Thai Mum Distraught At Uk Visa Decision

[Charma]

I am posting this topic on behalf of a very good friend of our family, who has just heard from UK Visas that her request to bring her nine year old son to join her in the UK has been refused.

She has lived in the UK with her English husband for the past 8 years. During that time her son from a previous marriage has been looked after in Thailand by the grandparents. She has worked relentlessly in the uk, finding employment, sending money back home to support her child and studying hard to gain vocational qualifications. She has now achieved her educational aims and is in steady employment in the care industry. She makes trips to Thailand every year to see her son. She felt that the time was right to bring her son to the UK, as they could make the financial and practical arrangements to take care of him here.

They applied through the UK embassy in BKK, using a local agent (Thai) for advice/help. I am not sure that this was good help because they have just been refused a visa citing such things as:

• she did not have sole responsibility for the child's upbringing as this was done by the grandmother (inc. emotional support, well being and an abiding interest in childs well being.
  
• The application not being made at the earliest opportunity
  
• The childs circumstances in Thailand not being exceptional
  
• The mother's action were the cause of the separation, no evidence of family life or contact therefore refusal of visa does not interfere with right to family life under article 8 of Humans Rights Act.
  

She is really upset over this unexpected outcome and her husband is very angry about the situation. Before they give more money to this Thai agent, or decide to write off to the embassy, I though they might benefit from some advice/pointers from the good people here at TV.

She is a really hard working and caring individual and has been a great friend to my wife for the past five years. We can all make judgements about her decision to wait to bring her son over, but I don't think she deserves the stress that this decision has caused her.

Any advice on the best way forward for her would be gratefully received.

Edited May 14, 2008 by Charma

[mrbojangles]

Tell him to contact TheScouser. Trust me (through my own experience) if there is a way, The Scouser will find it.

This is what happens when using agencies in Thailand, it's like getting a Gardener to sort out your central heating. Always use an OISC registered person, they are bound by ethics and a code of practise.

[scotty123456789]

Hi Charma,

What was the reason for refusal ? if you dont mind me asking.

I hate storys like this, its foooking wrong, dosnt stop them bringing all these polish over though does it, most of them dont work, dont wanna work, bring all there family over, claiming benifits for them all, new house, mobility car, its bull s**t.

Then your friends wife grafts, works hard, wants to be part of England etc but cant bring her flesh and blood over, this country has gone t**s up.

Scotty

[Charma]

Hi Charma,

What was the reason for refusal ? if you dont mind me asking.

I hate storys like this, its foooking wrong, dosnt stop them bringing all these polish over though does it, most of them dont work, dont wanna work, bring all there family over, claiming benifits for them all, new house, mobility car, its bull s**t.

Then your friends wife grafts, works hard, wants to be part of England etc but cant bring her flesh and blood over, this country has gone t**s up.

Scotty

The gist of the refusal appears to be that basically she left it too long and it was her fault for moving to UK that they were separated. They state that the grandmother has been caring for the child up to now and there seems to be no reason that this should not continue. The fact that she has been providing virtually ALL the financial support for her son AND the family over the years does not seem to matter.

I agree that this seems a crazy decision, but I do know a lot of Poles that are very hard working too! Most of the unemployed people on benefits I know are brits!

P.S. - No jokes about "Poles working hard" please!

Edited May 14, 2008 by Charma

[Charma]

Tell him to contact TheScouser. Trust me (through my own experience) if there is a way, The Scouser will find it.

This is what happens when using agencies in Thailand, it's like getting a Gardener to sort out your central heating. Always use an OISC registered person, they are bound by ethics and a code of practise.

I think you are right Mr B. I told her of my suspicions when the "agency" asked her for more money to reapply for the visa.

[scotty123456789]

You obviously have never been to Sheffield then Charma??

Cos if you had, you would agree with me.

Good luck, time for the footy now with a few tinnys.

Scotty

[pliny]

The mother must appeal on behalf of the child against the decision now.

Next step, instruct a competent lawyer immediately. The Scouser has a reputation for efficiency and effectiveness and is an approved OISC practitioner and sponsors the forum under his company DaviesKhan.

