Uk Visitors Visa

[Eastender]

When my g/f first applied to come to the UK several years ago we asked for a 2 week holiday. She was given a 6 month visa but told to stay for only 2 weeks. She did, but returned to the UK again within the period of the visa and had a second holiday, then went back to Thailand. No problem there and she now lives in the UK.

However, my question concerns a friend in a similar situation. She was granted a visa on the basis of comforting her mum in the UK who's husband has just died. Similarly to my g/f, she was given a 6 month visa but told to stay for two weeks. She's just arrived, been here a week, and her freinds and family are wondering what would happen if she stayed the full 6 months. Would it, could it, count against her for any future applications to live here?

Thanks.

[Monkeypants]

Strictly speaking the minimum visa that the British Embassy can issue is indeed a 6 month visit visa,

Did the ECO at BKK put a little attatchment in her passport ( perhaps stapled in )

to say that they would look favourably at the further issuing of visas if she agreed to stay for only 2 weeks?

Also she would be doing nothing wrong in staying for the 6 months duration.

Obviously she must not overstay here one day, that would have severe repercussions on future visa apllications in this instance

Edited June 3, 2007 by Monkeypants

[Mahout Angrit]

She's just arrived, been here a week, and her freinds and family are wondering what would happen if she stayed the full 6 months. Would it, could it, count against her for any future applications to live here?

Yes it could, there are posters on here who have been refused a second visa purely because they did just that. However in your friends circumstances, if she gets details of the family death and presents them as compassionate reasons for her extended stay in UK on this visit when she next applies for a visa then she admits and addresses it and it's likely her reasoning will be accepted but don't try it on for the full 6 months.

If she did stay the full 6 months it wouldn't be illegal.

[the gent]

There is no basis in law supporting any such stipulaton should the ECO feel compelled to attach one. A vist visa once issued permits the recipient to stay as long they like for as many times during its currency provided of course that the applicant complies with the law and there has been no change in their circumstances that may undermine the grounds on which the decision to issue was first made.

Obviously, should the applicant choose to remain for a period significantly longer than that originally stated then a subsequent application may merit closer scrutiny but provided the grounds for doing so appear on the balance of probability reasonable and the applicant's circumstances have not changed significantly since the first issue, then there is no reason to believe that a subsequent application should founder.

[AZZZEY68]

I know someone who only had 4 week visa as above but stayed the full 6 months re applied on her return no problems, the embassy are actually wrong by law 6 months in her passport means she can stay 6 months.And when i asked home office they said how long is the visa i replied 6 months they said well thats how long she can stay then.What happened next was she got married and was issued a settlement visa in 3 days no problems that was only last month.

[Mossfinn]

When the wife first came here we stated we wanted a sort period of time in the application, perhaps 3-4 weeks can't quite remember, but we received a six month visa.

Thought, well that's a bonus, not knowing that is the norm, so stayed far longer, never received any detrimental results in the future, but as others have said, in future applications, just clarify your first stay, over and above your original application, in the following application, if ever required.

Moss

[Mahout Angrit]

I know someone who only had 4 week visa as above but stayed the full 6 months re applied on her return no problems, the embassy are actually wrong by law 6 months in her passport means she can stay 6 months.

It's not against immigration rules, sure, but on the application form it asks "how long do you wish to stay" so the decision on whether your circumstances (especially if you have submitted a letter from your employer stating your holiday period)or funds are sufficient for the stay is based on the period you state on the application. If you had originally stated 6 months the decision may have been different.

Nobody likes being tricked or deceived and i'm sure the ECO's are no exception. Of course you may well 'get away with it' especially if your next visa is a settlement visa and many do but there are also others who have had to move to live in Thailand because they couldn't get their g/f's another visit visa for doing just that.

Gather the information, assess the risk and make your decision.

Edited June 6, 2007 by Mahout Angrit

[Mossfinn]

I know someone who only had 4 week visa as above but stayed the full 6 months re applied on her return no problems, the embassy are actually wrong by law 6 months in her passport means she can stay 6 months.

It's not against immigration rules, sure, but on the application form it asks "how long do you wish to stay" so the decision on whether your circumstances or funds are sufficient for the stay is based on the period you state on the application. If you had originally stated 6 months the decision may have been different.

Nobody likes being tricked or deceived and i'm sure the ECO's are no exception. Of course you may well 'get away with it' especially if your next visa is a settlement visa and many do but there are also others who have had to move to live in Thailand because they couldn't get their g/f's another visit visa for doing just that.

Gather the information, assess the risk and make your decision.

I have got to say I agree with Mahout on this, stating one thing in your application and doing another, can be viewed in an altogether adverse manner and ignorance of the principles can be no defence.

However my question is, if you do not read forums like this and you receive a visa for six months, not knowing this is the norm, I am wondering who would not treat it as a bonus and do exactly like we did.

I do not treat our application and subsequent over-stay of the original application, although not of immigration rules, as deception, just an endorsement of the strength of the evidence and the balance of probabilities of return.

I accept now that is not the case, but I also will not accept it was deception either.

Moss

[Mahout Angrit]

However my question is, if you do not read forums like this and you receive a visa for six months, not knowing this is the norm, I am wondering who would not treat it as a bonus and do exactly like we did.

Moss

I'm sure if you had your Tom Yum Kung and they gave you too much change when you paid the bill you would query it with the chef and not just pocket it .... so if the visa period given you is longer than expected woudn't you query it with the issuing authority

[Mossfinn]

However my question is, if you do not read forums like this and you receive a visa for six months, not knowing this is the norm, I am wondering who would not treat it as a bonus and do exactly like we did.

Moss

I'm sure if you had your Tom Yum Kung and they gave you too much change when you paid the bill you would query it with the chef and not just pocket it .... so if the visa period given you is longer than expected woudn't you query it with the issuing authority

A mix of metaphors that can create a stew of ambiguity I am afraid Mahout.

When I eat my Tom Yum Kung or any other grub I have an expectation, sometimes not a great expectation, but an expectation none the less.

If it is a Kip joint, then I expect an ornery piece of victuals, but if I eat Cordon Bleu I expect something again. The fact that, that expectation is somewhat lacking is neither my fault nor should it be my palate that has to distinguish.

Now if someone comes to me, in my chosen profession, then I will give the necessary advice, if it doesn't measure up then I have an obligation to pay the piper, just to mix my metaphors again.

But to answer your question, would I question a wrong issuance of a visa, yes I would, and have done so to no avail, when it is quite obvious that a wholly improper visa was issued.

But to imply Tom Yum Goong compliance in the same league as the issuance of a Visa, is rather laughable and I will put it down to the defence of the indefensible.

All said in good spirits I might add.

Moss