Wife Ordered Out Of Country Update! Not Good News

[Paulwilday]

I thanked scouse but should of thanked everyone who's taken time to respond, I'm so grateful by the response and help I've received, Thank you all for your time.

[the scouser]

Paul,

Another thing to bear in mind is the BIA policy DP3/96. I have searched their website to find a copy, but to no avail. However, this basically says that before someone is removed from the UK as an overstayer or illegal entrant, account has to be taken of their marital status. If the marriage pre-dates enforcement action (which it does in your wife's case), then they have to consider its validity before they remove her. In the circumstances, I don't see how they could legitimately remove her.

Scouse.

[Charma]

Lots of advice for you here Paul - Take particular note of the scouser's comments - his advice has served TV members very well over the years. One thing to check may be whether your wife is entitled to legal aid and if such aid is applicable to these type of cases - particluarly judical reviews (I know there have been changes over recent years). You need to get this thing sorted as soon as possible and in no way follow the advice of that your wife can simply live on here as an overstayer!

[roygsd]

HI Paul,

As usual the Scouser is giving good advice, dont leave it too long before responding to the Department, might be an idea use the Freedom of Information Act to ask for sight of, or a copy of your wifes file which would mean she would have to provide you with a letter of authority to allow them to discuss the matter on her behalf.

There are codes of conduct and procedures which the Officers are required to take into consideration so ask if it is possiblefor you to have access to the "Background Papers" used in the formulation of this decision, and if not why not? should be your follow up question if your request is denied.

With all due respect Public employeees have standard responses to particular questions and it is unacceptable to be fobbed off with a "blanket response", each case must be dealt with on its own merits

and the Officer who made this decision has in my opinion, applied the rules too rigorously and like it or not is accountable for that decision.

If you have the ability to remain calm and do not allow your attention to be diverted i.e fobbed off with blanket answers like "it is Departmental Policy" you should appreciate that Department Policy or suchlike cannot override the Human Rights Act , or any other UK or EU legislation.

If you google search "Human Rights Act 1998" I think you will be hartened by it, in particular I think you will find Articles 6, 8, 12 and 17 helpful and it I expect that Article 8 will have implications not only for your wife but for yourself and your child as indeviduals so dont forget your rights and the right of your child either.

Dont be in a rush to part with your money just yet, some public servants rightly or wrongly might be inclined to close down or at least reduce the lines of comunication if they suspect that what may have been an honest error on their part may be blown out of all proportion and perhaps harm their relationship with their employers.

There are many ways to skin a cat so they say, you and your wife have made a decision that was based upon advice provied by the Department and rubbing them up the wrong way is al very well but being right is not going to be of much satifaction if it means your familt is likely to be inconvienienced for longer than absolutly necessary.

If you wish to discuss it privately you can call me on 07765058067, all the best, I know its a worry but

dont be making any decisions until you have fully consideed all the options and possible implications.

Keep your chin up

roy

[richardb]

My wife recently applied for an extension to her settlement visa using the flr(m) forms. We sent the forms within the 28 days of her visa expiring. On advice from friends and after phoning the home office for conformation we used the date she entered england, not the date the visa was issued as the date of renewal. Her visa was issued on 20/5/05 but she got here on 25/6/05, so we were told to renew before 25/6/07 which we did. We sent the forms on 28/5/07 and we got a letter confirming they had received them on the 29/06/07. We hoped for a speedy claim. Today however we have received a letter saying in view of the fact you entered the UK on 25/06/05 with entry clearance visa valid 20/05/05 to 20/05/07, The secretary of state is not satisfied you have limited leave to remain in the Uk. You made an application on 29/05/07. However, your leave to remain expired on 20/05/07. You therefore did not have leave to remain at the end of your application. Friends of ours when applying used the date of issue as the date of renewal, but were told they had applied early and should of used the date of entry. This meant they had to pay twice. I thought we had learned from their mistake!

Also my wifes passport was not returned, so how can she leave? And the letter was sent using my wifes maiden name, even though she came here on a spouses visa as we married a year before she came here, and its clearly stamped in the passport with change of name. All this suggests we are dealing with idiots that haven't got a clue what their doing.

