Marriage And Visa

[Maguire]

Hey gang,

I spent three months on Koh Samui and met a lovely girl. How do I get her home to England? How about if I marry her, what are the complications? Shall I go back out to Thailand and wed? It seems so difficult for her to get a visa to come to England.

Kind regards

Edited October 11, 2009 by Maguire

[webfact]

Moved to Visa an migration to other countries

[7by7]

The first thing you have to do is seriously think about this relationship and whether you want to marry someone you have known for only three months. Would you be contemplating marriage to her after such a short time if she lived in the UK? Do not marry her so you can get her a visa, only marry her because you love each other and want to spend the rest of your lives together.

Perhaps a visit would be a better option at this time, either another one by you to her or one by her to you.

If applying for a visit visa to the UK she will have to show three things:

1) She is a genuine visitor with a genuine reason to visit the UK. You will need to show evidence of your relationship; where and when you met, how much time you spent together in Thailand, how much contact you have had since you returned to the UK, why she wants to visit the UK at this time. See also number 3 below.

2) She will be adequately supported and accommodated during her visit without working or any recourse to public funds. The financial support can come from her resources, those of a sponsor (you) or a combination of both. You will need to provide evidence in the form of payslips, bank statements etc. to show that the necessary finances are available. You can provide the accommodation, but will need to show that she has the owner's permission to stay there; if you own then a mortgage statement or similar to prove it, if you rent then a landlord's letter confirming that she can stay in the property.

3) She will return to Thailand, or at least leave the UK, when, or before, her visa expires; often referred to as a reason to return. This can be the stumbling block. Does she work, own property, study? If not then you are going to rely on the ECO believing that your relationship is strong enough for you and her not to want to risk jeopardising a future settlement application by her overstaying a visit. As you have only known each other a short time this may be difficult to do.

It is a fact that people (not just Thais) do use a holiday romance to dupe their boy/girlfriend into sponsoring a visa to the UK (or other western country) and then disappear once in there. The various western immigration authorities are aware of this, hence the need in circumstances such as yours to prove a real, strong relationship; whether applying for a visit or for settlement. The longer you have known each other, the easier the process will be.

See:-

Guidance - Visitors (INF 2)

Guidance - Sponsors (INF 3)

For where and how to apply see the UK Visa Application Centre in Bangkok.

[potter09]

The longer you have known each other, the easier the process will be.

The above is correct in relation to visit and fiance(settlement) visas. However, if one is married(in Amper in Thailand) the length of the relationship is of little importance as long as the marriage is subsisting and of course, subject to meeting the maintenance and accomodation criteria. There is no legally set minimum requirement as to the duration of relationship prior to marriage for married-spouse visa applications. SVs are also granted following arranged marriages or internet relationships(as long as parties have met at least once) too, which are common in countriles like India,Pakistan & Bangladesh;same visa rules apply.

[7by7]

Potter09 did quote out of context. I originally said "hence the need in circumstances such as yours to prove a real, strong relationship; whether applying for a visit or for settlement. The longer you have known each other, the easier the process will be."

Despite this misquote he is factually correct, as the only actual requirement in the rules regarding the length of relationship for a spouse application is that both parties must have met.

However, although the primary purpose rule was abolished some time ago, the ECO still has to be satisfied that the marriage, and therefore the relationship, is genuine and there is a genuine intention for the couple to live together permanently once in the UK.

Even in countries where arranged marriages are common the above holds true, furthermore the ECO has to be satisfied that both parties to the marriage are in agreement and the marriage has not been forced upon one of them.

But we are not talking about an arranged marriage, therefore the point is moot.

Edited October 12, 2009 by 7by7

[potter09]

Potter09 did quote out of context. I originally said "hence the need in circumstances such as yours to prove a real, strong relationship; whether applying for a visit or for settlement. The longer you have known each other, the easier the process will be."

In fact, it is not out of context as suggested because the OP asked "Shall I go back out to Thailand and wed?";that is clearly a strong indication that OP is considering marriage and thus, my remark is entirely in context;thus if he follows such route,then duration of the relationship becomes less significant as long as the marriage is subsisting. Which route of visa he wishes to pursue is entirely a matter for him.

[7by7]

I know that the OP is considering marriage, which is why I said whether applying for a visit or for settlement.

