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

[Laganside]

As I understand it, the visa holder has the right of appeal exercisable in country should she be refused entry on the grounds that a subsequent material change in circumstances since its issue had rendered her visa ineffective. The Immigration Judge may well uphold the appeal if he determines the change was not so material as to remove the basis of the visa issue.

For example, sponsor A withdraws his support but sponsor B, of equal standing both in economic and in relationship terms, steps into the breach and pronounces himself, if called upon to do so, the new sponsor. Clearly, in this scenario one could reasonably conclude that the visa officer would not have been bound to refuse the application in the light of the change in circumstances since it could be argued the change in itself would not have altered his original decision and was therefore neither relevant nor material.

Or have I got it wrong? Kitsch may wish to rejoin the debate and if he does would he please note that attempted deception is not a factor in my hypothesis.

Edited November 18, 2009 by Laganside

[paully]

For example, sponsor A withdraws his support but sponsor B, of equal standing both in economic and in relationship terms, steps into the breach and pronounces himself, if called upon to do so, the new sponsor. Clearly, in this scenario one could reasonably conclude that the visa officer would not have been bound to refuse the application in the light of the change in circumstances since it could be argued the change in itself would not have altered his original decision and was therefore neither relevant nor material.

But: how, and when, would sponsor A 'withdraw' and sponsor B 'step into the breach' for the girl with the visitor visa to not know when she travels to the UK that the position has materially changed? By sponsor A withdrawing via a text message sent to the girl whilst she is queueing at passport control at Heathrow Airport waiting to see him? By sponsor B who the girl met on the flight overhearing the phone call and then promptly and gallantly volunteering his services as a back-up sponsor for her?

It would be very difficult for the girl to show that she was unaware of a material change in circumstances. You normally know before travelling if you've been dumped and whether you have acquired a new sponsoring boyfriend to visit and stay with.

[gregchambers]

But the point is although sponsors have changed her actual circumstances remain the same, ie she still has someone to support and accommodate her.

[paully]

But the point is although sponsors have changed her actual circumstances remain the same, ie she still has someone to support and accommodate her.

No - if the sponsors have changed, then the actual circumstances are not the same as when she obtained the visa. She is under a duty to notify the authorities of material changes and a change of sponsors/boyfriends would be likely to be seen as a material change.

Edited November 18, 2009 by paully

[7by7]

I think that some people are confused over the meaning of the word 'sponsor' in this context.

The sponsor is the person supporting the application, the person with whom the applicant has a strong enough relationship for the ECO to be satisfied that the purpose of the visit is as stated.

This person may also be providing financial support and accommodation for the visit, but such support and accommodation may be provided by a third party. For example, the first time my step-son visited us we were living with my parents. My wife, his mother, sponsored his application, I provided the finances and my father provided the accommodation.

The visa in question here was issued based upon a relationship that no longer exists. Therefore Para321(ii) would apply. That she has found alternative finances etc. is irrelevant.

People may not be happy with that, and think that it is unfair; but it is the law.

[Laganside]

People may not be happy with that, and think that it is unfair; but it is the law.

Actually, no, the law is not the law. That is a simplistic view and quite facile in practice.

The law is a framework within which those charged with enforcing it interpret rules as prescribed by policies determined by governments but decisions are often challenged in the Courts from time to time and case law develops which determines principles. Often, the executive lag behind the curve of this development and certainly in the context of the current UKBA, operating in their more robust style as they are prone do, this deficiency has never been truer. Just because the UKBA make decisons purportedly within their perception of what the " law " may be does not necessarily make them " lawful " or even right.

Appeal determinations contrary to the UKBA abound and prove the point.

Folk prognosticating upon hypothetical cases should take note.

Edited November 18, 2009 by Laganside

[Will27]

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.

IMHO, you're better off getting the visa

cancelled rather than waiting for it to

expire.

If for instance, the visa has a 12 month

expiry date, it would look pretty strange

to be building up proof while the other visa

with boyfriend number 1 is still in effect.

Regards

Will

[Will27]

As I understand it, the visa holder has the right of appeal exercisable in country should she be refused entry on the grounds that a subsequent material change in circumstances since its issue had rendered her visa ineffective. The Immigration Judge may well uphold the appeal if he determines the change was not so material as to remove the basis of the visa issue.