From what you have said about the refusal grounds it seems the Visa section has over reached themselves in concluding that the grandmother has suborned the mother's role. Sole responsibility under the immigration rules lies with either surviving parent or with another at their direction.The grandmother has been charged by the mother with the the care of the child seemingly for the past 8 years in the absence of the father. Thus she has exercised sole responsibility but for reasons not disclosed by the visa section they have chosen not to accept this. It occurs to me that they have screwed up but the presentation by the agent may have obscured things somewhat.

Instruct DaviesKhan as per the banner. The case as you portray it is relatively clear cut and may not even need to go to appeal but could be resolved through robust representations by someone of the Scouse's calibre.

[Charma]

The mother must appeal on behalf of the child against the decision now.

Next step, instruct a competent lawyer immediately. The Scouser has a reputation for efficiency and effectiveness and is an approved OISC practitioner and sponsors the forum under his company DaviesKhan.

From what you have said about the refusal grounds it seems the Visa section has over reached themselves in concluding that the grandmother has suborned the mother's role. Sole responsibility under the immigration rules lies with either surviving parent or with another at their direction.The grandmother has been charged by the mother with the the care of the child seemingly for the past 8 years in the absence of the father. Thus she has exercised sole responsibility but for reasons not disclosed by the visa section they have chosen not to accept this. It occurs to me that they have screwed up but the presentation by the agent may have obscured things somewhat.

Instruct DaviesKhan as per the banner. The case as you portray it is relatively clear cut and may not even need to go to appeal but could be resolved through robust representations by someone of the Scouse's calibre.

Thanks very much for the very informative reply. I have PM'd Scouser in the hope that I can link the mother to his firm and get them back on a better strategy to deal with this. I agree that it seems as though a poor briefing by the agent to the mother may have lead to this and I really hope that the possible remedy in your post is realistic for them. Thanks again for the reply!

[mrbojangles]

I have PM'd Scouser in the hope that I can link the mother to his firm and get them back on a better strategy to deal with this.

Just remembered. I think the Scouser in in Thailand and i think he might be flying back today or tomorrow, so don't worry if he doesn't reply straight away.

[Charma]

I have PM'd Scouser in the hope that I can link the mother to his firm and get them back on a better strategy to deal with this.

Just remembered. I think the Scouser in in Thailand and i think he might be flying back today or tomorrow, so don't worry if he doesn't reply straight away.

Thanks - someone PM'd me that they thought he was on the way back, so I am pursuading the couple to hang on a bit before they respond to the decision. As I said above, I think they could make a mistake by responding without really good advice and maybe make things worse. I am guessing they have a little time before any limit on appeal applies?

[pliny]

I have PM'd Scouser in the hope that I can link the mother to his firm and get them back on a better strategy to deal with this.

Just remembered. I think the Scouser in in Thailand and i think he might be flying back today or tomorrow, so don't worry if he doesn't reply straight away.

Thanks - someone PM'd me that they thought he was on the way back, so I am pursuading the couple to hang on a bit before they respond to the decision. As I said above, I think they could make a mistake by responding without really good advice and maybe make things worse. I am guessing they have a little time before any limit on appeal applies?

They have 28 days from receipt of the refusal decision.

[samran]

public warning.

Moronic post and unmoronic responses deleted.

[Mossfinn]

[*]she did not have sole responsibility for the child's

Charma, has she got sole custody papers?

[*]The application not being made at the earliest opportunity

There does appear to be quite a time gap, but have shown the reasons why.

[*]The childs circumstances in Thailand not being exceptional

Not exceptional? I am not sure how separation from your mother can be classed as anything, but exceptional.

[*]The mother's action were the cause of the separation, no evidence of family life or contact therefore refusal of visa does not interfere with right to family life under article 8 of Humans Rights Act.

It is not an unusual process to leave a child in Thailand whilst the mother settles abroad, sorting future responsibilities whilst the child is left in the care of family members, but she would have needed to show proof of contact, phone records, letters, photos and support both financial and emotional.

But the first step as already stated several times is to listen to the advice of the Scouser.

Moronic post and unmoronic responses deleted.

How anybody could find reason to post puerile nonsense on this thread is beyond me, just stay elsewhere if you can't help yourself.