It is not enough when applying for a spouse visa to produce just a marriage certificate. The ECO needs to be, as I said, satisfied that the marriage, and therefore the relationship, is genuine and there is a genuine intention for the couple to live together permanently once in the UK. There is ample case law to back up this assertion, GA ("Subsisting" marriage) Ghana * [2006] UKAIT 00046 being an example.

Obviously, if one wishes to show that one is in a genuine relationship then the longer that relationship has been in existence, both before and after any marriage, the easier this will be.

[potter09]

I know that the OP is considering marriage, which is why I said whether applying for a visit or for settlement.

It is not enough when applying for a spouse visa to produce just a marriage certificate. The ECO needs to be, as I said, satisfied that the marriage, and therefore the relationship, is genuine and there is a genuine intention for the couple to live together permanently once in the UK. There is ample case law to back up this assertion, GA ("Subsisting" marriage) Ghana * [2006] UKAIT 00046 being an example.

Obviously, if one wishes to show that one is in a The word requires an assessment of the current relationship between the parties then the longer that relationship has been in existence, both before and after any marriage, the easier this will be.

The issue is whether there has been a "valid marriage" which "formally continues" and " a decision as to whether in the broadest sense it comprises a marriage properly described as 'subsisting' ". It is very clear that the word 'subsisting' requires an assesment of the "current relationship"[emphasis mine] of the parties. Neither the cited Ghana case nor any other relevant authority set a minimum requirement as to the length of the relationship prior to marriage. Indeed, it would be perverse to set such minimum requirement, and the fact that there's no minimum requirement whatsover, confirms beyond any doubt that the length of the pre-marital relationship is of little or no significance in relation to a SV for married partner. The legal test is genuine 'marriage' not "genuine relationship" as 7by7 suggests; "genuine relationship" test is applicable for fiance visas. For an example, it is in order to asess whether marriage is 'genuine' that one needs to provide original certificates including divorce certficates where appropriate.

'7by7' also refers to length of "..relationship.... and after marriage"; obviously, the--existence--of the relationship after marriage goes to the heart of determining whether the marriage is subsisting or not, rather than its duration. For the avoidance of doubt and for the benefit of those who might be mistaken, the--duration--of the post-marital relationship(length of time married) is not at all important as long as the marraige is a subisting one. I do not think, anyone has suggested that it is sufficient to produce "just a marriage certificate". As to the whether the couple wishes to live together "permanently",that's a specific question in VAF4 for the applicant to answer.

For the reasons above, I do not accept that '7by7's view in the final paragraph is the correct poistion of law or that's the approach that a reasonably competent ECO would follow, either in Bangkok or elsewhere.

[7by7]

From the Settlement – Spouse/Civil Partner checklist

7 Sponsorship letter from spouse / civil partner confirming support of application detailing relationship, contacts and intention

11 Evidence of relationship – photographs, personal correspondence (cards, letters, e-mails, telephone bills etc..)

So, Potter09, if, as you assert, the genuineness of the relationship is not at all important, why are these items required?

You have quoted from the case I linked to,

It is very clear that the word 'subsisting' requires an assesment of the "current relationship"[emphasis mine] of the parties.

You have even emphasised the part which proves my point! The current relationship of the parties is, according to this judgement, important!

I should also remind you that I did not say that a long relationship is essential, you are correct to state that there is no minimum length of relationship between applicant and sponsor requirement in the rules whatever type of visa one is applying for. What I said was that the longer the relationship the easier it will be to show that it is a genuine one.

Whether Maguire, or anyone else contemplating settlement for their partner, follows your advice, mine, or someone else's is their decision.

[potter09]

[quote name='7by7' date='2009-10-13 16:07:58' post='3073052']

From the Settlement – Spouse/Civil Partner checklist

7 Sponsorship letter from spouse / civil partner confirming support of application detailing relationship, contacts and intention

11 Evidence of relationship – photographs, personal correspondence (cards, letters, e-mails, telephone bills etc..)

So, Potter09, if, as you assert, the genuineness of the relationship is not at all important, why are these items required?

[/quote]

7by7 has got mixed-up with issues. I did not assert as he misleadingly puts it; genuiness of the relationship becomes very important if one pursues fiance or civil partner route for settlement visa. What is important for sv following marriage, is genuiness of the marriage. The answer to the specific query is simple; it is the same VAF4 form that one needs to fill in whether applying for unmarried/civil partner or married spouse; for a married spouse, of course availablity of such items would assist when deciding the marriage is genuine & indeed subsisting, especially some photos of marriage and any post-marital correspondence. More so, if one is applying for sv a longtime after registration of marriage and have been apart for a while.