For example, sponsor A withdraws his support but sponsor B, of equal standing both in economic and in relationship terms, steps into the breach and pronounces himself, if called upon to do so, the new sponsor. Clearly, in this scenario one could reasonably conclude that the visa officer would not have been bound to refuse the application in the light of the change in circumstances since it could be argued the change in itself would not have altered his original decision and was therefore neither relevant nor material.

Or have I got it wrong? Kitsch may wish to rejoin the debate and if he does would he please note that attempted deception is not a factor in my hypothesis.

It is hard as the OP hasn't provided a lot of information

such as when the visa was issued, when she seperated

and got new boyfriend etc etc.

But, using your logic about the sponsors possibly being the

same in economic and relationship terms, why risk it?

Just get original visa cancelled and apply for a new one.

Personally, I think the chances of getting up on appeal

(if the decision is appellable) would be remote at best.

Regards

Will

[Will27]

But the point is although sponsors have changed her actual circumstances remain the same, ie she still has someone to support and accommodate her.

Of course the circumstances have changed.

Regardless of financial obligations she has a

new boyfriend.

The visa was granted due to the information

provided primarily one would assume about

boyfriend number 1.

Regards

Will

[7by7]

People may not be happy with that, and think that it is unfair; but it is the law.

Actually, no, the law is not the law. That is a simplistic view and quite facile in practice.

The law is a framework within which those charged with enforcing it interpret rules as prescribed by policies determined by governments but decisions are often challenged in the Courts from time to time and case law develops which determines principles. Often, the executive lag behind the curve of this development and certainly in the context of the current UKBA, operating in their more robust style as they are prone do, this deficiency has never been truer. Just because the UKBA make decisons purportedly within their perception of what the " law " may be does not necessarily make them " lawful " or even right.

Appeal determinations contrary to the UKBA abound and prove the point.

Folk prognosticating upon hypothetical cases should take note.

The law, Para321(ii) of the immigration rules, states that a material change in circumstances is grounds for an IO to refuse entry when someone holds an entry clearance. Anyone who is refused in such circumstances may have the right to appeal. However, having the right to appeal does not mean that the original decision was unsound. Yes, the AIT do often find for the appellant, but they also find against the appellant; depending on whether the original decision was sound or not.

I refer you to The Scouser's post at 16:47:03 on 16/11/09

if the IO at the UK airport were so inclined to check, he could easily establish that the person with whom the woman arrived was not the original sponsor. As others have commented, this would constitute a change in circs and result in refusal of entry.

Depending upon the circumstances as a whole, she might get a right of in-country appeal, or she might be limited to an appeal from abroad. However, whichever she were given, there would be little point pursuing it as the refusing IO would have solid grounds. Additionally, if she were to either misrepresent the new boyfriend as the original sponsor, or state that she would be visiting the old boyfriend knowing this not to be the case, this could be sufficient to justify an accusation of deception, which would then result in any visit visa application for 10 years being refused without consideration.

(My emphasis)

As Nalak said earlier, this is now going round in circles. Unless anyone has anything constructive to add, I'm inclined to close it.

[gregchambers]

Realise this has become a little dead-ended but surely having a passport with a UK visa that has cancelled stamped upon it is going to cause problems if we say went on a visit to Singapore (visa run for me but would also prove we had been together at the time due to identical visa stamps) or applied to go to say Spain for a visit (if the pound recovers against the euro may move there next year) whereas just leaving it in the passport will do no harm as long as we are not tempted to use it.

As mentioned, have decided not to tempt fate by trying to use it but can see no harm in leaving it in the passport uncancelled.

[Will27]

Realise this has become a little dead-ended but surely having a passport with a UK visa that has cancelled stamped upon it is going to cause problems if we say went on a visit to Singapore (visa run for me but would also prove we had been together at the time due to identical visa stamps) or applied to go to say Spain for a visit (if the pound recovers against the euro may move there next year) whereas just leaving it in the passport will do no harm as long as we are not tempted to use it.

As mentioned, have decided not to tempt fate by trying to use it but can see no harm in leaving it in the passport uncancelled.

Greg,

IMHO you're better off informing the embassy

via email that there has been a change in

circumstances and to have the visa cancelled.

This also shows good intent. Like said

previously, it would be strange for them to

look at proof of a new relationship when she

has a current visa with someone else.

Also, they don't have the passport so no

cancellation stamp to worry about. It will

be cancelled on their systems.

Regards

Will