Its safe to say my wife is in deep distress of this and we have a two year old daughter who's just started school to think about. Any help and advice would be much appreciated.

This garbled interpretation of the rules has been commented on very recently by the President of the AIT . In short he said that the interpretation was moronic and of course the leave to enter is granted on entry not from the date of the visa which is simply prior authority to enter in a particular capacity.

A reputable Solicitor will sort this out very quickly. If you need a list of firms I would recommend in your area pm me.

Your case not being legally complex and coming about via an interpretation of the rules which has been found to be idiotic this is a perfect case for your mp to intervene in. MPs actually relish this kind of case it is simple and the issues are in black and white.

Richard

[Eff1n2ret]

This garbled interpretation of the rules has been commented on very recently by the President of the AIT . In short he said that the interpretation was moronic and of course the leave to enter is granted on entry not from the date of the visa which is simply prior authority to enter in a particular capacity.

A reputable Solicitor will sort this out very quickly. If you need a list of firms I would recommend in your area pm me.

Your case not being legally complex and coming about via an interpretation of the rules which has been found to be idiotic this is a perfect case for your mp to intervene in. MPs actually relish this kind of case it is simple and the issues are in black and white.

Richard

Dead right. I'm sure this is an unintended consequence of their rush a few years ago to take away the Immigration Officers' powers to grant Leave to Enter in such cases, and they need their noses rubbing in it until they do something about it. It would be perfectly easy to issue settlement visas endorsed "Valid for travel within (say) 3 months from date of issue - Valid until 2 years from date of entry to the UK."

[Eff1n2ret]

This garbled interpretation of the rules has been commented on very recently by the President of the AIT . In short he said that the interpretation was moronic and of course the leave to enter is granted on entry not from the date of the visa which is simply prior authority to enter in a particular capacity.

A reputable Solicitor will sort this out very quickly. If you need a list of firms I would recommend in your area pm me.

Your case not being legally complex and coming about via an interpretation of the rules which has been found to be idiotic this is a perfect case for your mp to intervene in. MPs actually relish this kind of case it is simple and the issues are in black and white.

Richard

Dead right. I'm sure this is an unintended consequence of their rush a few years ago to take away the Immigration Officers' powers to grant Leave to Enter in such cases, and they need their noses rubbing in it until they do something about it. It would be perfectly easy to issue settlement visas endorsed "Valid for travel within (say) 3 months from date of issue - Valid until 2 years from date of entry to the UK."

Just tried to edit that, I don't know what went wrong. "Valid for travel within 3 months" might be inferred that it wasn't valid for any other journeys in the following 2 years, so another form of words would be needed.

I think I'll go and lie down for a bit.

[paully]

Please think carefully before rushing off in any particuar direction, by all means get legal advice but before doing so why not try to resolve the matter amically if you can, I do and so can you I expect,

£100+ an hour is not unheard of, so all the responses you can get from the dept will possibly save you a great deal of money.

It's gone too far to be resolved amicably, Roy, if Scouse is right about a new BIA policy of refusal in these circumstances. Scouse is (of course) correct, you need to get a judicial review application going, Paul, and to do so you need the assistance of a solicitor. JR applications are not always simple or straightforward - they examine how the decision was made, not the actual decision itself - and this one will, I'm afraid, cost you money unless you qualify for legal funding, which is extremely unlikely if you have a job. That's life.

Edited July 9, 2007 by paully

[teacher]

Paul i would give them a call and (start a diary of all the events as they happen) tell them you think there has been a mistake. You have a better chance of getting to the right person who delt with your application. If you have no joy then follow what most people are telling you go to an MP or solicitor.

If you go stratght to a solicitor then whenever you try to contact them you will always be told " sorry its out of my hands" and be fobbed off.

Be nice even grovell to them (ALTHOUGH I DONT SEE WHY YOU OR OTHERS SHOULD) if it keeps your family together. Keep calm and dont send out threats or rant and rave, as you will get nowhere.

I think some people will have their say on this comment but, all you want is what is right for your family. Good luck Paul.

[the gent]

EFF1n2ret,

Criticism would be churlish my dear chap. Your syndrome positively demands aberrations!

