Thai Gf And Daughter To Visit The Uk

[iainiain101]

History.

Been together since end 2004.

In 2006 gf applied for a VV but was rejected. 2nd application was successful. She came to the UK twice on the visa for a total of about 4 months and left before it expired.

We now rent an appartment in Thailand and have a young child. (child has UK passport) I am now back in the UK working, having spent 70 days in Thailand this year over the course of 3 trips. They would like to come to the UK for 4 or 5 months. Ideally we would then both return to Thailand for a couple of months. This is likely to be the process for the next couple of years. UK for 1/2 the year, Thailand for the other half. Still trying to find how I will do this with work!

Basically she does not want to settle in the UK (cant really blame her), but is happy to spend 1/2 the year here with me, and I will have to find a way to spend 1/2 of it in Thailand.

What UK visa should she apply for?

Thanks

Iain

[the scouser]

For how long do you envisage splitting your time 6/6 UK and Thailand bearing in mind that once your daughter reaches school age, this may not be an option?

Scouse.

[iainiain101]

Good question Scouse.

I am 40, so Thai retirement Visa not available to me for another 10 years.

Not too sure how long yet. I would guess cetainly the next 3 years. Then it could be Thailand or England for school, no decision made as yet.

Iain

[the scouser]

Iain,

The reason I asked is because in the short term, your girlfriend may be able to get away with six-month stints in the UK, but I wouldn't risk it over a three-year period.

On the assumption that you can demonstrate that you've been living together as a married couple would do, for at least the last two years, your girlfriend should apply for an unmarried partner's settlement visa which will give her two years in the UK from the word go and, providing your relationship is ongoing, she is free to come and go during the visa's validity without having to get another visa. At the end of the two years, she may either apply for indefinite leave if all of the criteria are met, or renew the unmarried partner's visa for another two years. This also means that if, for whatever reason, you find yourselves wishing to stay in the UK, your girlfriend does not need to worry about her immigration status.

Scouse.

[iainiain101]

Thanks

I guess the problem for now would be showing that we have been living together for the last 2 years, as we have been apart for the odd 2 months here and there.

I am thinking VV this time, then changing for an unmarried partner's settlement visa.

Iain

[Mahout Angrit]

Thanks

I guess the problem for now would be showing that we have been living together for the last 2 years, as we have been apart for the odd 2 months here and there.

I am thinking VV this time, then changing for an unmarried partner's settlement visa.

Iain

It would be a lot cheaper to go the Visitors Visa route. Maybe you could think about applying for a 2 year Multiple entry Visitors visa. She could go to UK as many times as she wished in the 2 years but she shouldn't be looking to spend more than 6 months in any 12 there.

If she didn't stretch her visits too much she should then be able to get another on expiry.

[the scouser]

Thanks

I guess the problem for now would be showing that we have been living together for the last 2 years, as we have been apart for the odd 2 months here and there.

I am thinking VV this time, then changing for an unmarried partner's settlement visa.

Iain

It would be a lot cheaper to go the Visitors Visa route. Maybe you could think about applying for a 2 year Multiple entry Visitors visa. She could go to UK as many times as she wished in the 2 years but she shouldn't be looking to spend more than 6 months in any 12 there.

If she didn't stretch her visits too much she should then be able to get another on expiry.

And risk being refused entry? Good advice!

Scouse.

[the scouser]

but she shouldn't be looking to spend more than 6 months in any 12 there.

Again, please can you show me the relevant legislation to support your contention?

[Koratcat1]

but she shouldn't be looking to spend more than 6 months in any 12 there.

Again, please can you show me the relevant legislation to support your contention?

Mahout Angrit is absolutely 100% correct. You can be denied re-entry if you have been in the UK for a total of more than 6 months in a 12 month period on a visit visa. I'm surprised you didn't know that.

Also your advice about a settlement visa is flawed as there is a strict limit on how long you can spend outside the UK without forfeiting your right to apply for indefinite leave to remain.

[Koratcat1]

Scouser,

IMMIGRATION DIRECTORATES' INSTRUCTIONS – Feb 2006

CHAPTER 2

SECTION 1 - VISITORS (GENERAL) ANNEXE A

4. FREQUENCY AND DURATION OF VISITS

There is no restriction on the number of visits a person may make to the United

Kingdom nor any requirement that a specified time must elapse between

successive visits................It is reasonable, however, for the immigration officer to consider the stated

purpose of the visit in the light of the length of time that has elapsed since

previous visits. A visitor should not, for example, normally spend more than 6 out

of any 12 months in this country ............

