10 Year Visa - refusal.

[Jip99]

A friend’s GF has just received a refusal on a 10 year visa application which I think is an appalling decision.  

 

It begs the question - “What is the point of a 10 year visa”.

 

The applicant is one of several Thais I know who spend up to 180 days in the UK each year. By definition (and with a little more evidence) the UK CANNOT become the main residence of a Thai applicant. 
 

The applicant spent 180 days in the UK in 2018 and the same in 2019. In each case it was made clear that this pattern of spending the maximum time allowed in the UK (with the sponsor visiting the UK with his holiday entitlement) would suit the couple until the sponsor eventually retires to Thailand in approximately 10 years time. The sponsor has visited Thailand 14 times in the 6 year relationship.

 

With two approvals on this basis, and the pattern suiting their relationship, the sponsor opted for the savings afforded by a 10 year visa. 
 

He feels like he has been drawn in and then mugged for 800 Quid. I agree with him.

 

 

The decision
I have refused your application for a visit visa because I am not satisfied that you
meet the requirements of paragraph(s) V4.2 because:
You are applying to visit the UK for 5 Months & 27 days to visit your partner.
However, the documents you have provided show that you have had previous visit
visas to the UK as follows:
 6 month visit visa granted on 02/08/2018 where you stayed for 6 Months
 6 month visit visa granted on 02/05/2019 where you stayed for 6 Months
In total you have spent 12 months over a period of 19 months in the UK. I am not
satisfied that you will not live in the UK for extended periods through frequent or
excessive periods or make the UK your main home. Therefore, your application is
refused under paragraph V4.2 (b) of the Immigration Rules

 

[Surelynot]

Been there. Done that. It's a con. Never apply for more than a two year Visa.

[Mulambana]

10 minutes ago, Surelynot said:

Been there. Done that. It's a con. Never apply for more than a two year Visa.

I don't think it is a con. There is must be a reasonable reason to apply for a 10-year visa. I know a few people in the US (Indian passport holders) )who have 10-year visa to UK, and know lots of Indian-Americans in silicon valley whose parents have 10-year visa to USA/Canada. They come to USA stay for few months and leave and come again the following years. 

[Jip99]

16 minutes ago, Surelynot said:

Been there. Done that. It's a con. Never apply for more than a two year Visa.

 

 

<deleted>!

 

I wish I had know that before recommending my mate to go for the savings on a 10 year visa.☹️

 

I had actually considered it myself but our travels elsewhere this year didn't warrant applying now.  I certainly won't consider it anymore.

[RichardColeman]

1 hour ago, Jip99 said:

However, the documents you have provided show that you have had previous visit
visas to the UK as follows:
 6 month visit visa granted on 02/08/2018 where you stayed for 6 Months
 6 month visit visa granted on 02/05/2019 where you stayed for 6 Months
In total you have spent 12 months over a period of 19 months in the UK.

So his Mrs broke the rules then ? She stayed for 2 months in Jan/Feb 2019 and then another 6 months in from May to November 2019 - total 8 months  (240 days in 2019) - she broke the rules, good decision from my point of view.

 

You say she stayed 180 days in each year (calender but she didn't) - she spent 4 (2018) and 8 months (2019). 

[Jip99]

1 minute ago, RichardColeman said:

So you Mrs broke the rules then ? She stayed for 2 months in Jan/Feb 2019 and then another 6 months in from May to November 2019 - total 8 months  (240 days in 2019) - you broke the rules, good decision from my point of view going by your own words

 

 

Not my missus, not my words. If you are going to comment please read and comprehend the post.

 

In 2018 the applicant stayed for 180 days and in 2019 the applicant stayed for 180 days.

[RichardColeman]

3 minutes ago, Jip99 said:

 

 

Not my missus, not my words. If you are going to comment please read and comprehend the post.

 

In 2018 the applicant stayed for 180 days and in 2019 the applicant stayed for 180 days.