Nevertheless your post highlights the fix the Home Office has constructed for itself and settlement cases. Whilst I agree wholeheartedly with Richard's sentiments I'm not so sure the President of the AIT is correct in his interpretation even if one acknowledges the absurdity of the situation created upon application for LTR.

For example, what if an applicant arrives 1 year after the visa was issued? Should the 2 year probationary clock start ticking then? In legal terms what is the difference between a year's delay and one of only 6 weeks?

Frankly, there is no solution save scrapping the current rule and reinstating the old but I wouldn't hold your breath on that one.

Perhaps a way forward is simply tweaking the system whereby an arrival date in the UK is specified on the visa application form which will constitute the date of validity upon issue. If applicants choose to change their plans subsequently then so be it.

[Martin]

I implore you to keep really calm, for your wife's, your own and all the officials' sakes.

There was a period when I was an elected member on a metropolitan council, and many of my 'recently arrived' electors in a Northern city phoned me when they were 'thrown' by receiving some such letter about an immigration matter.

Although we were in opposing political parties, the local MP and I had a sensible and mutually-respecting relationship and I used to give that MP a ring, and tell him that I was advising our mutual elector to contact him. His reply in this sort of case would be:"Right. I will watch for it coming in and then I'll get it before the eyes of someone with a bit of braid on their wellies".

What he was saying was that so many of these standardised replies go out, and a few of them will be the wrong standardised reply because of a slight misreading by a very lowly, and pretty miserably-paid, official. So the MP would get it reviewed by an official a bit higher up, who would see the problem and sort it.

For problems that were Council matters (not HMG, like yours), my own line used to be to go to the appropriate higher-level officer not in anger or dudgeon, but in sorrow that the front-line service delivery staff were so pressurised that sometimes mistakes like this would occur. S/he would 'take it on board' and it would be sorted, with everybody being grateful to the others for keeping cool, calm and collected.

Your MP may well have a Constituency Office with a staff member who will help you to get it to the MP's rapid attention.

If you think I could help further, please PM me.

[the gent]

The OP's refusal was not a mistake but an example of current policy which is not only stupid but grossly unfair. For that reason he should consult his MP and his solicitor since it is only pressure from within parliament and through the Courts that such administrative oppression by an inept executive can be brought to heel.

Don't kid yourself that some shiney arsed clerk in the Home Office has the remit to decide these issues on their own initiative. Today's bureaucracies run on tramlines increasingly devoid of judgement, discretion and intelligence for the very good reason that their managers only care about throughput of decisions processed by incompetent staff selected on the basis of political correctness rather than for their ability.

[Paulwilday]

Just spoke to Home Office and remained calm, explained the situation and explained we sent it on the date we did because of their advice. They have said that if i write a letter accompanied with the dates of the calls, which i have found on my mobile bill, they will reconsider the case.

I think that giving them a chance to admit their mistakes without threat of legal action is the best way to start. If they still uphold the original verdict then i will consult Immigration solicitors.

Thanks again for all the advice, i'll keep you posted.

Paul.

[Lancashirelad]

Paul, did you ask why they hadn't returned the passport?

[roygsd]

HI Paul,

Whilst not wishing to disagree with others who are also trying to help I remain convinced that the requirement to judge each application on its own merits will be regognised before too long and you and your family can put this unpleasant episode behind you.

Dont get hot, focus on the objective and dont allow the department to divert your attention from the very simple facts of this matter, a copy of the Human Rights Act enclosed with the documentation you submit

for your review without actually refering to it should point them in the right direction without the need for anyone to lose face.

Good luck

roy

[Martin]

"Just spoke to Home Office and remained calm, explained the situation and explained we sent it on the date we did because of their advice. They have said that if i write a letter accompanied with the dates of the calls, which i have found on my mobile bill, they will reconsider the case.

I think that giving them a chance to admit their mistakes without threat of legal action is the best way to start. If they still uphold the original verdict then i will consult Immigration solicitors."

Good show.

(But I don't think they will "admit their mistakes". More likely, you will get words like "upon re-consideration it has been decided that...."

But, so long as the decision is the one you want, that is all you want, isn't it?)