[Mahout Angrit]

Again, please can you show me the relevant legislation to support your contention?

You know better than most there is no legislation for a number factors regarding visa application otherwise there wouldn't be so much discussion on this forum. You also know that there are certain yardsticks used by the ECO's when granting visas which are not public knowledge. It is these yardsticks that are discovered by posting information in such places as this forum.

I'm not going back to search but I feel sure that you yourself have suggested that as a general rule a visitor would not be expected to spend more than 6 months in UK in any 12 months (my apologies if you are adamant that you haven't).

As the OP is looking to spend only maybe three visits during the next three years, each visit of less than 6 months I still feel it would be better and a lot cheaper to go the visit visa route as I also feel if she doesn't spend enough time in the UK on a settlement visa she may well struggle to get FLR and would then have to resort to a visit visa in the final year.

I do also know that you have warned posters (and I agree) that should they be returning to UK on a settlement visa but not intending to settle then they could be landed as a visitor or even refused (and there is legislation to cover that!)

[Mahout Angrit]

And risk being refused entry? Good advice!

I think the risk of being refused on a bona fida visitors visa (provided the visitor is abiding by the guidlines for visiting) is a lot lot less than the risk of entering UK on a settlement visa with no intention of settling as they are abusing the intention of a settlement visa (which would have been obtained by false statements)

[the scouser]

Scouser,

IMMIGRATION DIRECTORATES' INSTRUCTIONS – Feb 2006

CHAPTER 2

SECTION 1 - VISITORS (GENERAL) ANNEXE A

4. FREQUENCY AND DURATION OF VISITS

There is no restriction on the number of visits a person may make to the United

Kingdom nor any requirement that a specified time must elapse between

successive visits................It is reasonable, however, for the immigration officer to consider the stated

purpose of the visit in the light of the length of time that has elapsed since

previous visits. A visitor should not, for example, normally spend more than 6 out

of any 12 months in this country ............

Thanks for that KK1, but what you have quoted is not legislation, merely the policy instructions.

Again, please can you show me the relevant legislation to support your contention?

You know better than most there is no legislation for a number factors regarding visa application otherwise there wouldn't be so much discussion on this forum. You also know that there are certain yardsticks used by the ECO's when granting visas which are not public knowledge. It is these yardsticks that are discovered by posting information in such places as this forum.

I'm not going back to search but I feel sure that you yourself have suggested that as a general rule a visitor would not be expected to spend more than 6 months in UK in any 12 months (my apologies if you are adamant that you haven't).

As the OP is looking to spend only maybe three visits during the next three years, each visit of less than 6 months I still feel it would be better and a lot cheaper to go the visit visa route as I also feel if she doesn't spend enough time in the UK on a settlement visa she may well struggle to get FLR and would then have to resort to a visit visa in the final year.

I do also know that you have warned posters (and I agree) that should they be returning to UK on a settlement visa but not intending to settle then they could be landed as a visitor or even refused (and there is legislation to cover that!)

The point I was trying to convey, which you have correctly identified, is that there is no legislation to say that an individual cannot spend more than 6 months of every 12 in the UK. Those who do may have difficulty getting a subsequent visit visa, or if they have a two-year multiple entry visit visa, may be refused entry upon arrival in the U.K., but this will depend upon the circumstances of the individual matter.

What I have said previously about people being refused entry if their intention is not to settle in the UK was in relation to those holding indefinite leave, seeking readmission to the UK under paragraph 18 of the Immigration Rules. This is distinct from those who have a settlement visa and who would be seeking entry under a different paragraph. For example, it is not a requirement of the Immigration Rules for Iain's girlfriend to demonstrate that she intends to permanently base herself in the UK if she were to apply for an unmarried partner's settlement visa, so there is no deception or misleading of the visa officer if she were to do so and then spend only 6 months of the year in the U.K.

Scouse.