OK amended, my mistake - point is she broke the rules, I guess

[Jip99]

42 minutes ago, RichardColeman said:

OK amended, my mistake - point is she broke the rules, I guess

 

Thanks. Totally forgiven ????

 

I don't think she did....and the intention to stay for 180 days in each calendar year was set out in the application.

 

I will be interested to see the comments of Old Git because he has previously referred to appearing to make the UK your main residence. My argument is that mathematically this can never be the case if the applicant spends 185 days a year at her Thai home.

[cleopatra2]

6 minutes ago, Jip99 said:

 

Thanks. Totally forgiven ????

 

I don't think she did....and the intention to stay for 180 days in each calendar year was set out in the application.

 

I will be interested to see the comments of Old Git because he has previously referred to appearing to make the UK your main residence. My argument is that mathematically this can never be the case if the applicant spends 185 days a year at her Thai home.

The applicant has demonstrated that they maximise the length of stay from the recent visits to the UK.

 

[baansgr]

It seems if they had waited until August, it may have been approved

[cleopatra2]

21 minutes ago, Jip99 said:

 

Thanks. Totally forgiven ????

 

I don't think she did....and the intention to stay for 180 days in each calendar year was set out in the application.

 

I will be interested to see the comments of Old Git because he has previously referred to appearing to make the UK your main residence. My argument is that mathematically this can never be the case if the applicant spends 185 days a year at her Thai home.

According to the ECO the applicant has spent more time in the UK than anywhere else

12 months out of 19

[Jip99]

22 minutes ago, cleopatra2 said:

The applicant has demonstrated that they maximise the length of stay from the recent visits to the UK.

 

 

 

Is that illegal?

[Jip99]

10 minutes ago, cleopatra2 said:

According to the ECO the applicant has spent more time in the UK than anywhere else

12 months out of 19

She spent 360 days out of 730 days over 2 years - as approved in the two previous visas.

[NanLaew]

53 minutes ago, Jip99 said:

 

Thanks. Totally forgiven ????

 

I don't think she did....and the intention to stay for 180 days in each calendar year was set out in the application.

 

I will be interested to see the comments of Old Git because he has previously referred to appearing to make the UK your main residence. My argument is that mathematically this can never be the case if the applicant spends 185 days a year at her Thai home.

And if things like this were decided purely on mathematics simple arithmetic, having spent 12 months out of the previous 19 months in the UK on a TR visa, there was every likelihood that the applicant was planning on staying as close to 5 years out of the 10 that the visa would have 'allowed'.

 

It's called milking it even when it's stated in the application. The overriding rule was already mentioned in an earlier thread you posted relating to this instance. It is not to be seen abusing the tourist visa in order to avoid the formal long-term immigration entitlements. Maxing out tourist visa allowances is a red flag. Always has been.

 

If indeed he did follow your totally flawed advice, you may owe your mate 800 quid.

[Jip99]

33 minutes ago, NanLaew said:

And if things like this were decided purely on mathematics simple arithmetic, having spent 12 months out of the previous 19 months in the UK on a TR visa, there was every likelihood that the applicant was planning on staying as close to 5 years out of the 10 that the visa would have 'allowed'.

 

It's called milking it even when it's stated in the application. The overriding rule was already mentioned in an earlier thread you posted relating to this instance. It is not to be seen abusing the tourist visa in order to avoid the formal long-term immigration entitlements. Maxing out tourist visa allowances is a red flag. Always has been.

 

If indeed he did follow your totally flawed advice, you may owe your mate 800 quid.

 

I still don't accept that spending the maximum time allowed under a standard visit visa is wrong.

 

This a couple who wish to spend as much time together whilst the sponsor has to work and he will eventually retire to Thailand. 

 

Are you saying (because I haven't seen it in print anywhere gov.uk websites etc) that his only option to achieve that time together is to apply for Settlement?

 

Also, re the 5 years out 10 comment. Previous visas were approved with that exact declaration.

