is UK making it harder to get your spouse back?

[darren1971]

1 hour ago, jinners said:

Look, I'm not making this up and whatever you may think you know, you're wrong. There was nothing wrong, erroneous, missing, incomplete, or otherwise on my application. I submitted the appeal, paid more money, and received an approval. What you want me to say, I'm wrong we forgot xyz? I know what happened you don't. Just because you had an app sail trough does not mean that is the norm, far from it.

Stating the obvious is not particularly helpful either. Stating percentages of approvals and declinations is meaningless. I go on my experience and the experience of another friend who had similar experience then paid an agent to flower it up and back hand the staff, at which time he received an approval. perhaps you're an agent doing the same. I have no clue and wouldn't assume so please stop assuming you know better than others.

What were the reasons on the refusal notice and how did you challenge them?

[theoldgit]

3 hours ago, jinners said:

Look, I'm not making this up and whatever you may think you know, you're wrong. There was nothing wrong, erroneous, missing, incomplete, or otherwise on my application. I submitted the appeal, paid more money, and received an approval. What you want me to say, I'm wrong we forgot xyz? I know what happened you don't. Just because you had an app sail trough does not mean that is the norm, far from it.

Stating the obvious is not particularly helpful either. Stating percentages of approvals and declinations is meaningless. I go on my experience and the experience of another friend who had similar experience then paid an agent to flower it up and back hand the staff, at which time he received an approval. perhaps you're an agent doing the same. I have no clue and wouldn't assume so please stop assuming you know better than others.

I don't think anybody is suggesting that you're making it up, you're application was refused, you took it to appeal and the decision was overturned, I think that's indicative of how the system to rectify errors works, though I do agree that it seems wrong that you should have to incur extra costs to rectify the mistake made in the original decision.
As Darren has said, it would be helpful if you let us know how you challenged the original decision, it's not that we're nosey, it just may help others.

I don't think the percentage approvals is meaningless, it's simply reporting the fact that 95% of applications are approved, the fact that you and your friend had your applications declined doesn't really add anything, you were probably in the 5% of those that had applications declined, unless you're suggesting that the figures are a false representation of the facts.

[7by7]

3 hours ago, jinners said:

Look, I'm not making this up and whatever you may think you know, you're wrong. There was nothing wrong, erroneous, missing, incomplete, or otherwise on my application. I submitted the appeal, paid more money, and received an approval. What you want me to say, I'm wrong we forgot xyz? I know what happened you don't

As theoldgit says, no one is accusing you of making things up. You know the reasons for the refusal, we don't. You know the reasons why the appeal was successful; we don't.

 

3 hours ago, jinners said:

Just because you had an app sail trough does not mean that is the norm, far from it.

Stating the obvious is not particularly helpful either. Stating percentages of approvals and declinations is meaningless.

The approval rate is not meaningless. It shows that as an average of 95% of applications are approved it is your experience which is not the norm.

 

3 hours ago, jinners said:

I go on my experience and the experience of another friend who had similar experience then paid an agent to flower it up and back hand the staff, at which time he received an approval. perhaps you're an agent doing the same. 

Your experience is not, as said, the norm; far from it.

 

As for your friend, I find it very hard to believe he was successful because he "paid an agent to flower it up and back hand the staff." Saying the ECOs can be bribed is a very serious accusation; what evidence do you have?

 

3 hours ago, jinners said:

I have no clue and wouldn't assume so please stop assuming you know better than others.

So you admit you have no clue. Well, many of us here do; we know the immigration rules, we know the requirements, we keep up to date on the changes to those rules and requirements. We have the experience of helping and advising others over many years. Some of us, not I, have even worked for UKVI or one of it's predecessors, the IND then UKBA, in the past.

[paul545]

On 09/09/2017 at 5:00 PM, 7by7 said:

 UKVI have to follow the immigration rules for the type of visa applied for. Those rules are set by Parliament.

