Visa Questions

[terrytab]

Would anyone be able to give me examples of, or tell me what types of questions are asked at a UK settlement visa interview? Also what happens if the Embassy rejects application?

Many thanks

[the scouser]

Hi Terry,

It's impossible to list every question that may be asked as the applicant's responses may generate further avenues of attack. However, as a starting point the visa officer will ask some or all of the following:-

How long have you known Mr X?

How much of that time have you spent together with Mr X?

What does Mr X do?

Has he been married before?

Does he have children? If so, how many, of what sex and how old are they?

What pastimes does Mr X have?

What do you enjoy doing together?

Is there any particular reason for marrying now?

Are his parents still alive?

Where in the UK does he live?

etc....

If the application is refused, a right of appeal exists which is heard in the UK about 5-6 months after the refusal. The appeal is determined by an adjudicator independent of the Home Office and is heard in what amounts to a court where you give your evidence-in-chief and the Home Office can cross examine you.

Cheers,

Scouse.

[GU22]

Terry,

have a look at Bringing a visitor or fiance to the UK.

Also, Thailand-Uk is a good source of advice, although you will need to register if you want to join the forum and ask specific questions.

Good luck.

[the scouser]

have a look at Bringing a visitor or fiance to the UK.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'd be careful with this site as upon a cursory glance I've already spotted two bits of advice that are plain wrong.

Scouse.

[terrytab]

have a look at Bringing a visitor or fiance to the UK.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'd be careful with this site as upon a cursory glance I've already spotted two bits of advice that are plain wrong.

Scouse.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Many thanks for your reply's

The lady in question has also been offered a job in the UK, would this help? is she able to work if she gets the visa?

Many thanks again

[the scouser]

If she enters the UK as your fiancée, no she cannot work until you've married and she has permission to stay as your spouse. If she enters as your spouse she can work from the word go.

Scouse.

[GU22]

have a look at Bringing a visitor or fiance to the UK.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'd be careful with this site as upon a cursory glance I've already spotted two bits of advice that are plain wrong.

Scouse.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

To quote from the site; "This site is regulated by the Office of the Immigration Services Commissioner (OISC). Accordingly, we are authorized to provide immigration advice and services in compliance with the Immigration and Asylum Act of 1998"

So they must have a reasonably good idea. Certainly more than the average unregistered, unqualified so-called immigration adviser on Wireless Road! (I know this does not apply to you, Scouse.)

I'm not connected with London Elegance in any way, but I'm sure that they would be very appreciative if you were to enlighten them as to their errors.

They do. as is sensible and right, also have the following disclaimer; "This FAQ is intended to assist people who wish to bring a friend or fiance into the UK. It is not intended to be an authoritative guide, and should not be used as such. The only definitive guide on the internet is at the UKvisas website, which does not include a sponsor's declaration, sample invitation letters, or sample interview questions.

Additionally, this FAQ is primarily intended for those wishing to sponsor a "visa national" to the UK; and this FAQ may not be right for you."

Edited February 18, 2005 by GU22

[BIG SPUDS]

im waiting for the 28th of march (gf's interview date) and im shittin it. I keep thinking ive forgot something, or missed something out, or rules have changed since feb 2005, its a horrible feeling, everywhere i look for guidance internet pages tell you different things, new rules, exceptions blah blah. I will be so glad when we finally have the visa.

[the scouser]

Hi GU22,

The following are quoted directly from the site which you linked and are not differences of opinion but are wrong in fact.

Another significant difference is that the refusal of a fiance visa can be appealed whereas the refusal of a tourist visa cannot.

Not true. A "tourist" visa for a visit to a family member attracts a right of appeal.

Question: I want to marry someone who is here on a student visa (work-permit visa, and so on). Is it ok?

Answer: If they have more than six months remaining on their visa, you may be able to do an "in country switch".

Not true. It is possible if the person was granted leave for in excess of 6 months and has at least 3 months leave remaining.

I'm sure there is no intent to mislead, but as the author cites his registration with the OISC one would at least expect him to get it right.

Scouse.

[GU22]

Hi GU22,

The following are quoted directly from the site which you linked and are not differences of opinion but are wrong in fact.

Another significant difference is that the refusal of a fiance visa can be appealed whereas the refusal of a tourist visa cannot.

Not true. A "tourist" visa for a visit to a family member attracts a right of appeal.

Question: I want to marry someone who is here on a student visa (work-permit visa, and so on). Is it ok?

Answer: If they have more than six months remaining on their visa, you may be able to do an "in country switch".

Not true. It is possible if the person was granted leave for in excess of 6 months and has at least 3 months leave remaining.

I'm sure there is no intent to mislead, but as the author cites his registration with the OISC one would at least expect him to get it right.