[Sujo]

So basically they declined the visa because the applicant has abided by the terms of her previous visas.

[ChaiyaTH]

If I read what OP writes it seems that they complain about the fact that 2 months of the first 6 months visa were in 2019, followed by another 6 months after a break of just 3 months. Didn't that also make the total stay 8 months in the year 2019?

This some generic visa thing where you never want to risk it, should have had some better timelines and not maxing exactly each visa out.

[howerde]

 

This seems unfair, you could challenge with AR administrative review

 

It looks as if the officer dealing with the application is using, the clause below to refuse, was this mentioned?

 

 

 

Frequent and Successive Visits Requirement

This is an important requirement for long term visitor visa applications.

Paragraph v4.2(b) of the Immigration Rules Appendix V: visitor rules, clearly says that you cannot ‘live in the UK for extended periods through frequent or successive visits, or make the UK their main home’.

 

 

 

i saw the above info from the following websitehttps://www.migrate.org.uk/long-term-visitor-visa-guidance/

 

[cleopatra2]

10 hours ago, Jip99 said:

She spent 360 days out of 730 days over 2 years - as approved in the two previous visas.

Consider the applicants recent travel history

Granted visa 2/8/2018 spent 6 months therefore left Feb 2019

Granted visa May 2019 spent 6 months thus leaving November 2019

Now applying for a visa in March 2020.

 

If the application succesfull total length in the UK would be 18 months in a 24 month period.

 

The period between leaving the UK and applying for new visa is only 3 to 4 months.

[donnacha]

Yeah, the previous visits should have been better spaced apart, or not maxed out the time allowed.

I agree that there is nothing technically wrong with using all the time that your visa allows, or leaving so little time between ending one visa and applying for the next, but you must always remember that your patterns build an overall picture, and that is all the deciding officer has to go on. It is a tough system but widely understood. Your friends girlfriend was clearly determined to spend as much time as possible in the UK. Huge red flag.

You just have to show that, in any given 365-day period, you spend more time in your home country than the UK.

If the plan was to build up to a ten year, the smart way to do this would have been:

Granted visa starts early Aug 2018, spend 5 months, leave end December 2018

< 6 month gap >

Granted visa early July 2019, spend 5 months, leave end Nov 2019

< 6 month gap >

Apply for 10-year visa in June 2020
 

[Jip99]

3 hours ago, cleopatra2 said:

Consider the applicants recent travel history

Granted visa 2/8/2018 spent 6 months therefore left Feb 2019

Granted visa May 2019 spent 6 months thus leaving November 2019

Now applying for a visa in March 2020.

 

If the application succesfull total length in the UK would be 18 months in a 24 month period.

 

The period between leaving the UK and applying for new visa is only 3 to 4 months.

 

Yes, duly noted and there is nowhere that says that you can't apply in that timeframe. My point was also that UKVI were advised of the annual intention to spend up to 180 days ....the actual travel date would have made the gap much closer to 6 months (not that that is a requirement).

 

 

[Jip99]

3 hours ago, donnacha said:

Yeah, the previous visits should have been better spaced apart, or not maxed out the time allowed.

I agree that there is nothing technically wrong with using all the time that your visa allows, or leaving so little time between ending one visa and applying for the next, but you must always remember that your patterns build an overall picture, and that is all the deciding officer has to go on. It is a tough system but widely understood. Your friends girlfriend was clearly determined to spend as much time as possible in the UK. Huge red flag.

You just have to show that, in any given 365-day period, you spend more time in your home country than the UK.

If the plan was to build up to a ten year, the smart way to do this would have been:

Granted visa starts early Aug 2018, spend 5 months, leave end December 2018

< 6 month gap >

Granted visa early July 2019, spend 5 months, leave end Nov 2019

< 6 month gap >

Apply for 10-year visa in June 2020
 

 

 

Duly noted.