 

Yes, EEA nationals have freedom of movement rights in the UK, as do their qualifying non EEA national family members. Just as British nationals and their qualifying non EEA national family members have in the other EEA member sates. Of course, post Brexit this will probably change.

 

Please explain how your wife's sister, presumably also Thai, can get your wife a visa to live in the UK when you, presumably British, can't. Non EEA national siblings are not automatically qualifying family members, although they can be counted as such in certain circumstances, e.g. if they are totally financially dependent upon their non EEA national sibling and that sibling's EEA national spouse.

 

The freedom of movement directive does not apply in the member state of which the EEA national is a citizen; unless Surinder Singh applies. 

 

Did I say live in the UK? I can't get her a visit visa but her sister can get her a visa as a member of her family. 

[7by7]

10 minutes ago, paul545 said:

Did I say live in the UK? I can't get her a visit visa but her sister can get her a visa as a member of her family. 

 As this is a topic about UK settlement visas, I naturally assumed you were British and talking about the UK! 

 

Maybe you are British, but as you do not live in the UK your original post is pointless as far as this topic is concerned. 

 

BTW, if you and your wife's sister live in another EEA member state, or Switzerland, then my comments on the freedom of movement directive are still relevant. If you live elsewhere then I do not have enough information, nor knowledge of other state's immigration rules, to comment. Not that any of this is relevant in a topic about UK settlement visas!

 

[Jaggg88]

On 09/09/2017 at 11:58 AM, 7by7 said:

The title of this topic is "Is UK making it harder to get your spouse back?"

 

Well, looking at the changes introduced since my wife and step daughter applied in 2000, the answer is "Yes."

 

Since then the changes introduced have been:

• the LitUK test,
• the speaking and listening tests,
• the TB test,
• the iniquitous financial requirement replacing the more sensible, and fairer, adequate maintenance requirement.

But it needs to be remembered that it was not UKVI nor the Home Office who initiated these changes; it was the government of the day; Labour, the coalition and Conservative. Don't blame the officials for them, blame their political masters.

 

It's also more expensive than it was 17 years ago.

 

When my wife and step daughter applied the fee for the initial visa was, if memory serves, £260 each. This included the cost of processing FLR, if required, and then ILR. Labour under Blair then introduced additional fees for these in UK applications, without reducing the initial fee accordingly. Instead they raised all settlemnt fees considerably and introduced the principle of annual above inflation increases to those fees.

 

As for those who have posted their refusal experiences; they do, of course, have my sympathy.

 

However, experience and research will show that there are just three reasons for a refusal of any UK visa application:

1. the applicant simply didn't meet the requirements of the immigration rules;
2. the applicant did meet those requirements, but failed to show that they did;
3. the applicant did meet those requirements but the ECO made an error.

Of course, without knowing the full details of each application, including the full refusal notice and the evidence supplied with the application, it is impossible to say which of the above any individual refusal falls into.

 

But I have seen many refusals under number 2 which were later overturned on appeal when the missing evidence was presented.

 

Very accurate as usual 7by7 but can I point out the initial fee increases were instigated by Gordon Brown as part of his 'stealth tax regime' and continued by successive governments. The visa sections of our overseas missions now make a healthy profit when in fact they are supposed to be not for profit organisations.

[nontabury]

On September 7, 2017 at 11:19 PM, rasg said:

Probably not. If you fulfill the financial requirement, your wife can pass the English test and get a TB certificate, (if it's required), my, now wife, had no problem getting a settlement visa last year for us to get married here and then she successfully applied for Further leave to remain. Indefinite leave to remain is a while away. It's all pretty expensive and keeps going up each year though.

 

Yes. There are hoops to jump through but it wasn’t difficult.

Your list is not complete. My wife has also passed the language test. My income is well above the amount required. Yet we now have a problem regarding proven accommodation. The regulations regarding this requirement are very strict,that is why I am now visiting the UK to try and sort something out. The government says it's about people not being able to access state funds,<deleted> I say,as in my instance, I will also be able to provide proof of a 6 figure £ amount in the bank.

who can claim benefits with these financies.