Moss

[Charma]

[*]she did not have sole responsibility for the child's

Charma, has she got sole custody papers? I believe so. She left the father before the child was born and I do not believe he has had contact since

[*]The application not being made at the earliest opportunity

There does appear to be quite a time gap, but have shown the reasons why. She told me the reasons why, but this may not have been covered properly in her application

[*]The childs circumstances in Thailand not being exceptional

Not exceptional? I am not sure how separation from your mother can be classed as anything, but exceptional. On reading the decision, it appears they appear to be referring to no need for medical treatment, schooling, accommodation, electricity and water (all things provided for by the mother sending funds to grandma). There seems to be no allowance for the emotional need of the child or mother to be together.

[*]The mother's action were the cause of the separation, no evidence of family life or contact therefore refusal of visa does not interfere with right to family life under article 8 of Humans Rights Act.

It is not an unusual process to leave a child in Thailand whilst the mother settles abroad, sorting future responsibilities whilst the child is left in the care of family members, but she would have needed to show proof of contact, phone records, letters, photos and support both financial and emotional. I agree and can understand her decision to wait for an established home and worklife in a new country before bringing him over. They appear to be blaming her for the decision to move AND then to wait before applying. This may again be a result of a poorly presented case by them and the agent. She certainly did not "abandon" the child and has always talked over the years about getting him over to the UK.

But the first step as already stated several times is to listen to the advice of the Scouser. I am awaiting his return and hope that he checks TV!

Moronic post and unmoronic responses deleted.

How anybody could find reason to post puerile nonsense on this thread is beyond me, just stay elsewhere if you can't help yourself. I found that quite difficult to believe also - and I could not even understand what the post even meant!

Moss

Thanks for the input Moss. I have tried to answer in red your points to the best of my current understanding.

[edwardandtubs]

[*]she did not have sole responsibility for the child's

[*]The childs circumstances in Thailand not being exceptional

Not exceptional? I am not sure how separation from your mother can be classed as anything, but exceptional.

[*]The mother's action were the cause of the separation, no evidence of family life or contact therefore refusal of visa does not interfere with right to family life under article 8 of Humans Rights Act.

It is not an unusual process to leave a child in Thailand whilst the mother settles abroad, sorting future responsibilities whilst the child is left in the care of family members, but she would have needed to show proof of contact, phone records, letters, photos and support both financial and emotional.

You're contradicting yourself with these two answers. Exceptional implies unusual and as you say, it isn't at all unusual in Thailand for a child to be brought up by the grandmother.

The fact that there is "no evidence of family life or contact" does suggest the agency screwed up the application. It's not surprising the visa application was refused if the child is 9 years old and there's no evidence of contact for eight years.

Edited May 15, 2008 by edwardandtubs

[Charma]

[*]she did not have sole responsibility for the child's

[*]The childs circumstances in Thailand not being exceptional

Not exceptional? I am not sure how separation from your mother can be classed as anything, but exceptional.

[*]The mother's action were the cause of the separation, no evidence of family life or contact therefore refusal of visa does not interfere with right to family life under article 8 of Humans Rights Act.

It is not an unusual process to leave a child in Thailand whilst the mother settles abroad, sorting future responsibilities whilst the child is left in the care of family members, but she would have needed to show proof of contact, phone records, letters, photos and support both financial and emotional.

You're contradicting yourself with these two answers. Exceptional implies unusual and as you say, it isn't at all unusual in Thailand for a child to be brought up by the grandmother.

The fact that there is "no evidence of family life or contact" does suggest the agency screwed up the application. It's not surprising the visa application was refused if the child is 9 years old and there's no evidence of contact for eight years.

I am not sure who is contradicting themselves here, as you are referring to answers from two different people. The "Exceptional" circumstances was UK visas referring to the needs of the child (medical, housing etc) as against others living in Thailand. The "not unusual" comment was from Moss referring to the fact that many others have done this in the past. It is clear however that the application did not have sufficient evidence of the mother's continued input into the child's life. The grandmother was also interviewed and probably had no idea how to respond to the questions that were put. If anything this case highlights the need for people to get good advice at the outset and not to rely on "home made" attempts or dubious agency touts.

[pliny]

Charma

I have done a little research here and ploughed through some Tribunal judgements.

