Thai Girl With Ten Year Ban From Uk Vv Debacle, Any Options

[Maestro]

All embassies at least here in Bangkok share their black list on a monthly basis...

Share with whom? With all the other embassies? I doubt this very much. What made you think so?

--

Maestro

[Sabre]

Oh man, this sounds like trouble. Have you actually confirmed that there is a 10 year ban in place? I'm sure you could hire an immigration lawyer in the UK who could look into the story, and appeal the 10-year ban.

Her story may well be true, but I would advise double checking everything anyway, because even if she is telling the truth, there are a number of other reasons why the information she has given you might not be completely accurate.

[ppmacready]

Did you by any chance meet this dazzling girl in a bar or a gogo?

In which case , although he don't know it now.

His had a result!

[Eff1n2ret]

2) I'm not sure how lack of a valid passport will disable a Brit seeking to travel to the UK any more than it does at the moment, as the Carriers Liability Act theoretically applies to anyone without a valid document. So are you saying there will be no discretion to authorise travel in such cases? It was an almost daily occurrence during my time at a South Coast port to get a call from the ferry company in France asking if it was ok to board the Brit who had lost his passport or succeeded in getting over there with only a driving licence, etc etc. I can't imagine any scenario now or in the future where a British citizen who actually arrives back in Blighty is not "let back in."

It's in the "simplification" bill that the only way a Brit can demonstrate his claim to citizenship is by production of a valid British passport. The inference is that if your passport expires whilst abroad, then you run the risk of the carrier refusing to carry you back to the UK upon pain of being hit with a £2000 charge.

But I can't see any change to the existing situation. S 3(9) of the 1971 Act as amended by the 2006 Act says this:-

(9)A person seeking to enter the United Kingdom and claiming to have the right of abode there shall prove it by means of—.

(a)a United Kingdom passport describing him as a British citizen,.

(b a United Kingdom passport describing him as a British subject with the right of abode in the United Kingdom,.

(c an ID card issued under the Identity Cards Act 2006 describing him as a British citizen,.

(d)an ID card issued under that Act describing him as a British subject with the right of abode in the United Kingdom, or.

(e)a certificate of entitlement.]

The new Bill says this:

1 British citizens

(1) A British citizen is free to arrive in, enter, stay in, and leave, the United

Kingdom.

(2) That is subject to any requirements or restrictions imposed by or by virtue of

this Act or any other enactment.

(3) A person who claims for the purposes of this Act that a person is a British

citizen must prove it.

(4) A person who seeks to enter the United Kingdom and claims to be a British

citizen must prove it by means of—

(a) a valid United Kingdom passport which describes the person as a

British citizen, or

(b a valid ID card which describes the person as a British citizen.

An airline would be quite within their present rights to refuse boarding to someone whose passport had expired, and the holder would have to get it renewed at a British Embassy.

I'm not quite sure what the change is in respect of people travelling to the UK. From my former experience, however, I would welcome the implicit change that someone in the UK who claims to be British should be required to prove it.

[7by7]

Speculation and comments on how and where this couple met and the lady's past employment are not relevant to the issue. Those making such speculation do not know the couple concerned, and have no evidence to support their comments.

Any further posts along those lines will be deleted.

Scouse and Eff1n2ret,

Interesting though your discussion on the effects of the the new bill is, it is not really relevant to the issue and so is wandering off topic. Please hold such discussion elsewhere.

Thank you.

[needforspeed]

OP what is your possition in this story.

[Somrak]

everydoghasitsday: however the embassy already seemed to know that she had used the agency and was told that any lies would result in the ten year ban, so she only told the truth.

There was before maybe something else too. ?? (Speculation)

I don't know the UK-law. But i did never hear about a ban like this if the agency gave "false papers" to the embassy.

As you say - you have time - Anyway, as I can stay Thailand no hurry to rush into things and I am thinking a couple of years down the line if things work out between us.

Good luck

[7by7]

I don't know the UK-law. But i did never hear about a ban like this if the agency gave "false papers" to the embassy.

It is the applicant's responsibility to ensure that the application is both complete and truthful.

From the immigration rules

Para 320....Grounds on which entry clearance or leave to enter the United Kingdom is to be refused

(7A) where false representations have been made or false documents or information have been submitted (whether or not material to the application, and whether or not to the applicant's knowledge), or material facts have not been disclosed, in relation to the application.

(My emphasis)