 It's all about keeping the immigration figures down,and who better than to target, than the families of British citizens. Read up on the Skype children.

[jinners]

23 hours ago, darren1971 said:

What were the reasons on the refusal notice and how did you challenge them?

Can't actually remember as it's a couple of years ago. I challenged them through the system as a refusal gets a challenge automatically. I changed nothing, added nothing, reapplied, paid the extra and received an approval saying the officer involved was overruled. That's it.

[jinners]

21 hours ago, theoldgit said:

I don't think anybody is suggesting that you're making it up, you're application was refused, you took it to appeal and the decision was overturned, I think that's indicative of how the system to rectify errors works, though I do agree that it seems wrong that you should have to incur extra costs to rectify the mistake made in the original decision.
As Darren has said, it would be helpful if you let us know how you challenged the original decision, it's not that we're nosey, it just may help others.

I don't think the percentage approvals is meaningless, it's simply reporting the fact that 95% of applications are approved, the fact that you and your friend had your applications declined doesn't really add anything, you were probably in the 5% of those that had applications declined, unless you're suggesting that the figures are a false representation of the facts.

Understood, and anything I could possibly do to assist others with what is a very unclear stressful system I would happily supply. It is of course wrong to pay extra for a correction to made to somebody elses bad work. It should of course not be that way. Reimbursement should at least apply. But with the governments take it or leave it attitude, that's all you'll ever get.

Good luck to anyone giving it a go.

[7by7]

2 hours ago, nontabury said:

<snip>

Yet we now have a problem regarding proven accommodation. The regulations regarding this requirement are very strict,that is why I am now visiting the UK to try and sort something out.

 Is there no one, family or friends, who can offer you accommodation until you get your own sorted out?

 

This is definitely allowed under the rules; provided there is at least a bedroom for the exclusive use of you and your wife in the property and the owner of the property has no objections to you staying there.

 

See Maintenance and accommodation (MAA), 9. MAA9 Assessing adequate accommodation onwards.

 

For example MAA10 Legally owned or exclusively occupied

Quote

The ECO should consider the basis of the availability and security of tenure of the accommodation. Factors to be taken into account will include:

• the ownership of the property and/or the duration of a lease
• whether any lease enables the tenant to sublet to the couple or take them in as lodgers

If the accommodation is not owned by the couple (or one of them), the Rules require that there be adequate accommodation which is for their exclusive use. This need not be as elaborate as a self-contained flat. It is acceptable for a couple to live in an existing household, for example, that of a parent, uncle, aunt, sibling or friend, as long as they have at least a bedroom for their exclusive use.

 

If the couple have children with them there must be additional adequate accommodation for them (see MAA134 for maximum numbers of persons allowed).

 

[7by7]

17 hours ago, Jaggg88 said:

Very accurate as usual 7by7 but can I point out the initial fee increases were instigated by Gordon Brown as part of his 'stealth tax regime' and continued by successive governments. The visa sections of our overseas missions now make a healthy profit when in fact they are supposed to be not for profit organisations.

 

Are you sure it was Brown not Blair?

 

Blair was prime Minister until June 2007, and my memory may be playing me false, but I'm sure the current fees regime was introduced before that.

 

Not that it matter that much.

 

It is not just most overseas applications which make a vast profit; it's most in UK ones, such as FLR and ILR, as well. When the new fees are published each year by the Home Office they used to show the actual cost of processing the applications. They stopped including this three or four years ago. Why? The only reason I can think of is embarrassment at the profits they make!

 

The government's, past and present, excuse for this is that UKVI must be self funding. Therefore visa and leave to remain applicants are paying for all the other activities of UKVI; such as Border Force officers at ports of entry, enforcement teams who search for illegals in the UK, immigration detention centres etc..

 

I have no objection to visa and leave to remain applicants paying a fair fee, one which covers the costs of processing, including overheads; but do not see why they should also pay for the enforcement activities of UKVI and Border Force. I believe such law enforcement costs should be borne by the taxpayer; as are the costs of law enforcement in all other areas.

