Thai Girl Has UK Visa But Finished With Boyfriend, Can Still Use?

[7by7]

See the part of my previous which you did not quote, and Scouse's reply following mine.

[the scouser]

Firstly a refusal of entry is a very different thing from a 10-year ban. I respectfully maintain the opinion that such a ban imposed on a person who had broken no rule nor done anything wrong would be unlikely to survive appeal/judicial review.

I don't think anyone is saying that she would definitely be hit with a 10-year "ban".

Secondly, if one adequate sponsor has been replaced by another adequate sponsor, then in what way is "the basis of the holder's claim to admission removed"?

Because she would no longer be construed to have a valid visa, which is a requirement of the law.

Scouse.

[Kitsch22]

Having obtained the visa with boyfriend A as a sponsor, but then seeking entry at a UK airport to visit boyfriend B is a material change in circumstances and the visa's validity would then be withdrawn. She would then, legally speaking, require a new visa to enter the UK to visit boyfriend B and she wouldn't have one. Thai require a valid visa to visit the UK and in that situation can't seek leave to enter of the immigration officer at the UK airport, so providing evidence of B's ability to maintain and accommodate would be pointless. The relevant paragraph of the Immigration Rules that an IO can rely upon to refuse entry in such cirucmstances is 321 and is cited above.

If no attempt were made to either misrepresent the facts or conceal the change of circs to the IO, she may not be subjected to an accusation of deception, and thereby escape a 10-year "ban". However, that would depend precisely upon the circumstances of her arrival in the UK and what was said/not said to the IO; something that we don't know as this is all largely hypothetical.

I agree that the IO *could* refuse entry, but that is not the same thing as saying that he *would*. My point is that the answer to the OP's question, "Can Still Use?" is, prima facie, "Yes". Especially if boyfriend B were, say, the son of a Cabinet Minister.

If you are now saying that there is a deception/dishonesty requirement as a precondition for a 10-year ban, then we are at last in agreement. Which is why I hypothesised conditions expressly to exclude that possibility.

[7by7]

I agree that the IO *could* refuse entry, but that is not the same thing as saying that he *would*. My point is that the answer to the OP's question, "Can Still Use?" is, prima facie, "Yes". Especially if boyfriend B were, say, the son of a Cabinet Minister.

Nepotism aside, the visa was issued on the basis of the relationship with boyfriend A, as this relationship is no longer extant then the visa is no longer valid. Whether an IO would check on this or not is not certain, so she could just be allowed in without questions or checks. But if she were questioned and or checked and the change in circumstances was discovered then she would be refused entry, as explained by Scouse previously.

If you are now saying that there is a deception/dishonesty requirement as a precondition for a 10-year ban, then we are at last in agreement

Every post that mentions a possible 10 year ban, whether by Scouse, myself or someone else, has always qualified this by saying that the ban would apply only if the person seeking entry used deception.

Whether attempting to enter the UK with an entry clearance based upon circumstances which one knows no longer exist would be construed as deception is an interesting point. Any thoughts, Scouse?

[the scouser]

If you re-read my posts above, I always stated that there is a deception element to the 10-year "ban". It is not something that I am "now" saying. If you chose not to absorb that information earlier, that's your look out.

In answer to the OP's question, the answer has to, legally speaking, be a prima facie "no" as there is an evident material change that effectively negates the validity of the visa. The social standing of the new boyfriend would be neither here nor there.

Scouse.

[the scouser]

Whether attempting to enter the UK with an entry clearance issued based upon circumstances which one knows no longer exist would be construed as deception is an interesting point. Any thoughts, Scouse?

It would constitute silent deception. The visa applicant/person seeking entry to the UK is under an obligation to disclose any material fact to either the ECO or immigration officer, as relevant. If s/he fails to do so, and is admitted to the UK, this would constitute on offence under sect. 26(1)© of the '71 Act and s/he would be classed as an illegal entrant.

Scouse.

[7by7]

Thanks.

[Will27]

"

A couple of scenerio's. First sponsor advises Embassy that he no longer wishes to sponsor

her. The Embassy by all rights should cancel the visa due to the above mentioned grounds

"circumstances of visa grant have changed", and send a letter to the girl advising that her

visa has been cancelled. There would be no exclusion period however. If the girl arrived

at Bkk airport to depart, she would not be allowed due to having no visa.