Scouse.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Scouser,

As I'm sure you know, a "Tourist" and a Family Visit" visa are both forms of a visitors visa. If the site had said "Visitors Visa" then you would be correct. But they don't, they say "Tourist Visa" which is not the same as a "Family Visit Visa."

As to marrying on a student visa, the only difference is they say the visa needs to have 6 months remaining, whereas you say 3 months. I'm sure a search of UK Visas would show which is correct, but to say that the whole statement is not true because of this one difference is ludicrous.

I posted the link as I thought it would be of help. I'm sorry that doing so has upset the resident expert.

[the scouser]

GU22,

Point 1 - There is no such thing as a tourist visa only a visit visa, the refusal of which sometimes attracts a right of appeal and sometimes doesn't. Therefore the site erred, in this case, on 2 fronts; firstly to refer to a tourist visa and secondly to say outright that such an application doesn't attract a right of appeal should it be refused.

Point 2 - I didn't suggest that the entire statement was untrue only that the stated fact was not correct. However, to plagiarize an ECO's line, these factual errors seriously undermine the credibility of the site.

Point 3 - Ooh, precious.... You shouldn't infer in my criticism of the site a slight upon yourself. I am simply advising caution as some of the information on there is incorrect and someone who has no knowledge of the UK immigration system may be misled by it.

Cheers,

Scouse.

[GU22]

Scouser

Point 1. A visit visa can be issued for a number of purposes. Everyone talks about a fiancé visa and a spouse visa, even though they are both types of settlement visa. Only the saddest of pedants would pick on a point about tourist visas and say that it meant family visit visas as well. In another thread you talk about a student visa. A student visa is another type of visit visa (or if we're really going to be pedantic, non-settlement visa).

Point 2. You said "Not true. It is possible if the person was granted leave for in excess of 6 months and has at least 3 months leave remaining." Which suggests that you believe the whole statement to be untrue, rather than just disputing one small part of it.

Point 3. As already stated, I am not connected with the site in any way. I also accept criticism, and if I am shown information that contradicts my opinions I will check that information. If proved to be wrong then I will accept that and alter my opinion. Despite your rather childish attempts at sarcasm, you have not shown the information on the site to be incorrect in any substantive way.

Edited February 19, 2005 by GU22

[Dragonman]

Wow this is a heated debate about a system that's a load of crap anyhow.

My fiance,now my wife,was turned down by some cocky Brit woman who said that because she thought my name was Steve not Stephen then she was obviously lying.

1 month later we re-applied and whilst waiting for the forms noticed a Thai woman talking to the staff.When I picked up the form she asked me if I wanted her office to represent us.It was not too expensive so I thought what the ######.

On interview we went straight to the front of the line with this woman,no questions, and had the visa in 30 minutes!Nuff said.

[the scouser]

Scouser

Point 1. A visit visa can be issued for a number of purposes. Everyone talks about a fiancé visa and a spouse visa, even though they are both types of settlement visa. Only the saddest of pedants would pick on a point about tourist visas and say that it meant family visit visas as well. In another thread you talk about a student visa. A student visa is another type of visit visa (or if we're really going to be pedantic, non-settlement visa).

Point 2. You said "Not true. It is possible if the person was granted leave for in excess of 6 months and has at least 3 months leave remaining." Which suggests that you believe the whole statement to be untrue, rather than just disputing one small part of it.

Point 3. As already stated, I am not connected with the site in any way. I also accept criticism, and if I am shown information that contradicts my opinions I will check that information. If proved to be wrong then I will accept that and alter my opinion. Despite your rather childish attempts at sarcasm, you have not shown the information on the site to be incorrect in any substantive way.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[the scouser]

Oops, don't know what happened there...

Scouser

Point 1. A visit visa can be issued for a number of purposes. Everyone talks about a fiancé visa and a spouse visa, even though they are both types of settlement visa. Only the saddest of pedants would pick on a point about tourist visas and say that it meant family visit visas as well. In another thread you talk about a student visa. A student visa is another type of visit visa (or if we're really going to be pedantic, non-settlement visa).

Point 2. You said "Not true. It is possible if the person was granted leave for in excess of 6 months and has at least 3 months leave remaining." Which suggests that you believe the whole statement to be untrue, rather than just disputing one small part of it.

Point 3. As already stated, I am not connected with the site in any way. I also accept criticism, and if I am shown information that contradicts my opinions I will check that information. If proved to be wrong then I will accept that and alter my opinion. Despite your rather childish attempts at sarcasm, you have not shown the information on the site to be incorrect in any substantive way.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

GU22,

You have the same abilty to make a mountain out of a molehill as a previous "contributor" here, Thaddeus. Coincidentally, his becoming dormant has coincided with your activity........

