Unmarried Partner Uk Visa

[crazydrummerpauly]

Hello,

the 'Unmarried Partner' UK visa could be a great option for some couples, but the rules need careful scrutiny. I have read the UK Border Agency site on this route, but there remains one question that's not readily available in the published advice - as far as i can see. It's this : the Sponsor of a Thai partner is permitted to be back in the UK for up to 6 months for a good reason, alone if the Thai partner cannot accompany the Brit - because of job or family commitments for example, without breaking the requirement that they must have lived together continuously for 2 years when they apply for the visa. The query that's bugging me is: Is that up-to-6 months per year, or up-to-6 months across the 2 years; and secondly, how would the embassy view a situation of repeated visits back to the UK - for example, just thinking about the 6-months being in one year, what if the Brit was in the UK for 3 just-under-2-months periods in one year ?...or, pushing it to the ludicrous just to make the point - 6 x just-under-1-month visits back to the UK ? I'd just like to tease out the full meaning of the rule - anyone with hard information ? - 7by7 ?

[7by7]

The immigration rules do not give a minimum or maximum period; rightly so as each case is judged on it's own merits.

The Entry Clearance Guidance para SET5.12 Assessing whether the relationship has subsisted for two years says

‘Living together’, should be applied fairly tightly, with a couple providing evidence that they have been living together in a relationship akin to marriage or civil partnership which has subsisted for two years or more.

Periods apart for up to six months would be acceptable for good reasons, such as work commitments, or looking after a relative as long as:

• it was not possible for the other partner to accompany; and
• the applicant can show evidence that the relationship continued throughout that period, for example, by visits, letters, logged phone calls

As you, and the guidance, say, it depends upon the circumstances of the separation. If it was obvious that one half of the partnership was in reality living and working in the UK and simply visiting their partner in Thailand on a regular basis, then I doubt that would be accepted as living together in a relationship akin to marriage; however I would want a professional opinion before saying so definitely.

[crazydrummerpauly]

The immigration rules do not give a minimum or maximum period; rightly so as each case is judged on it's own merits.

The Entry Clearance Guidance para SET5.12 Assessing whether the relationship has subsisted for two years says

'Living together', should be applied fairly tightly, with a couple providing evidence that they have been living together in a relationship akin to marriage or civil partnership which has subsisted for two years or more.

Periods apart for up to six months would be acceptable for good reasons, such as work commitments, or looking after a relative as long as:

• it was not possible for the other partner to accompany; and
• the applicant can show evidence that the relationship continued throughout that period, for example, by visits, letters, logged phone calls

As you, and the guidance, say, it depends upon the circumstances of the separation. If it was obvious that one half of the partnership was in reality living and working in the UK and simply visiting their partner in Thailand on a regular basis, then I doubt that would be accepted as living together in a relationship akin to marriage; however I would want a professional opinion before saying so definitely.

Hi and thanks 7by7. Thanks for the link, even though i have studied the border agency guidelines on this very closely already. I have already started to put in place several of the kinds of 'proof' of co-habitation as man&wife ( joint bank account; life-insurance policy with the partner as beneficiary; rental and TOT contracts in both names etc etc...) but this element of the rules is definitely badly worded and therefore unclear - as your reference to professional advice implies maybe. The actual wording: "Periods apart for up to 6 months would be acceptable.." contains the crucial 's' - 'periods' - literally that would persuade a reader to believe that more than ONE just-under-6-month break would be acceptable, which seems unlikely in a 2-year qualifying period. OR, the wording could be taken to mean 'periods' that ADD UP to a bit under 6 months would be acceptable. It's badly/loosely worded in my opinion. Is is easy to get clarification from the Border Agency in your experience - i mean by emailing them, or by 'phoning a help-line ?

[paully]

It's badly/loosely worded in my opinion.

Remember that some rules/guidelines and, indeed, some laws are deliberately imprecise to cover a range of circumstances and allow for some flexibility. The use of the word 'reasonable' in a law or rule is a classic example of this. It may seem frustrating, but you just have to meke the best possible case of it that you can.

[crazydrummerpauly]

It's badly/loosely worded in my opinion.

Remember that some rules/guidelines and, indeed, some laws are deliberately imprecise to cover a range of circumstances and allow for some flexibility. The use of the word 'reasonable' in a law or rule is a classic example of this. It may seem frustrating, but you just have to meke the best possible case of it that you can.

Point taken - in a legal linguistics kind of way, absolutely. But my question is about a precise limitation on a period of time - a Number in other words, and not a matter of interpretation of an intangible, such as the concept of 'reasonable'.

[7by7]

It's badly/loosely worded in my opinion.

Badly worded, I disagree; loosely worded, yes; deliberately. As already said this is to allow flexibility in the system.

Is is easy to get clarification from the Border Agency in your experience - i mean by emailing them, or by 'phoning a help-line ?

The standard response to such enquiries is that each case is decided on it's own merits and a referral to the guidance.

If you were to go into more detail about your circumstances, e.g. number, frequency and length of trips, then it may be that people here could give you a fairly realistic assessment of your chances. But I'm afraid that the only way to find out for sure is to submit an application and see if it is issued or refused.

The alternative is, of course, to marry in Thailand and apply as a spouse; but you may have your own reasons for not doing that.

[crazydrummerpauly]

It's badly/loosely worded in my opinion.