Essentially, the mother has to demonstrate that she has had sole responsibility for all the major decisions regarding the child's upbringing viz. education, housing, medical care etc. etc. The fact that she left the child in the care of the grandmother to live elsewhere is irrelevant provided that she can demonstrate that she has contributed to the support of the child both financially and otherwise. The mother's absence does not constitute abandonment in this case and so it cannot be argued by the visa officer that she had abdicated responsibility for the child.The upbringing of the child by the grandmother was clearly at the direction of the mother in this case and could easily be evidenced by remittances back to the grandmother and possibly sworn testimony from the Puu Yai in the moo baan. Presumably there have been visits home which could also be evidenced. The fact that the father has never been on the scene should have made this case relatively clear cut.

The test in establishing sole responsibility and its principles were founded in the Emmanuel case which remains the main authority as far as I can see and the mother falls fair and square within its ambit.

Lord knows how the agent represented this application but frankly it should have been a breeze.

Not to worry, I'm sure it will all end well relatively soon.

Edited May 15, 2008 by pliny

[Bagwan]

To satisfy my curiosity can anybody tell me whether UK Visas is staffed by Brits employed by the Foreign Office or by Thais?

My sympathies lie with this unfortunate lady and I pray for a satisfactory outcome.

[edwardandtubs]

[*]she did not have sole responsibility for the child's

[*]The childs circumstances in Thailand not being exceptional

Not exceptional? I am not sure how separation from your mother can be classed as anything, but exceptional.

[*]The mother's action were the cause of the separation, no evidence of family life or contact therefore refusal of visa does not interfere with right to family life under article 8 of Humans Rights Act.

It is not an unusual process to leave a child in Thailand whilst the mother settles abroad, sorting future responsibilities whilst the child is left in the care of family members, but she would have needed to show proof of contact, phone records, letters, photos and support both financial and emotional.

You're contradicting yourself with these two answers. Exceptional implies unusual and as you say, it isn't at all unusual in Thailand for a child to be brought up by the grandmother.

The fact that there is "no evidence of family life or contact" does suggest the agency screwed up the application. It's not surprising the visa application was refused if the child is 9 years old and there's no evidence of contact for eight years.

I am not sure who is contradicting themselves here, as you are referring to answers from two different people. The "Exceptional" circumstances was UK visas referring to the needs of the child (medical, housing etc) as against others living in Thailand. The "not unusual" comment was from Moss referring to the fact that many others have done this in the past. It is clear however that the application did not have sufficient evidence of the mother's continued input into the child's life. The grandmother was also interviewed and probably had no idea how to respond to the questions that were put. If anything this case highlights the need for people to get good advice at the outset and not to rely on "home made" attempts or dubious agency touts.

No I was referring to the two answer by Moss who said the child's circumstances where exceptional ("Not exceptional? I am not sure how separation from your mother can be classed as anything, but exceptional") but not unusual ("It is not an unusual process to leave a child in Thailand whilst the mother settles abroad, sorting future responsibilities whilst the child is left in the care of family members").

I hope that clarifies the matter for you.

[Mossfinn]

No I was referring to the two answer by Moss who said the child's circumstances where exceptional ("Not exceptional? I am not sure how separation from your mother can be classed as anything, but exceptional") but not unusual ("It is not an unusual process to leave a child in Thailand whilst the mother settles abroad, sorting future responsibilities whilst the child is left in the care of family members").

I hope that clarifies the matter for you.

No I was referring to the two answer by Moss who said the child's circumstances where exceptional

Did I say that?

I hope that clarifies the matter for you.

Nope

Moss

[Charma]

Charma

I have done a little research here and ploughed through some Tribunal judgements.

Essentially, the mother has to demonstrate that she has had sole responsibility for all the major decisions regarding the child's upbringing viz. education, housing, medical care etc. etc. The fact that she left the child in the care of the grandmother to live elsewhere is irrelevant provided that she can demonstrate that she has contributed to the support of the child both financially and otherwise. The mother's absence does not constitute abandonment in this case and so it cannot be argued by the visa officer that she had abdicated responsibility for the child.The upbringing of the child by the grandmother was clearly at the direction of the mother in this case and could easily be evidenced by remittances back to the grandmother and possibly sworn testimony from the Puu Yai in the moo baan. Presumably there have been visits home which could also be evidenced. The fact that the father has never been on the scene should have made this case relatively clear cut.