Second scenerio. The original sponsor advises that he no longer supports girl and for

some reason, the Embassy does not cancel the visa. It SHOULD be noted on file that

TG no longer being supported. IO should see this on file when flight lands and I think

the chances of her being allowed to enter would be miniscule at best."

So according to the above, the airlines are plugged into the same database as the UK embassy and immigration - this seems unlikely to me and I doubt if the airlines are able to go beyond what is actually in the passport - ie a valid visa.

Then the question emerges does the immigration dept in the UK airport have access to the sponsor details at point of entry or do they have to actually check on a separate system, here I would suggest that they probably do and can check that data against what the visitor has written on her immigration card - so she would have to lie and put the old sponsor's details down and if she gets caught (if the visa has been cancelled) will be banned for ten years.

Of course, if she quickly reapplies for a new visa she will probably get turned down as it would be obvious she might well change men again once she got to the UK and do a disappearing act. I'd guess she would have to leave if for a year to establish the reality of the new relationship.

Greg,

Please read the post thoroughly please mate.

I said if the visa was cancelled she would not be

allowed to depart. She wouldn't be denied by the

airlines, but by IO when they scan her passport.

And yes, they do have the visa application details

on the system.

Regards

Will

[Will27]

Whether attempting to enter the UK with an entry clearance issued based upon circumstances which one knows no longer exist would be construed as deception is an interesting point. Any thoughts, Scouse?

It would constitute silent deception. The visa applicant/person seeking entry to the UK is under an obligation to disclose any material fact to either the ECO or immigration officer, as relevant. If s/he fails to do so, and is admitted to the UK, this would constitute on offence under sect. 26(1)© of the '71 Act and s/he would be classed as an illegal entrant.

Scouse.

Scouse,

Legally correct.

Although IMHO, if she just turned up and told the truth

when interviewed, I believe that the officer would more

than likely just cancel visa, refuse entry and not impose

a ban as the visa would be refused due to a change of

circumstances.

When cancelling the visa, you can either use "change

of circumstances" which means no exclusion or

"providing false or misleading information" which will

result in an exclusion period.

Regards

Will

[Kitsch22]

Whether attempting to enter the UK with an entry clearance issued based upon circumstances which one knows no longer exist would be construed as deception is an interesting point. Any thoughts, Scouse?

It would constitute silent deception. The visa applicant/person seeking entry to the UK is under an obligation to disclose any material fact to either the ECO or immigration officer, as relevant. If s/he fails to do so, and is admitted to the UK, this would constitute on offence under sect. 26(1)© of the '71 Act and s/he would be classed as an illegal entrant.

Thank you. That is both lucid and helpful.

May I in the circumstances quote you as advising that a person who tells no lies and honestly answers every question put to her may nevertheless be held to have made "a return, statement or representation which (s)he knows to be false or does not believe to be true"?

Personally, I find myself compelled to disagree with that proposition. In saying so, I take comfort from the relatively recent (albeit N. Ireland) High Court Judgment in the case of Jamiu Olanrewaju Omikunle - Neutral Citation No. [2008] NIQB 79. If Mr Omikunle did not practice deception, then it is hard to see how our hypothetical Thai lady traveller could be held to have done so. I do not think that the IDIs can modify the words of a statutory provision in the way that you seem to be suggesting.

[ThaiVisaExpress]

Our client was allowed 24 hours in the UK with her cousin she was named on the application as a family member she would visit.

The client advised the officer her boyfriend would travel at a later date and she would go to her cousins who was indeed inserted on the application.

[bobrussell]

The immigration officials use the a change of circumstances since it was issued has removed the basis of the holder's claim to admission reason very readily so trying to enter under these conditions would be very risky. A 10 year ban would be very difficult to justify if the 'entrant' had not told lies or produced forged or falsified documents. A refusal of entry does not prevent successful reapplication or further visa but subsequent entries will often be delayed at the airport while they check the story.

Not worth the risk - reapply with the new info and keep a clean passport. My wife deeply resents her visa with cancelled on it (a technicality caused the problem and she was allowed temporary leave to remain for over 2 months until she was due to fly back to BKK)

[paully]

May I in the circumstances quote you as advising that a person who tells no lies and honestly answers every question put to her may nevertheless be held to have made "a return, statement or representation which (s)he knows to be false or does not believe to be true"?