 

I would also suggest that a one month holiday, followed by a one one month holiday in the next year (+ a couple of excursions into Cambodia/Laos/Vietnam to establish a good 'return' record) would have resulted in approval on a 10 year application. Then use it for 180 days in the UK and no IO at the point of entry would likely raise an eyebrow.

 

In my friend's case he has been open in saying that, for their relationship, his partner will spend 180 days each year in the UK before he eventually retires here.

[cleopatra2]

32 minutes ago, Jip99 said:

 

Yes, duly noted and there is nowhere that says that you can't apply in that timeframe. My point was also that UKVI were advised of the annual intention to spend up to 180 days ....the actual travel date would have made the gap much closer to 6 months (not that that is a requirement).

 

 

I accept your point about the timeframe between applications. The applicant has been successful in being granted a visa in such timeframe previously.

The ECO will give more weight to actual travel history than a stated intention. The travel history is a matter of fact.

 

I do not know the applicants travel history only what is stated in the OP.

From the details provided in the OP it is difficult to disagree with the outcome.

 

[theoldgit]

17 hours ago, RichardColeman said:

So his Mrs broke the rules then ? She stayed for 2 months in Jan/Feb 2019 and then another 6 months in from May to November 2019 - total 8 months  (240 days in 2019) - she broke the rules, good decision from my point of view

 

So which rule did the OP's friends wife break exactly?

 

In the guidance to decision makers it says "There is no specified maximum period which an individual can spend in the UK in any period such as ‘6 months in 12 months’. However, if it is clear from an individual’s travel history that they are making the UK their home you should refuse their application".

 

In this case the ECO made a judgement call that the applicant was making the UK their main home or place of work frequent or successive visits, whilst the OP and I  assume his friend were aware of my concerns, in the circumstances he describes it does seem to be a harsh decision.

 

ECO's have the option to issue a visa of a shorter validity than the ten year visa actually applied for.  

[theoldgit]

18 hours ago, Surelynot said:

Been there. Done that. It's a con. Never apply for more than a two year Visa.

 

My wife has a five year visa, she'd previously had two six month visa and one with a two year validity, I suspect she's far from alone.

[theoldgit]

Nonsense troll post removed.

[RAZZELL]

The purpose of these visas is to allow frequent travel - not as a way of circumventing visa/settlement issues.

 

To state in your application you are going to spend the next 10 years spending 180 days a year in the UK is the height of stupidity.

 

RAZZ

[cleopatra2]

43 minutes ago, theoldgit said:

 

So which rule did the OP's friends wife break exactly?

 

In the guidance to decision makers it says "There is no specified maximum period which an individual can spend in the UK in any period such as ‘6 months in 12 months’. However, if it is clear from an individual’s travel history that they are making the UK their home you should refuse their application".

 

In this case the ECO made a judgement call that the applicant was making the UK their main home or place of work frequent or successive visits, whilst the OP and I  assume his friend were aware of my concerns, in the circumstances he describes it does seem to be a harsh decision.

 

ECO's have the option to issue a visa of a shorter validity than the ten year visa actually applied for.  

The travel history of the applicant is a classic example of frequent travel to live in the UK.

The applicant spends the maximum time in the UK .

After a short period outside the UK 're applies to enter the UK again to the extent they are spending more time in the UK than outside the UK.

[Jip99]

36 minutes ago, RAZZELL said:

The purpose of these visas is to allow frequent travel - not as a way of circumventing visa/settlement issues.

 

To state in your application you are going to spend the next 10 years spending 180 days a year in the UK is the height of stupidity.

 

RAZZ

 

 

So please show me the gov.uk reference where it says that you cannot have a "180 day" visa in each year.

[Jip99]

32 minutes ago, cleopatra2 said:

The travel history of the applicant is a classic example of frequent travel to live in the UK.

The applicant spends the maximum time in the UK .

After a short period outside the UK 're applies to enter the UK again to the extent they are spending more time in the UK than outside the UK.

 

 

That is mathematically incorrect over 3 years.