[kevc]

They dont care - and we (the British Nation) should care and we should argue and argue until something is changed so that our partners are not put through this kind of nightmare - if they give a visa to come here to marry or get civil partnership and you are able to give simple proof that you are really together after 4 years then that should be it in my view - no more complex forms or extortionate fees - or is partnership to become the priviledge of the rich! (quote)

Sorry Paul this doesn't help you, but change British for Thai in the above, I've been married 13 years 10 in the Uk and the last 3 here and it really doesn't mean a thing I've basically no more rights than a Farang working here.

Hope everything works out for you and your family. I think your right in playing it cool, no sense in playing all your cards at the beginning.

Best of luck.

[roygsd]

Hi Paul,

DO NOT ASK FOR YOUR WIFES PASSPORT WITHOUT CHECKING OUT EXACTLY WHAT IT MEANS TO YOU AND YOUR FAMILY.

I have just seen a reference to a regulation that indicates that if your wife asks for her passport back her application( and presumably her new review?) automatically is considered to have been withdrawn.

I am not so hot on the computer otherwise I would e-mail this info to this site, I can save this infomation and post it as an attachment to a standard e-mail address though.

Sorry to be so useless on the computer but I am too busy to start learning new tricks.

Roy

[the scouser]

Paul's wife's application has already been determined, so to ask for the passport would not mean the application being treated as withdrawn. However, Paul may as well let the BIA hang on to it pro tem in the hope that it will be returned replete with permission to stay for another two years. If they lose it, it is their responsibility.

Scouse.

[jubby]

Paul,

I dont know much about current immigration Laws, so will leave that for the experts.

But I would say, try not to worry about it too much; I'm sure when they review your case it'll be fine in as much as your wife will be allowed to stay.

I'm scarred for life after dealing with these people 11 years ago. And as such despise anyone connected with the immigration service, if not all british officials in general; having said that, This is britain, not Thailand; You do have rights, as does your child.

despite what I and probably you think of them, They are not monsters, I'm sure alarm bells will ring when they realise a child is involved, and sanity will prevail.

Best wishes

Jubby

[Paulwilday]

I hope you're right Jubby. Sent the letter today, didn't get aggressive, just pointed out their mistake. So hopefully soon there will be good news, although i have to say I've no confidence in them what so ever, so part of me is still apprehensive.

It's funny to see in the news today the story of the failed London bombings from two years ago, and the mistakes the Home Office made not weeding them out. Maybe that's their reason for being so strict with my wife, they have learned from there mistakes and realised how much of a danger to national security a Thai lady overstaying nine days presents!

Paul.

[Penkoprod]

As an aside to this, and as a pointer to the future, the BEST investment you could make is a gizmo that will allow you to record telephone conversations

I know Maplins used to sell them a while back

Its amazing how it concentrates the mind of the person on the other end.........especially if you ask them to repeat their name after they have either given you some "advice" or tried to fob you off, and THEN tell them you are recording the conversation !!!!

Penkoprod

[Lancashirelad]

and THEN tell them you are recording the conversation !!!!

not legal (in UK anyway) & unethical. You must tell them at the beginning of the call, (sadly) hence the recorded announcement before you get an answer at a lot of big institutions.

[Martin]

"They are not monsters, ....."

No more than we are!!

And no less than we are!!

But 'they' are individuals who are individual parts of a monstrous bureaucratic machine.

And 'we' are individuals who are individual parts of a monstrous amorphous citizenry.

And the latter begot the former, because it was inevitable, since there is no way of dealing with an enormous number of 'cases' without constructing a 'case-handling machine', for which the technical name is 'a bureaucracy'.

I am, of course, using 'monstrous' here in the sense of 'huge', as it says in my dictionary.

I am not using it in any of the other senses given in my dictionary: 'like a monster; abnormally formed', or 'outrageously wrong or absurd', or 'atrocious'.

I have no doubt that some of us feel that there is an element of those other meanings in the BIA, and vice versa. But it is only a small element on both sides. (I don't want to appear to be shouting, so I haven't put "vice versa" and "on both sides" in capitals, but I think they could do with being emphasised in some way.)