Personally, I find myself compelled to disagree with that proposition. In saying so, I take comfort from the relatively recent (albeit N. Ireland) High Court Judgment in the case of Jamiu Olanrewaju Omikunle - Neutral Citation No. [2008] NIQB 79. If Mr Omikunle did not practice deception, then it is hard to see how our hypothetical Thai lady traveller could be held to have done so. I do not think that the IDIs can modify the words of a statutory provision in the way that you seem to be suggesting.

Sigh. Various posters have tried to explain this to you - perfectly competently - and yet you still don't get it.

If the lady merely appears, without saying anything, at immigration in this situation she is making "a statement or representation which (s)he knows to be false or does not believe to be true" in regard to her visitor visa because the circumstances under which the visa was granted have changed and she has not notified the authoritiesas she was under a duty to do. This is based on general principles of English law, not on some Northern Irish immigration case you happen to have looked up or been informed of (and, incidentally, have not provided a link to).

What do you find so difficult about this?

[NALAK]

i asked UK boder agency the question. this is their reply below which i interpretate as yes she can use it as long as she can prove she can keep herself. i watched a programme

in UK recently they let a guy in just on the fact he had a credit card with credit limit of £3000. nothing else but they had to give him entry as he had funds of sorts. as a point of interest i do not know why people ask these questions on a forum when you can ask the question directly to the Home Office. their reply came back in less than 24 hours.

Thank you for your enquiry.

The visa is valid for entry purposes and if the subject can meet the requirements of the Immigration Rules for visitors i.e. is able to accommodate and support herself in the UK during the course of her visit, will not work during the visit and will leave the UK at the end of the visit.

Please note that your sponsorship of this person is not legally binding

Edited November 17, 2009 by NALAK

[Tee2008]

i asked UK boder agency the question. this is their reply below which i interpretate as yes she can use it as long as she can prove she can keep herself. i watched a programme

in UK recently they let a guy in just on the fact he had a credit card with credit limit of £3000. nothing else but they had to give him entry as he had funds of sorts.

Thank you for your enquiry.

The visa is valid for entry purposes and if the subject can meet the requirements of the Immigration Rules for visitors i.e. is able to accommodate and support herself in the UK during the course of her visit, will not work during the visit and will leave the UK at the end of the visit.

Please note that your sponsorship of this person is not legally binding

With repsect to all, I think we are forgetting the girl's circumstances. If the relationship that was in place when she applied for the visa no longer exits then there is a prima facie change of circumstances which negates the visa. However, we do not know her circumstances - if she would have been dependent on her initial sponsor for her stay in the Uk, for instance, then the IO at port in UK would certainly maintain that there had been a material change. But, should be be, for instance, a millionairess then the IO might well take the view that the visa was issued for a visit and that a visit could still go ahead as the lack of a sponsor is not a material change of circumstances.

[7by7]

Nalak, I am surprised by the reply you say you got from the UKBA, as it seems to contradict Para321(ii).

What, exactly, did you ask them?

[NALAK]

Nalak, I am surprised by the reply you say you got from the UKBA, as it seems to contradict Para321(ii).

What, exactly, did you ask them?

me suprised to i asked if i had agreed to sponsor my girlfriend to visit the UK and we had since split up before travel had commenced would her visa still be valid for travel even though we had split. full reply below

RE: VCS405809: Visa application‏

From: Public Visa Enqs ([email protected])

You may not know this sender.Mark as safe|Mark as junk

Sent: 17 November 2009 12:14:12

Thank you for your enquiry.

The visa is valid for entry purposes and if the subject can meet the requirements of the Immigration Rules for visitors i.e. is able to accommodate and support herself in the UK during the course of her visit, will not work during the visit and will leave the UK at the end of the visit.

Please note that your sponsorship of this person is not legally binding.

Sent by:

Public Enquiries [J],Customer Services,

Visa Services Directorate, International Group,

UK Border Agency, c/o Lunar House,

40 Wellesley Road, Croydon CR9 2BY

Web-site: www.ukvisas.gov.uk

Edited November 17, 2009 by NALAK

[7by7]

Sometimes I think they don't read enquiries thoroughly before answering.