You have quoted from the case I linked to,

It is very clear that the word 'subsisting' requires an assesment of the "current relationship"[emphasis mine] of the parties.

Yes, anything wrong in doing so?

You have even emphasised the part which proves my point! The current relationship of the parties is, according to this judgement, important!

Current relationship for a married applicant, is the relationship following (current) marriage, not the one prior to marriage; it is understandable that you thought it was the pre-marital relationship.

I should also remind you that I did not say that a long relationship is essential, you are correct to state that there is no minimum length of relationship between applicant and sponsor requirement in the rules whatever type of visa one is applying for.

I am glad that you now unequivocally accept this point which I was stressing from the outset.

What I said was that the longer the relationship the easier it will be to show that it is a genuine one

That assertion will be correct in relation to fianace and civil partner category for sv--not for married spouse class.

[ThaiVisaExpress]

The longer you have known each other, the easier the process will be.

The above is correct in relation to visit and fiance(settlement) visas. However, if one is married(in Amper in Thailand) the length of the relationship is of little importance as long as the marriage is subsisting and of course, subject to meeting the maintenance and accomodation criteria. There is no legally set minimum requirement as to the duration of relationship prior to marriage for married-spouse visa applications. SVs are also granted following arranged marriages or internet relationships(as long as parties have met at least once) too, which are common in countriles like India,Pakistan & Bangladesh;same visa rules apply.

Nothing is straightforward each case is judged on its own merits.

[7by7]

1) Yes, the same form is used for all settlement applications, but the checklist I quoted is for spouses and civil partners. There is a different checklist for fiances and proposed civil partners.

2) I have not mistaken what you say, nor tried to mislead anyone in what I have written. We are talking about spouse applications, not fiance ones. You assert that genuineness of relationship is not important for spouses; I assert, and all the evidence supports my assertion, that it is important for spouse applications.

You say that "for a married spouse (sic), of course availability of such items would assist when deciding the marriage is genuine & indeed subsisting (my emphasis), especially some photos of marriage and any post-marital correspondence. More so, if one is applying for sv a longtime after registration of marriage and have been apart for a while." Yet you still insist that genuineness is not an issue for spouses!

3) Of course there is nothing wrong in quoting from the judgement! Where did I say that there was? As said before, the part you quoted proves my point!

4) Patronise me all you want, but I have already said that it is the relationship both before and after the marriage that counts; it is, of course, the same relationship!

5) I have not now accepted that there is no minimum length of relationship under the rules, I have never denied it. Sorry, but the power of your argument did not convince me of this; it is clear for all to see in the rules.

6) It is important for spouse applicants to show that their relationship, and therefore the marriage, is genuine. You may assert otherwise, even though you have contradicted yourself over this, as shown above. If anyone has bothered to read this far and believes that your assertion is correct, then I fear that they may find out the hard way that you are wrong when their application is rejected.

7) As TVE says, each case is judged on it's merits. One of the factors is the genuineness of the relationship, and as I originally said, the longer the relationship the easier this will be to demonstrate. For example, a couple who have been married and living together in Thailand for several years will find this point a lot easier to satisfy then the OP who has only known his girlfriend for three months.

I have said all that needs to be said on this matter, more in fact. I have provided evidence that my assertion is correct; you have provided none. If you feel the need to have the last word, then it is yours.

[potter09]

1) Yes,I have said all that needs to be said on this matter, more in fact. I have provided evidence that my assertion is correct; you have provided none. If you feel the need to have the last word, then it is yours.

If you continue to misconstrue (and mislead) my remarks as you have done and wish to develop counter arguments without conceding,then there's nothing I could do. However, I am glad that you accept there's no 'minimum period of relationship' requirement; that will allay fears of many including OP who may have been unduly alarmed previously. As for SV for married spouses, it is the genuiness of their marriage that matters which of course need to be a subsisting one too.

[Bird on the Wire]

Hey, Potter, have you ever thought about being a politician?

I write that because you've espoused a load of unsubstantiated old flannel that is only intended to obfuscate the issue; i.e. your own lack of knowledge.