 

 

Edited September 12, 2017 by 7by7

[nontabury]

8 hours ago, 7by7 said:

 Is there no one, family or friends, who can offer you accommodation until you get your own sorted out?

 

This is definitely allowed under the rules; provided there is at least a bedroom for the exclusive use of you and your wife in the property and the owner of the property has no objections to you staying there.

 

See Maintenance and accommodation (MAA), 9. MAA9 Assessing adequate accommodation onwards.

 

For example MAA10 Legally owned or exclusively occupied

 

No. But I'M now trying to organize something with a friend. If we do, we will not actually stay with them. Just something to keep the immigration happy. Rather than tell them the truth,that we intend to stay in a hotel,at my expense.Untill we can arrange private rental accommodation.

Another alternative is for my wife to apply and obtain a visitors visa,then stay with us in a Hotel,while we organize everything.Return to Thailand with one of my children, then apply for the settlement visa, thus resulting in unnessacary expense and the family being apart for maybe 3 months. What gets me is this is completely unnessacary, as someone has already mentioned, a bit of discretion and common sense on the part of the immigration department,and it could easily be sorted out.

 Thank god I have the resources to cope with this problem, the people I feel very sorry for,are the 25,000 British Skype children.

 

[jinners]

20 hours ago, 7by7 said:

 

Are you sure it was Brown not Blair?

 

Blair was prime Minister until June 2007, and my memory may be playing me false, but I'm sure the current fees regime was introduced before that.

 

Not that it matter that much.

 

It is not just most overseas applications which make a vast profit; it's most in UK ones, such as FLR and ILR, as well. When the new fees are published each year by the Home Office they used to show the actual cost of processing the applications. They stopped including this three or four years ago. Why? The only reason I can think of is embarrassment at the profits they make!

 

The government's, past and present, excuse for this is that UKVI must be self funding. Therefore visa and leave to remain applicants are paying for all the other activities of UKVI; such as Border Force officers at ports of entry, enforcement teams who search for illegals in the UK, immigration detention centres etc..

 

I have no objection to visa and leave to remain applicants paying a fair fee, one which covers the costs of processing, including overheads; but do not see why they should also pay for the enforcement activities of UKVI and Border Force. I believe such law enforcement costs should be borne by the taxpayer; as are the costs of law enforcement in all other areas.

 

 

Just another sneak tax hidden from public view. Shocking really taxing peoples families and futures. Immoral.

[7by7]

16 hours ago, nontabury said:

On ‎12‎/‎09‎/‎2017 at 10:43 AM, 7by7 said:

<snip>

Is there no one, family or friends, who can offer you accommodation until you get your own sorted out?

<snip>

No. But I'M now trying to organize something with a friend. If we do, we will not actually stay with them. Just something to keep the immigration happy. Rather than tell them the truth,that we intend to stay in a hotel,at my expense.Untill we can arrange private rental accommodation.

I would never advise nor condone lying in a UK visa application; apart from he moral issue, the consequences if caught could be devastating for you and your wife. They would not only refuse this application, but if the deception was considered serious enough she could be banned from entering the UK for life; although this extreme sanction is unlikely in the circumstances.

 

If your friend is unable or unwilling to offer you temporary accommodation, then they should not supply a letter to the contrary and your wife should not include such a letter in her application.

 

I doubt that you are the first couple in this situation, and, as I said when you raised this issue last February, you should explain the situation and your intentions in your sponsor's letter. But, imho, some form of evidence will strengthen the application. Evidence such as a provisional hotel booking for shortly after the intended travel date your wife enters in her visa application. Most hotels will take such a booking.

 

I believe that this would probably be sufficient; but it may be wise for you to seek confirmation from someone more expert than I. I suggest contacting the forum sponsors Thai Visa Express, either direct or, as they are members here, via PM, and asking for their opinion.