It seems to me that they may have thought that you were just asking about being a financial sponsor, as most of the reply is concerning her ability to support herself.

Had you said in the enquiry that the reason given for the visit when applying for the visa was to visit her boyfriend who she has now broken up with and she now wants to use the visa to come and visit a new boyfriend, then the reply may have been different.

Having said that, I've found the most common reply from them is that each case is treated on it's merits and it is up to the individual ECO or IO to decide on the evidence presented!

[gregchambers]

Just to clarify, she was sponsored by the original boyfriend who then decided to finish with her before she could use the visa, not clear if he has told the embassy or not.

The answer from the embassy adds to the confusion then, as it does suggest if she has a new sponsor to support her and can prove this then she will be let in.

It may be that there is no mechanism to actually cancel a visa once issued?

[Kitsch22]

May I in the circumstances quote you as advising that a person who tells no lies and honestly answers every question put to her may nevertheless be held to have made "a return, statement or representation which (s)he knows to be false or does not believe to be true"?

Personally, I find myself compelled to disagree with that proposition. In saying so, I take comfort from the relatively recent (albeit N. Ireland) High Court Judgment in the case of Jamiu Olanrewaju Omikunle - Neutral Citation No. [2008] NIQB 79. If Mr Omikunle did not practice deception, then it is hard to see how our hypothetical Thai lady traveller could be held to have done so. I do not think that the IDIs can modify the words of a statutory provision in the way that you seem to be suggesting.

Sigh. Various posters have tried to explain this to you - perfectly competently - and yet you still don't get it.

If the lady merely appears, without saying anything, at immigration in this situation she is making "a statement or representation which (s)he knows to be false or does not believe to be true" in regard to her visitor visa because the circumstances under which the visa was granted have changed and she has not notified the authoritiesas she was under a duty to do. This is based on general principles of English law, not on some Northern Irish immigration case you happen to have looked up or been informed of (and, incidentally, have not provided a link to).

What do you find so difficult about this?

You miss the point. Scouser (who usually posts reliably in this field) has opined that silence is capable of amounting to a criminal misrepresentation in the circumstances that I have posited. I think that he is almost certainly wrong and wrong by a wide margin. If somebody has contrary authority, I would love to see it. The task of the prosecution in obtaining a conviction is an order of magnitude harder than the task of an IO defending a discretionary decision.

Northern Ireland High Court judgments have persuasive authority in the courts of England and Wales. Here is the URL which (notwithstanding the neutral citation number having been given) you still appear to need:

<http://www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NIHC/QB/2008/79.html>

To answer your last question I find this a difficult question in a difficult area. Much of the difficulty arises from a lack of direct judicial authority. It is an area bestrewn with misinformation and consequent misunderstanding. Much of the misinformation emanates from the civil servants charged with the administration of the mechanisms of immigration law and process. My past reading of Scouser's output leads me to believe that he is usually highly accurate and reliable but (in my opinion) not so in this case. There is absolutely no cause for any acrimony here; it is a relevant discussion and no more. This example of a relationship collapsing following the grant of a visitor visa is by no means unique.

Edited November 17, 2009 by Kitsch22

[the scouser]

The Northern Ireland case is not at all relevant to silent deception. It addresses more the question of whether a student was able to change courses without having to inform the immigration authorities. As it is already established in case law that a student was not restricted to attending the original course, there was a degree of inevitability about the outcome, but nothing to do with silent deception.

However, the judgement is useful insofar as it does refer to silent deception, upon which subject it states:-

"While there is no duty of candour on the part of an applicant he or she must not mislead the authorities on a material fact. A material fact is an effective but not necessarily decisive fact in obtaining the visa or obtaining entry."

In the case in question, it is my opinion that a change in boyfriends is, prima facie, material to the grant of entry and failure to disclose such, whether asked or not, would constitute either a 24A administrative offence or 26(1)© criminal offence.

I'm not going to get bogged further down in the discussion of hypotheses. This is not a legal forum for the discussion of minutiae, and to be honest, I've got far better things to do with my time. The OP has got all the advice he needs and can make his own mind up. If you wish to continue to disagree, then fine: you disagree. I'll take my stance and you take yours.

Scouse.

[NALAK]

Sometimes I think they don't read enquiries thoroughly before answering.