The test in establishing sole responsibility and its principles were founded in the Emmanuel case which remains the main authority as far as I can see and the mother falls fair and square within its ambit.

Lord knows how the agent represented this application but frankly it should have been a breeze.

Not to worry, I'm sure it will all end well relatively soon.

Pliny

Thanks for digging that out. As far as I am aware she has visited the child every year for around a month at a time. She pays all the bills and is in constant communication by phone. She has also sent considerable money back to the family to buy land for them. My guess is that this was not evidenced sufficiently on the application and that maybe the grandmother made some unhelpful statements during the interview about who had responsibility for the child. The first paragraph of the decision merely states that they had been given opportunity to provide documents etc and that they knew whats docs were expected. A lesson for all here. Let's hope that the correct documentation to prove the mother's involvement can be submitted retrospectively through an appeal.

[edwardandtubs]

No I was referring to the two answer by Moss who said the child's circumstances where exceptional ("Not exceptional? I am not sure how separation from your mother can be classed as anything, but exceptional") but not unusual ("It is not an unusual process to leave a child in Thailand whilst the mother settles abroad, sorting future responsibilities whilst the child is left in the care of family members").

I hope that clarifies the matter for you.

No I was referring to the two answer by Moss who said the child's circumstances where exceptional

Did I say that?

By disagreeing that they were not "not exceptional", you said that they were exceptional.

[Mossfinn]

No I was referring to the two answer by Moss who said the child's circumstances where exceptional ("Not exceptional? I am not sure how separation from your mother can be classed as anything, but exceptional") but not unusual ("It is not an unusual process to leave a child in Thailand whilst the mother settles abroad, sorting future responsibilities whilst the child is left in the care of family members").

I hope that clarifies the matter for you.

No I was referring to the two answer by Moss who said the child's circumstances where exceptional

Did I say that?

By disagreeing that they were not "not exceptional", you said that they were exceptional.

You have already misquoted me once, but anyway try going back and reading each paragraph in context, this time more slowly.

Moss

[edwardandtubs]

You have already misquoted me once, but anyway try going back and reading each paragraph in context, this time more slowly.

Moss

I didn't misquote you at all. Anyway, I'm sorry you found it such a personal slight that I said you contradicted yourself. Try putting a bit more thought into your answers and don't take mild criticism too personally.

[richardb]

Dear Charma,

Step 1

Get a copy of the whole application put in . Scouser or anyone else will need to see exactly what information, statements, evidence was provided to the ECO.

Step 2

If as I suspect it was a f'd up application from the begining further representations as to the true state of affairs may result in a favourable review.

Step 3

If it was completely f'd up consider making a new application which satisfies the Immigration rule rather than appealling.

Step 4

Appeal and wait for a hearing date in about February 2009.

The rule is Rule 297 go to the BIA website click on law and policy click on rules and there you have it :ose his is the rule

"297.

(e) one parent is present and settled in the United Kingdom or being admitted on the same occasion for settlement and has had sole responsibility for the child's upbringing; or

As far as sole responsibility is concerned Pliny you are 100% correct Emmanuel is the starting point.

"The phrase sole responsibility is not to be interpreted literally, literal interpretation would defeat all claims Emmanuel 1972 IMM AR69. In Sioley 1972 IMM AR it was considered that the mother who left her son but had sole financial responsibility and being continuously consulted about the childs schooling and upbringing had sole responsibility. It was contended that the source and degree of financial support of a child and the mother’s genuine interest were relevant. In Martin 1972 IMM AR71 responsibility could be delegated to a relative. The more relevant to this particular appeal is that once sole responsibility has been established, there is no requirement to assess as to how sole long the parent with sole responsibility has held it. In Namaju 2001 INLR the tribunal having dismissed an appeal whereby they thought that mother who had had sole responsibility for 2½ months insufficient to satisfy paragraph 297(1)e. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal stating the relevant issue under that paragraph as simply whether the parent had sole responsibility for the child and the length of time sole responsibility has been held might only be a relevant factor as to whether the parent actually had sole responsibility. Once it was established the length of time was not a relevant consideration. "

I make the point of including a submission I would use at appeals ( above ) because if your Thai Immigration Consultant does not know that stuff then they HAVE NO BUSINESS advising on Immigration Law.

