports of entry, are going to be strict in applying this 'rule' then surely applicants and sponsors have the right to be told what is acceptable and what isn't.

I'd certainly agree with that. Should be a lot clearer.

The ECO would appear to have taken a strict interpretation of this point in the guidance, TVE:

"visitors must not be living in the UK for extended periods because of frequent, successive visits."

The applicant hasn't overstayed, there's no suggestion of that, but with the greatest possible respect the ECO has not acted in error, merely been strict in the interpretation.

That is kind of out of context, Paully. The guidance does goes on to give an example of "successive visits" :

where an individual spends five or six months in the UK during a visit and returns after a short break in their home country for a further five or six months, or if they are living in the UK for successive short periods and breaking this by leaving for a couple of days, for example, someone living in the UK during the week and breaking this by leaving the UK at the weekends.

It looks like the ECO has been slightly more than "strict" in his interpretation.

But that's exactly the point, Tony: you quoted the example given for illustration purposes, I quoted the guidance the ECO is expected to follow. In context I'm afraid.

The ECO would appear to have taken a strict interpretation of this point in the guidance, TVE:

"visitors must not be living in the UK for extended periods because of frequent, successive visits."

The applicant hasn't overstayed, there's no suggestion of that, but with the greatest possible respect the ECO has not acted in error, merely been strict in the interpretation.

I assume the applicant only wants to visit, not live in, the UK

I'm sure she does! Unfortunately there is no exact visa category for what she wanted. It would seem that she gave the ECO the impression that she was effectively living in the UK.

Are you agreeing that she is de facto resident in the UK, and seeking to live there on a continuous basis, as the ECO has determined ?

I think the change is that, whereas previously an applicant wasn't refused for complying with the "6 in 12" guidance, it looks like they are now being refused for complying with it. I think that is a certainly a change in practice by UKV&I ?

It doesn't matter whether I agree with the decision or not. I'm not the ECO, merely trying to suggest how it may appear to him/her and that the appropriate visa here would be a settlement visa not a visit one. I wouldn't agree with you that there was always an automatic acceptance of 6 months in the UK, then 6 months abroad then 6 months in the UK. This would always be a risk to run as a visitor

"the applicant would have visited the UK three times in three years, for 6 months in each year. Perfectly acceptable, until now."

Acceptable is not the same as advisable. In my opinion she has taken a risk by assuming that because she is keeping to the letter of the law in relation to individual 6 month stays she is fine for all future visits. She has created a pattern of stays which may indicate to the authorities that she is not a genuine short-stay visitor.

I can't see any change to the 6 in 12 guidelines from what you have said.

Jatuporn needs to get a bit more in touch with his feminine side.

It surprises me that the red shirts are in support of a government that has behaved this way

Jatuporn needs to get in touch with his brain - if he can find it.

He was as much a recipient of the Thaksin shilling as anyone else was in his day. Tainted wannabe revolutionary.

"Cut my head off, why don't you?"

Don't tempt us, Dr T...

Yes, Chuan was a decent and honourable man. A rare thing in politics.

This is really starting to sound like the start of the end. She really must be grasping at straws when she trots out answers like this.

Absolutely. No-one's listening to you, Yingers - just look out the window. Time you took the only courageous step in your life and resigned.

"You must also be able to show that, during your visit, you do not intend to:"

It's about the elements of a criminal offence - to commit it you need the act of actually working/studying/marrying without permission and the intent to do so, what lawyers call the mens rea. It means that the entrant would be entering illegally because the intent to do one of these things had already been formed.

As long as you give assurances in your letter that your partner has no plans to do any of these things she should be fine.

University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong University of Science and Technology and National University of Singapore (NUS) are all good - better than anything in Thailand. However, they are not particularly cheap and both Hong Kong and Singapore are expensive places to live. Some of the South Korean universities are pretty good, cheaper too.

if you just bring her to the UK on the existing visa any High Court proceedings will be held at your local Crown Court and not in London.

Not at the Crown Court, Jay. A High Court family case could be transferred to the local County Court or Magistrates' Court but if it starts in the High Court Family Division it usually stays there. Crown Courts are for criminal cases only.

Hi Steady

We do need to get settlement status and we are advised by our local council that we can go to the high court in London and possibly have the Thai custody order made enforceable as a residency order which means she could enter for the purpose of adoption. I guess this would mean a settlement.

Yes, the key point here for you is to get her admitted to the UK in order to finalise the formal adoption, which takes some time of course.

The council appear to be referring to obtaining a Residence Order under Section 8 of the Children Act 1989 as evidence that the child is to live with you and using this for her immigration purposes.

An application for a residence order can indeed be applied for in the High Court in London (the Principal Registry of the Family Division of the High Court at First Avenue House, 42-49 High Holborn, London WC1V 6NP) that the child live with you and you could contact any reputable family lawyer to do this (you can look at solicitors on the Children Panel via the Law Society link given earlier). A High Court application can proceed much quicker than a local County Court application.

However, the child should normally be in the UK when you make the application even if you are trying to 'convert' a Thai custody order into a UK court order.

Thaksin has never really understood what was required to appease his main supporters, up-country poor people.

On the contrary, Thaksin knows exactly what up-country poor people need, but isn't inclined to give it to them. He treats them with the same contempt as every other rich politician, but they overwhelmingly turn out to vote for him and his acolytes - I'm no fan but he's not as stupid as you seem to make out. As long as the family silver and gold is still present, they will still generally vote for him and his.

^ It seems to be a standard 'line' Scott, although I'm not sure what convention/document it would be in. From the BBC:

"Countries which have so far given no response

Cuba, Iceland, France, Netherlands, Germany, Italy, Switzerland (Iceland, Netherlands, Switzerland - applications must be in country to seek asylum)

Countries unlikely to offer asylum

Brazil, Finland, Norway, Ireland, Spain, Poland, Austria, India, China, Russia (Austria, Finland, Ireland, Spain - applications must be in country to seek asylum)"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-23165992

It would only get ugly when they called their friends for back up.

Chalerm's son is a bit useful with a gun..