It seems to me that they may have thought that you were just asking about being a financial sponsor, as most of the reply is concerning her ability to support herself.

Had you said in the enquiry that the reason given for the visit when applying for the visa was to visit her boyfriend who she has now broken up with and she now wants to use the visa to come and visit a new boyfriend, then the reply may have been different.

Having said that, I've found the most common reply from them is that each case is treated on it's merits and it is up to the individual ECO or IO to decide on the evidence presented!

scrolled down reply and sure enough my question was lower down. does mention ex boyfriend but like you say probably down IO, although i think my question makes the situation prity clear. personally i would liked to have seen it as a no re-apply, but Home Office say shes good to go.

Nationality of traveller:

Thai

Where are you?

United Kingdom

Subject:

could you give me some information please if a Thai National is granted a visitors visa to visit her sponser boyfriend and the sponser finishes the relationship before travel, is the visa still valid and can the person still travel on the visa,

or would the Thai National have to re-apply with a new sponser.

Thanks

This email was received from the INTERNET and scanned by the Government Secure Intranet anti-virus service supplied by Cable&Wireless in partnership with MessageLabs. (CCTM Certificate Number 2009/09/0052.) In case of problems, please call your

Edited November 17, 2009 by NALAK

[Kitsch22]

The Northern Ireland case is not at all relevant to silent deception. It addresses more the question of whether a student was able to change courses without having to inform the immigration authorities. As it is already established in case law that a student was not restricted to attending the original course, there was a degree of inevitability about the outcome, but nothing to do with silent deception.

However, the judgement is useful insofar as it does refer to silent deception, upon which subject it states:-

"While there is no duty of candour on the part of an applicant he or she must not mislead the authorities on a material fact. A material fact is an effective but not necessarily decisive fact in obtaining the visa or obtaining entry."

In the case in question, it is my opinion that a change in boyfriends is, prima facie, material to the grant of entry and failure to disclose such, whether asked or not, would constitute either a 24A administrative offence or 26(1)© criminal offence.

I'm not going to get bogged further down in the discussion of hypotheses. This is not a legal forum for the discussion of minutiae, and to be honest, I've got far better things to do with my time. The OP has got all the advice he needs and can make his own mind up. If you wish to continue to disagree, then fine: you disagree. I'll take my stance and you take yours.

Fair enough. I shall not post further in this thread.

[paully]

You miss the point. Scouser (who usually posts reliably in this field) has opined that silence is capable of amounting to a criminal misrepresentation in the circumstances that I have posited. I think that he is almost certainly wrong and wrong by a wide margin. If somebody has contrary authority, I would love to see it. The task of the prosecution in obtaining a conviction is an order of magnitude harder than the task of an IO defending a discretionary decision.

Northern Ireland High Court judgments have persuasive authority in the courts of England and Wales. Here is the URL which (notwithstanding the neutral citation number having been given) you still appear to need:

<http://www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NIHC/QB/2008/79.html>

You really are extraordinary.

The case you refer to clearly concerned a student visa - not a visitor visa - which, the tribunal held, on the particular facts, was not obtained by deception, principally because the applicant was not aware that he would face a difficulty with tuition fees until he physically presented himself at Coventry University after his entrance into the United Kingdom. Can you really not see the difference between the case you cited and the position here? Are you really trying to hold that the Thai lady would be unaware that her sponsoring boyfriend had dumped her and she was now to be visiting another boyfriend?

With all due respect it is you, not I that has 'miss[ed] the point'.

[7by7]

Just to clarify, she was sponsored by the original boyfriend who then decided to finish with her before she could use the visa, not clear if he has told the embassy or not.

The answer from the embassy adds to the confusion then, as it does suggest if she has a new sponsor to support her and can prove this then she will be let in.

It may be that there is no mechanism to actually cancel a visa once issued?

Unfortunately, Nalak's enquiry was not answered by an ECO at the embassy, but by someone in an enquiry centre at the UKBA in the UK. Considering some of the replies I've personally received from them, and other's I've read and heard about, I would surmise that the staff of this enquiry centre have an understanding of the immigration rules which is scanty at best. I would certainly trust Scouse's interpretation and judgement over theirs.

As I see it there are several possible scenarios when/if she presents herself at immigration at a UK port of entry. I wont list them all, just three.