[Koratcat1]

Scouser,

IMMIGRATION DIRECTORATES' INSTRUCTIONS – Feb 2006

CHAPTER 2

SECTION 1 - VISITORS (GENERAL) ANNEXE A

4. FREQUENCY AND DURATION OF VISITS

There is no restriction on the number of visits a person may make to the United

Kingdom nor any requirement that a specified time must elapse between

successive visits................It is reasonable, however, for the immigration officer to consider the stated

purpose of the visit in the light of the length of time that has elapsed since

previous visits. A visitor should not, for example, normally spend more than 6 out

of any 12 months in this country ............

Thanks for that KK1, but what you have quoted is not legislation, merely the policy instructions.

Quite so. Semantics -you being a lawyer will be an expert. I never stated it was legislation. It is policy, in the public domain, made to accord with the legislation and as such a immigration officer would be acting lawfully if refusing ENTRY TO a person who had already remained in the UK for more than 6 months in any 12 months period. If that person was visiting a spouse he/she could be viewed as attemting to circumvent the more arduous requirements of a settlement visa. Monsieur Angrit was correct. By asking for legislation you implied he was wrong. You were wrong this time - accept it.

[Mahout Angrit]

What I have said previously about people being refused entry if their intention is not to settle in the UK was in relation to those holding indefinite leave, seeking readmission to the UK under paragraph 18 of the Immigration Rules. This is distinct from those who have a settlement visa and who would be seeking entry under a different paragraph. For example, it is not a requirement of the Immigration Rules for Iain's girlfriend to demonstrate that she intends to permanently base herself in the UK if she were to apply for an unmarried partner's settlement visa, so there is no deception or misleading of the visa officer if she were to do so and then spend only 6 months of the year in the U.K.

If she entered UK on a settlement visa, once there, she would be considered resident in UK and The Border and Immigration Agency law and policy (Part 9) states

Part 9 - General grounds for the refusal of entry clearance, leave to enter or variation of leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom

Refusal of entry clearance or leave to enter the United Kingdom

Grounds on which entry clearance or leave to enter the United Kingdom should normally be refused

…………………..

(9) failure by a person seeking leave to enter as a returning resident to satisfy the Immigration Officer that he meets the requirements of paragraph 18 of these Rules, or that he seeks leave to enter for the same purpose as that for which his earlier leave was granted;

So while you are correct that when she applied for the Visa she could "wish to settle" and then 6 months later "change her mind". The law is there to refuse her should she subsequently return to UK after 6 months in Thailand without the intention to settle.

In practice she could probably talk her way round it once but when it came to applying for FLR (if the OP's schedule is adhered to) she would be in Thailand when the visa expired so would have to apply for FLR after 18 months so would she be able to find enough required evidence to prove they are living together in UK?

If they couldn't then she would have no option but to apply for another settlement visa or revert to the visit visa route.

[the scouser]

Quite so. Semantics -you being a lawyer will be an expert. I never stated it was legislation. It is policy, in the public domain, made to accord with the legislation and as such a immigration officer would be acting lawfully if refusing ENTRY TO a person who had already remained in the UK for more than 6 months in any 12 months period. If that person was visiting a spouse he/she could be viewed as attemting to circumvent the more arduous requirements of a settlement visa. Monsieur Angrit was correct. By asking for legislation you implied he was wrong. You were wrong this time - accept it.

Sorry, but I asked for legislation and you posted the policy guidance. I thought, perhaps, you misunderstood what constitutes legislation.

I've never sought to maintain that someone who spends large periods of time in the UK as a visitor within short succession is not risking refusal, whether it be of a visa or on entry. However, the point is that there is no blanket ban on people spending, for example, more than six months of any twelve in the UK. No one person's circumstances are identical, and, given a particular situation, an individual may well qualify for such a series of lengthier leave. Perhaps we should therefore refrain from giving people the impression that they will face difficulties when, by the nature of such fora, we don't necessarily know the full circumstances.

Scouse.

[Mahout Angrit]

Sorry, but I asked for legislation and you posted the policy guidance.

Ah... so it was a trick question!

[the scouser]

If she entered UK on a settlement visa, once there, she would be considered resident in UK ....

Not as defined by immigration law. She would only become resident once in possession of indefinite leave.

So, to take Iain's girlfriend as an example, providing that the circumstances which pertained at the time her visa was issued were to continue to pertain, then there's no reason to think that she would be in danger of being refused entry as the holder of an unmarried partner's settlement visa.