Anyway, here goes:-

Point 1. All visas have names. These are derived from the relevant paragraph of the immigration rules which governs their issue. Visas for tourist purposes or seeing friends/family are issued under the visitors paragraph and are therefore termed visit(ors) visas. Students are dealt with under a totally different paragraph of the rules and cannot possibly be construed as visitors. Indeed, visitors are granted leave to enter subject to a condition prohibiting employment, students aren't. It is therefore perfectly correct to refer to the visa by the paragraph of the rules that defines it. Fiancé(e) visas and spouse visas whilst both being settlement-type are governed by separate paragraphs of the rules and can therefore also legitimately be separately defined. Call me a pedant if you wish but the fact still remains that the information given on the site is incorrect. If the author is a professional immigration adviser, as I presume he must be if he's registered with the OISC, it behoves him to ensure that his guidance is pedantically correct.

Point 2. I fail to see your point. My "not true" was qualified by the sentenced that followed.

Point 3. I wasn't criticising you; in fact I explicitly said such in the post to which you refer. At no point did I say that the information on the site is substantively incorrect. I said that such basic errors as I've highlighted, and, indeed, stating categorically that no "tourist" visa has the right of appeal is a basic error, would lead me to doubt the overall accuracy of the information contained therein.

Scouse.

[GU22]

Scouser,

Why are you trying to discredit a site that has helped many people worldwide to obtain a visa for the UK? Why can you not accept that you are not the only person who can offer such advice?

I have noticed that, instead of answering questions in layman's terms, you are very fond of quoting the immigration rules verbatim. It seems to me that this is because you need to complicate things unnecessarily, provide advice that is difficult to follow and so continue to feel oh so superior to us ordinary mortals.

Whereas they have put everything into simple terms that the ordinary person, who lacks your specialist knowledge of the rules, can easily understand.

I doubt very much if the owners of that site care how many visits they get from members of this forum, after all they cover the world. You, on the other hand, seem to care very much that members here may choose to get advice from someone other than you.

The phrase "Big fish in a small pond" springs to mind.

I assume your not very subtle attempt to identify me as this Thaddeus means you think this person and I are the same. I assume this is because Thaddeus also had occasion to challenge the advice you gave. If I am raising the same points as this other contributor, it's for a different reason to the one you assume.

Edited February 20, 2005 by GU22

[the scouser]

GU22,

I've not attempted to discredit the site but, rather, merely highlight 2 apparent errors contained therein. It is you who've chosen to make an issue of this. For someone who claims to be disinterested in the site you appear to be extremely touchy when people criticise it.

If you look at my previous posts I do refer a lot to the immigration rules because, after all, it is these that legally govern people's admissibility to the UK. I don't follow how referring to them can be seen as attempting to be superior as I didn't write them and they are otherwise freely accessible to anyone who wishes to look at www.homeoffice.gov.uk. I post them so that people can see for themselves what the law stipulates. This hardly complicates matters. I make no apologies for this and do, generally, explain the requirements in layman's terms anyway. Empirically, other members haven't found my posts difficult to follow and I think your suggestion that they might is patronising them rather.

I do not have any problems with people other than myself giving immigration advice, after all this is a forum. It is a quantum leap of logic upon your part to say that because I justifiably made an adverse comment about this one site I therefore have an aversion to anyone airing their views on UK immigration matters. I'd prefer it if you didn't tar me with the same neurosis from which you appear to suffer.

Don't forget TV.com covers the world too.

Scouse.

[GU22]

have a look at Bringing a visitor or fiance to the UK.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'd be careful with this site as upon a cursory glance I've already spotted two bits of advice that are plain wrong.

Scouse.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Not "open to interpretation" not "possibly misleading" but "plain wrong." (Which they are not.)

Also "upon a cursory glance I've already spotted......" being an obvious attempt to imply that a fuller investigation would provide even more errors.

I am sure that in your attempts to justify your initial statement you have scoured the site in an attempt to find more "errors" and I am equally sure that had you found any you would have been very quick to post them here. The fact that you have failed to find any proves your initial assessment to have been wrong.

This discussion is going nowhere, and is certainly of no help to anyone. The last word is yours if you want it.

[Pink Mist]

good idea Guzz, Scouse has been an invaluable poster in this section for quite some time with his thoughtfull and accurate advice.

[mandrake]

Point 3. I wasn't criticising you; in fact I explicitly said such in the post to which you refer. At no point did I say that the information on the site is substantively incorrect. I said that such basic errors as I've highlighted, and, indeed, stating categorically that no "tourist" visa has the right of appeal is a basic error, would lead me to doubt the overall accuracy of the information contained therein.

Scouse.

A family visitor is not a tourist.