My experiences of interfacing with huge bureaucracies , such as government departments, banks etc is that the individual doesn't interface well with the machine. But, when there is a problem between the machine and a sensible individual citizen or customer and one individual from the bureaucracy gets their mind to that problem, then sense prevails.

However, I would not advocate flagging oneself up as not-sensible, by starting off with a statement that "I am recording this call". The OP has done absolutely the right thing by phoning up and projecting an image of reasonableness and this has been reflected by an individual in the BIA.

[Martin]

To the OP:

Please, please tell us the outcome, when it happens in a week or so.

I don't ask just because I want to share in your sigh of relef, though that is my primary reason---I also don't want the frustration (as often happens with such threads) of not knowing how it turned out!

[Mosha]

Citizens advice beaureau actually fix you up with a chat with a solicitor. The first 30 mins is free. Unless it has changed in the last 8 years.

[chlear909]

if yor wife is already in uk or usa why are you asking,?just stay there ,they cant really do much about it,it's true,relax

Whatever you do, Paul, don't follow this pearl of wisdom. Pretending that the problem isn't there isn't going to achieve anything and, even if the Immigration Service never comes knocking, your wife will not be able to leave the UK without having to apply for another settlement visa to get back in.

You have to proactively address the issue.

Scouse.

what i meant was they will run you roun in circles like you are doing but if you stay they will sort it to a simple remedy for you,,,why waste the energy,,,they dont give a d.. anyway really,,,

are any of these other replys from anyone with REAL experience,,,doesnt look like it,,,ive been thru all that good but useless time wasting advice and am happily in th usa with my wife

[chlear909]

"They are not monsters, ....."

No more than we are!!

And no less than we are!!

But 'they' are individuals who are individual parts of a monstrous bureaucratic machine.

And 'we' are individuals who are individual parts of a monstrous amorphous citizenry.

And the latter begot the former, because it was inevitable, since there is no way of dealing with an enormous number of 'cases' without constructing a 'case-handling machine', for which the technical name is 'a bureaucracy'.

I am, of course, using 'monstrous' here in the sense of 'huge', as it says in my dictionary.

I am not using it in any of the other senses given in my dictionary: 'like a monster; abnormally formed', or 'outrageously wrong or absurd', or 'atrocious'.

I have no doubt that some of us feel that there is an element of those other meanings in the BIA, and vice versa. But it is only a small element on both sides. (I don't want to appear to be shouting, so I haven't put "vice versa" and "on both sides" in capitals, but I think they could do with being emphasised in some way.)

My experiences of interfacing with huge bureaucracies , such as government departments, banks etc is that the individual doesn't interface well with the machine. But, when there is a problem between the machine and a sensible individual citizen or customer and one individual from the bureaucracy gets their mind to that problem, then sense prevails.

However, I would not advocate flagging oneself up as not-sensible, by starting off with a statement that "I am recording this call". The OP has done absolutely the right thing by phoning up and projecting an image of reasonableness and this has been reflected by an individual in the BIA.

yeah thats right so do what ya gotta do,,,you dont need to hold your imm services hand for them,,,it wont pay

[Penkoprod]

and THEN tell them you are recording the conversation !!!!

not legal (in UK anyway) & unethical. You must tell them at the beginning of the call, (sadly) hence the recorded announcement before you get an answer at a lot of big institutions.

You dont HAVE to tell them anything

The difference here is that you are an individual, and not some "big institution" Therefore you are perfectly entitled to record (even stealthely) any phone conversation, as long as you dont play it to any 3rd party. You should hear the change in tone of the person at the other end when you DO mention the call is being recorded though. They suddenly cant do enough for you, whereas before they didnt give a shit !!!!!

Penkoprod

[the scouser]

what i meant was they will run you roun in circles like you are doing but if you stay they will sort it to a simple remedy for you,,,why waste the energy,,,they dont give a d.. anyway really,,,

are any of these other replys from anyone with REAL experience,,,doesnt look like it,,,ive been thru all that good but useless time wasting advice and am happily in th usa with my wife

Seeing as you are so knowledgeable, please can you cite the relevant U.K. law and policy upon which you're relying for your assertions?

Scouse.