The relevant paragraph of the Immigration Rules indicates that such an application is made with a view to settlement. This does not constitute a requirement to so settle.

Scouse.

[Koratcat1]

If she entered UK on a settlement visa, once there, she would be considered resident in UK ....

Not as defined by immigration law. She would only become resident once in possession of indefinite leave.

So, to take Iain's girlfriend as an example, providing that the circumstances which pertained at the time her visa was issued were to continue to pertain, then there's no reason to think that she would be in danger of being refused entry as the holder of an unmarried partner's settlement visa.

The relevant paragraph of the Immigration Rules indicates that such an application is made with a view to settlement. This does not constitute a requirement to so settle.

Scouse.

You are quite quite wrong. Once again Monsieur Angrit is right. Residence is NOT repeat NOT defined in immigration law but by legal precedent. (You may be confused with "returning resident" which IS defined as someone who previously was "settled" in immgration law terms). A person can be ordinarily resident in the UK without having ILR. And no, we are not becoming confused with residency for taxation puposes. A person is resident if he is settled. Not "settled" as used in immigration legislation. Settled as in I'm here, this is where I live and I intend to stay (I over simplify because a person can be deemed resident in two countries). An illegal can be "resident" if he can demonstate an intent to remain here.

A Thai wife entering on a settlement visa could indeed be deemed resident from the day of arrival provided she could demonstrate intent to remain and not just come here to suss out the lie of the land.

I'm surprised you didn't know this being the expert an' all.

[the scouser]

It was immigration law to which I was referring. We may have to differ on this one, but, certainly, a foreign national is not defined under immigration law (i.e. for the purposes of their immigration status) as being resident (i.e. settled) until they are in possession of indefinite leave.

Mahout Angrit in his previous post maintains that, in relation to immigration law, an individual who is present in the UK on a two-year settlement visa is resident in the UK. That is not so. There may be other government bodies (e.g. HMRC) who may consider such a person to be resident for their purposes, but, we were discussing immigration law.

Despite your valiant effort, you're not quite there yet.

Scouse.

[Eff1n2ret]

"An illegal can be "resident" if he can demonstate an intent to remain here. "

What absolute rubbish!! An illegal has no legal immigration status unless/until this is granted by the Home Office, whatever his "intent". If someone is served with a notice as an illegal entrant and not removed or detained, which lamentably is all too frequently the case, he is given "Temporary Release" , the notice of which says specifically "you have not been given leave to enter or remain", and he is given reporting restrictions which confer no rights on him at all.

I think your attempts to get one up on the Scouse, who has been reliable and constant in his advice for a considerably longer time than you have been around, is doing a disservice to members,

[Mossfinn]

I think your attempts to get one up on the Scouse, who has been reliable and constant in his advice for a considerably longer time than you have been around, is doing a disservice to members,

I have a very distinct feeling that Kk has been around longer than his 20 odd posts, odd being a very operative word here, not just in its use here, but in its very literal sense too

De ja vu, with the posting narative, springs to mind.

Good luck

Moss

[markr]

I agree moss!

Have we met thee before?

Mark

[teacher]

Thanks

I guess the problem for now would be showing that we have been living together for the last 2 years, as we have been apart for the odd 2 months here and there.

I am thinking VV this time, then changing for an unmarried partner's settlement visa.

Iain

It would be a lot cheaper to go the Visitors Visa route. Maybe you could think about applying for a 2 year Multiple entry Visitors visa. She could go to UK as many times as she wished in the 2 years but she shouldn't be looking to spend more than 6 months in any 12 there.

Sorry but she does not even qualify 2 year visa!!!!!!!

She must have had two six months uk visitors visa before she can apply.

So the best option is to apply for a 6 months visa now go and return to thailand then apply for a 2 year the cost for the two year is now 14,440 bt.

[Koratcat1]

"An illegal can be "resident" if he can demonstate an intent to remain here. "

What absolute rubbish!! An illegal has no legal immigration status unless/until this is granted by the Home Office, whatever his "intent". If someone is served with a notice as an illegal entrant and not removed or detained, which lamentably is all too frequently the case, he is given "Temporary Release" , the notice of which says specifically "you have not been given leave to enter or remain", and he is given reporting restrictions which confer no rights on him at all.