1) Best case. The IO looks at her passport, sees what appears to be a valid visa and waves her through. She enjoys her stay in the UK and returns home once her visit is over with nobody aware that technically she was probably in the UK illegally.

2) Middle case. The IO decides to check and asks her a few questions. She answers these honestly and the IO refuses her entry under Para321(ii). She is sent back on the next available flight, but no other sanctions against her are imposed.

3) Worst case. As 2, but when questioned she tries to bluff her way in by lying about the change of circumstances. Not only is she refused entry, but she is banned from visiting the UK for 10 years.

Her choice whether she takes the risk or not.

[the scouser]

As I see it there are several possible scenarios when/if she presents herself at immigration at a UK port of entry. I wont list them all, just three.

1) Best case. The IO looks at her passport, sees what appears to be a valid visa and waves her through. She enjoys her stay in the UK and returns home once her visit is over with nobody aware that technically she was probably in the UK illegally.

2) Middle case. The IO decides to check and asks her a few questions. She answers these honestly and the IO refuses her entry under Para321(ii). She is sent back on the next available flight, but no other sanctions against her are imposed.

3) Worst case. As 2, but when questioned she tries to bluff her way in by lying about the change of circumstances. Not only is she refused entry, but she is banned from visiting the UK for 10 years.

And even if option 1 is achieved, it may come back to haunt her come an application for a second visa, whether visit or settlement.

Scouse.

[Will27]

Unfortunately, Nalak's enquiry was not answered by an ECO at the embassy, but by someone in an enquiry centre at the UKBA in the UK. Considering some of the replies I've personally received from them, and other's I've read and heard about, I would surmise that the staff of this enquiry centre have an understanding of the immigration rules which is scanty at best. I would certainly trust Scouse's interpretation and judgement over theirs.

"quote"

Agreed.

The UKBA like so many others is basically a

glorified generic call centre where very few

specialize in one area.

It is not uncommon to send the same email

2 days in a row and receive 2 totally different

answers.

The information provided contradicts the immigration

regulations and I would not count on it.

Regards

Will

Edited November 18, 2009 by Will27

[Eff1n2ret]

The UKBA like so many others is basically a

glorified generic call centre where very few

specialize in one area.

It is not uncommon to send the same email

2 days in a row and receive 2 totally different

answers.

The information provided contradicts the immigration

regulations and I would not count on it.

Regards

Will

This is undoubtedly so. On another immigration forum in which I take an interest I have seen in the last few weeks 2 hair-raising cases involving telephone advice from UKBA.

One involved a dual national Aussie/Brit who had travelled to the UK many times with his Oz passport containing a Right of Abode sticker (ie confirming his British Citizenship), and had taken a job. His passport then expired, his employer noticed it and sacked him on the advice of UKBA that he had no valid RoA until his passport was renewed.

The other was a long-standing unmarried non-EU partner of a Brit who entered the UK with an EEA Family Permit (i.e. a Surinder Singh case). Upon enquiry to the Advice Centre about getting an extension he was told that because his partner was British he could no longer be considered under the EEA Regs, and in any case he had to be married!!

This sort of shambles perpetuates because almost none of the people who run UKBA have ever worked on the desk as immigration officers or dealt with actual casework, so they have only the dimmest notion of how things really work.

[gregchambers]

Thanks for the clarification on the source of the advice, so basically best to just let it expire without use whilst building up proof of new relationship over the next six months and hope that the embassy can get their head around one sponsor disappearing and another taking over. I think anything else with have red lights flashing and a real tough time in next visa application.

[NALAK]

all i can say they always given me accurate information, when i got first visitor visa travel agent, english guy in ambassador plaza many years experience told me she could not travel on one way ticket. many other said same, i e mail home office they replied no problem, refushed check in at airport produced e mail 10 minutes later after much discussion between check staff allowed to check in. before boarding called out i had to sign to say i would pay cost of return flight if there was problem. got to England no problems. never worked in that call centre but sure training is extensive.

best case 4 Her visa is valid she has proof of funds and is allowed in to the UK legally as per home office advice.

last post on this topic as its going around in circles, if op is boyfriend number 2 let us know the out come.

i see you looking this topic now any thoughts on what you read?

Edited November 18, 2009 by NALAK