Richard

ps if your friend wants some reasurance I am happy to chat to her or her husband

Edited May 16, 2008 by richardb

[Charma]

Dear Charma,

Step 1

Get a copy of the whole application put in . Scouser or anyone else will need to see exactly what information, statements, evidence was provided to the ECO.

Step 2

If as I suspect it was a f'd up application from the begining further representations as to the true state of affairs may result in a favourable review.

Step 3

If it was completely f'd up consider making a new application which satisfies the Immigration rule rather than appealling.

Step 4

Appeal and wait for a hearing date in about February 2009.

The rule is Rule 297 go to the BIA website click on law and policy click on rules and there you have it :ose his is the rule

"297.

(e) one parent is present and settled in the United Kingdom or being admitted on the same occasion for settlement and has had sole responsibility for the child's upbringing; or

As far as sole responsibility is concerned Pliny you are 100% correct Emmanuel is the starting point.

"The phrase sole responsibility is not to be interpreted literally, literal interpretation would defeat all claims Emmanuel 1972 IMM AR69. In Sioley 1972 IMM AR it was considered that the mother who left her son but had sole financial responsibility and being continuously consulted about the childs schooling and upbringing had sole responsibility. It was contended that the source and degree of financial support of a child and the mother’s genuine interest were relevant. In Martin 1972 IMM AR71 responsibility could be delegated to a relative. The more relevant to this particular appeal is that once sole responsibility has been established, there is no requirement to assess as to how sole long the parent with sole responsibility has held it. In Namaju 2001 INLR the tribunal having dismissed an appeal whereby they thought that mother who had had sole responsibility for 2½ months insufficient to satisfy paragraph 297(1)e. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal stating the relevant issue under that paragraph as simply whether the parent had sole responsibility for the child and the length of time sole responsibility has been held might only be a relevant factor as to whether the parent actually had sole responsibility. Once it was established the length of time was not a relevant consideration. "

I make the point of including a submission I would use at appeals ( above ) because if your Thai Immigration Consultant does not know that stuff then they HAVE NO BUSINESS advising on Immigration Law.

Richard

ps if your friend wants some reasurance I am happy to chat to her or her husband

Thanks very much for the very relevant info. It is clear that she falls within the precedent that you quoted and even clearer that her original application totally failed to provide the information that could have so easily seen the application succeed. I have been contacted by Scouser and will be putting the mum in touch with him soon. Thanks again for highlighting the relevant legislation and case law.

[OldenAtwoody]

Several thoughts pass through my mind...

2. The UK quite naturally has to separate (legal immigrant) mother and child - there's not enough room for the illegals as it is. Next!

3. Make you a deal, Thailand - Let Brits buy land, and you can immigrate to UK.

OK, back to reality.

Have the Mom do all the above (quickly within the appeal dead-line)....BUT.. she should sponsor immigration for the Grandmother AND the child. Ergo, the family comes to her, no reason to leave the boy behind. Granny doesn't actually HAVE to come, but if the subset of the nuclear family is admitted, Mom can just bring the kid, or Granny and the kid and go to UK, then Granny goes home.

Bureaucrats - they're all alike.

It's a shell game, folks.

PS That sharp sound you just heard? This great Ship England just popped another rivet. To the lifeboats!

[garro]

It has been my experience, in the west, that the squeaky wheel gets the oil. I suggest that she, and any friends, contact as many people in power as possible. Perhaps a local, local newspaper, or radio. A well written letter to the right person can do wonders. Usually if you give the impression that you are not going to let it drop it can change hearts. I wish her the best of luck.

Edited May 18, 2008 by garro

[Sturbuc]

I am posting this topic on behalf of a very good friend of our family, who has just heard from UK Visas that her request to bring her nine year old son to join her in the UK has been refused...

I was told that the law in Germany might be changed too.

There migth be no way to have children moving in with another than a tourist visa if not requested when applying for the visa of the wife.

Have an eye on it.

[roygsd]

Several thoughts pass through my mind...

2. The UK quite naturally has to separate (legal immigrant) mother and child - there's not enough room for the illegals as it is. Next!

3. Make you a deal, Thailand - Let Brits buy land, and you can immigrate to UK.

OK, back to reality.