I think your attempts to get one up on the Scouse, who has been reliable and constant in his advice for a considerably longer time than you have been around, is doing a disservice to members,

Not rubbish at all. I am correct. An illegal is resident by virtue of his voluntarily living in the UK. You may feel indignant but that doesn't change the fact. Relevant UK legislation is accessible on the internet.

If the Scouser is wrong then he is wrong. That he has been around longer than I should not lend credibilty to his advice.

Consider his last post in this topic. He contradicts himself by saying "resident" is not defined whereas previously he asserted it was. The rest is just waffle.

A good service to members is to provide accurate information and support to forum members. Surely?

[Koratcat1]

Sorry but she does not even qualify 2 year visa!!!!!!!

She must have had two six months uk visitors visa before she can apply.

You are wrong.

[paully]

Not rubbish at all. I am correct. An illegal is resident by virtue of his voluntarily living in the UK. You may feel indignant but that doesn't change the fact. Relevant UK legislation is accessible on the internet.

No - you're wrong. Scouser, as is his wont, stated the position succinctly and accurately: "a foreign national is not defined under immigration law (i.e. for the purposes of their immigration status) as being resident (i.e. settled) until they are in possession of indefinite leave".

An 'illegal' is not a resident of the United Kingdom. 'Illegal' means you are treated as outside the Immigration Rules and you were never legally present in the UK. You are liable to be detained and removed unless given leave to remain.

Please point us to this 'relevant UK leglislation' that you speak of.

[Koratcat1]

Not rubbish at all. I am correct. An illegal is resident by virtue of his voluntarily living in the UK. You may feel indignant but that doesn't change the fact. Relevant UK legislation is accessible on the internet.

No - you're wrong. Scouser, as is his wont, stated the position succinctly and accurately: "a foreign national is not defined under immigration law (i.e. for the purposes of their immigration status) as being resident (i.e. settled) until they are in possession of indefinite leave".

An 'illegal' is not a resident of the United Kingdom. 'Illegal' means you are treated as outside the Immigration Rules and you were never legally present in the UK. You are liable to be detained and removed unless given leave to remain.

Please point us to this 'relevant UK leglislation' that you speak of.

Believe who you will. I really can't be bothered to prove you have no idea what you are talking about.

The internet is a wonderful tool. Most UK legislation is accessible. Immigration law, policy and guidance readily so.

By the way nobody is outside the immigration rules. Nobody is outside the law. If they were they couldn't be prosecuted.

Edited June 18, 2007 by Koratcat1

[Maestro]

I do not know anything about visas to the UK but a curiosity brought me to this forum and this topic, and some of the posts here I find rather amusing.

– Iainiain101 (the original poster): “gf... What UK visa should she apply for?”

– Scouser: “On the assumption that you can demonstrate that you've been living together as a married couple would do, for at least the last two years, your girlfriend should apply for an unmarried partner's settlement visa...”

– Mahout Angrit: “It would be a lot cheaper to go the Visitors Visa route...”

– Mahout Angrit: “...I still feel it would be better and a lot cheaper to go the visit visa route...”

– Teacher: “...apply for a 2 year the cost for the two year is now 14,440 bt...”

What do I find amusing in the above? Nowhere in his original post nor in any subsequent post in this topic did Iainiain101 ask or express his concern about the cost of any visa.

Another amusement: I see three persons agreeing on something, yet a flame fest started as if they were disagreeing.

– Mahout Angrit: “It would be a lot cheaper to go the Visitors Visa route... but she shouldn't be looking to spend more than 6 months in any 12 there”

– Scouser: “And risk being refused entry?”

– Koratcat1: “Mahout Angrit is absolutely 100% correct. You can be denied re-entry if you have been in the UK for a total of more than 6 months in a 12 month period on a visit visa...”

Using different words, all three agree that there is a risk of being refused entry.

As I said, I do not know a thing about visas to the UK and am reading this only for its amusement value.

The way I see it the thread progressed quite civilly until Koratcat1 introduced himself into it with some aggressive language such as “You were wrong this time - accept it” and “I'm surprised you didn't know this being the expert an' all”. How about cooling it a bit, Koratcat1?

--

Maestro

[Mahout Angrit]

Sorry but she does not even qualify 2 year visa!!!!!!!

She must have had two six months uk visitors visa before she can apply.

So is that in any immigration legislation or immigration guidelines or just hearsay?