Have the Mom do all the above (quickly within the appeal dead-line)....BUT.. she should sponsor immigration for the Grandmother AND the child. Ergo, the family comes to her, no reason to leave the boy behind. Granny doesn't actually HAVE to come, but if the subset of the nuclear family is admitted, Mom can just bring the kid, or Granny and the kid and go to UK, then Granny goes home.

Hi

Sorry that my reply to your posting is so late but it has only just caught my attention.

I do hope you had been drinking when you posted your response as that might explain why it is so rediculous.

In Point 2 of your posting you stated: " The uk quite naturally has to separate ( legal immigrant) mother and child,- there is not enough room for the illegals as it is".

If you had read what the O/P had posted you would see that the child is now 9 years of age and you will also note that the mother TOOK THE DECISION NOT TO APPLY to have her 1 year old child included in her move to the uk.

AS IT WAS THE MOTHER WHO CHOSE NOT TO APPLY FOR A VISA FOR HER BABY TO MOVE TO THE UK WITH HER then no-one can be in any doubt that it IT IS THE MOTHER AND NOT (AS YOU SARCASTICALLY SUGGEST) THE UK GOVERNMENT WHO WAS AND STILL IS RESPONSIBLE FOR HER BEING SEPARATED FROM HER CHILD.

You also sarcastically imply that the decision to refuse the recent application for the child to emigrate to the uk is because there is not enough room for the illegal imgrants already in the uk, which clearly is not the case.

Please make up your mind, on one hand you are critical of the Authorities for not having an effective policy in respect of entry to the uk and on the other hand you are critical of the Authorites for not allowing an applicant to come to live in the uk with a person who has spent just 8 months of the past eight years with the applicant!

Yet you seem to think that in this particular situation the Authorities should ignore the fact that the mother is almost a stranger to the child,not only that you suggest that the mother should arrange for the grandmother to apply for, and be granted a settlement visa with the child!

You then sugest that the grand mother need not take up the offer of a settlement visa butleave the child here!

If we were to introduce a the policy you seem to be suggesting of letting every sucessful spouse visa applicant bring their mothers and children with them I assume that you would also agree that grandpa should be givena settlement visa too?

Presumably when grandpa and grandma are living here as well as their daughters (or sons) you will agree that the remaining family members and their extended families should also be allowed to settle in the uk on humanitarian grounds?

If you read the information provided by the O/P you will also note that the mother has CHOSEN TO RESTRICT the time she spent with her child to JUST ONE MONTH for each of the past 8 years, but has also sent a considerable amount of money back to (who is the sole carer of her child) to purchase land in LOS.

Do you not think that the Authorities might be right to conclude that the mothers decision to use her apparent vast amount of savings over the past eight years to by land in LOS rather than to spend those funds on reuniting herself with her child in the the uk is the action of a caring mother?

Do you not think that the Authority might conclude that the mothers purchase of land in the LOS might be an indication of her intent to return to live in LOS, thus giving grounds to consider that she may be an economic migrant? The fact she has left the child so long along with the numerous land purchases does leave room for doubt I suggest.

I am no fan of officialdom to say the lease but Immigration Officers have a very difficult job to do and from time to time they get it wrong and will likely continue to do so because as human beings, that is what we all do from time to time.

Rather than shooting the messenger ( in this instance the adjudicating Officer) the Applicants family need look no further than themselves for the failure of this application.

Depite what people may think, I am sure the Authorities do not enjoy refusing compasionate cases like this one, I am in no doubt that the reasons this application failed was because the family failed to properly prepare the application and its documentation.

Allowing the Grandma to be interviewed was a disaster waitng to happen,similarly the mother not accompanying the child at the interview was another massive blunder, finally putting your faith in appointing a ( presumably cheap) Thai representative rather than a person or organisation that is recognised by the UK Government and who more importantly accountable for their actions to a Regularory Body was the fina nail in the coffin in view.

Cynic that I am I would not be at all suprises if the appointed Thai Representaive didnt take the long view and allow the application to fail safe in the knowledge that a farang was involved and therfore additional funds were likely to be made available to themselves in order to submit either an appeal or a fresh application, if this prevs not to be the case they have lot nothing, for they have been paid already!

Sorry for the lengthy reply

roy gsd