Badly worded, I disagree; loosely worded, yes; deliberately. As already said this is to allow flexibility in the system.

Is is easy to get clarification from the Border Agency in your experience - i mean by emailing them, or by 'phoning a help-line ?

The standard response to such enquiries is that each case is decided on it's own merits and a referral to the guidance.

If you were to go into more detail about your circumstances, e.g. number, frequency and length of trips, then it may be that people here could give you a fairly realistic assessment of your chances. But I'm afraid that the only way to find out for sure is to submit an application and see if it is issued or refused.

The alternative is, of course, to marry in Thailand and apply as a spouse; but you may have your own reasons for not doing that.

Thanks for the - as usual - thoughtful and helpful reply 7by7. Hard but probably accurate : "the only way to find out for sure..."

However, we'll agree to disagree about my accusation that the guidance is "badly-worded" - it would have taken no more than a few seconds futher consideraton for the drafters of the guidance to get it clear in their own minds (and thus on the page) as to whether they were thinking about 'Up to 6 months absence in ONE year', or 'Up to 6 months absence throughout the whole 2-year qualifying period'. And moreover, by adding the 'S' to 'period'/s, they made the whole passage even more unclear. I'm an ex university linguistics tutor, and this piece of text is at the bottom end of literary complexity, and would have been extremely easy to tighten up for every reader's sake. I should make it clear - I am not on TV with this issue just to fill some empty moments - I really do not know how to plan my near-future in terms of flights to the UK and time I need to spend in Thailand and the UK respectively over the next year. And it seems to me that to do it all as it were 'IN HOPE' that our application will eventually be accepted is to live with the mind-set of a gambler, which I definitely am not. I like things to be 'clear and simple' - just give me the rules and I'll adjust my life accordingly - to take any other approach to the visa-game is for those who get spurred on by an element of risk in their lives - like all the bike-riders with no lights or helmets or neither...that's just not my style.

Thanks again !

[7by7]

It needs to be remembered that the guidance is just that; guidance issued to ECOs to aid them in making their decision. Guidance; not rules.

The actual immigration rules make no mention of any allowed time apart; simply that "the parties have been living together in a relationship akin to marriage or civil partnership which has subsisted for two years or more"

If the ECOs were to apply the definition in the rules, then no time apart would be allowed! However, in this, and many other areas, they are allowed to use their discretion to reach a sensible decision; and long may they continue to be able to do so.

[crazydrummerpauly]

It needs to be remembered that the guidance is just that; guidance issued to ECOs to aid them in making their decision. Guidance; not rules.

The actual immigration rules make no mention of any allowed time apart; simply that "the parties have been living together in a relationship akin to marriage or civil partnership which has subsisted for two years or more"

If the ECOs were to apply the definition in the rules, then no time apart would be allowed! However, in this, and many other areas, they are allowed to use their discretion to reach a sensible decision; and long may they continue to be able to do so.

Fair point, but this is the guidance in black&white for those who wish to follow it up >

<LI>SET5.12 Assessing whether the relationship has subsisted for two years

( if this link doesn't work, i'll give the link to the whole Border Agency guidance section.)

And being boring, i still say that the "Periods apart of up to six months..." is potentially highly misleading - why the plural 's' ? And what does it mean ? More than 1 six-month period, in what overall stretch of time,...or a number of shorter periods which ADD UP to up-to-six-months in total ? It remains a mystery !

[7by7]

The plural is because one is allowed more than one period!

To me, it is not a mystery at all; up to 6 months means that, each period may be no more than 6 months.

However, if one spent 6 months in the UK followed by a couple of weeks in Thailand with one's partner then 6 months in the UK and then another couple of weeks in Thailand etc. I doubt that you would be considered to be living together in a relationship akin to marriage. But as said, it depends upon the individual circumstances of each case. An offshore worker based in Thailand, for example, would stand a better chance than someone living and working in the UK and visiting their Thai partner regularly.

Are you researching this because you wish to make an unmarried partner's application for your partner? If so, rather than speaking hypothetically you would be better off telling us your circumstances and how long and often you are apart. We could then give you a better opinion of your chances.

(I say 'we' to mean members here; not using the 'royal we' to refer to myself!)

[crazydrummerpauly]

The plural is because one is allowed more than one period!

To me, it is not a mystery at all; up to 6 months means that, each period may be no more than 6 months.

However, if one spent 6 months in the UK followed by a couple of weeks in Thailand with one's partner then 6 months in the UK and then another couple of weeks in Thailand etc. I doubt that you would be considered to be living together in a relationship akin to marriage. But as said, it depends upon the individual circumstances of each case. An offshore worker based in Thailand, for example, would stand a better chance than someone living and working in the UK and visiting their Thai partner regularly.

Are you researching this because you wish to make an unmarried partner's application for your partner? If so, rather than speaking hypothetically you would be better off telling us your circumstances and how long and often you are apart. We could then give you a better opinion of your chances.

(I say 'we' to mean members here; not using the 'royal we' to refer to myself!)

Haha - well, i would personally vote for the royal 'we' being accorded to such a valued member of the TV community !

Thanks for the view the plural 'periods' really is intended - i guess that as an old philosophy-of-language academic, i find the guidance notes a tad too skimpy, thereby allowing for misinterpretation - which is perhaps my negative (paranoid) connotation of other peoples' 'flexibility'. Your illustrations are valuable, and really do point up the indeterminate nature of the overall periods-together vs periods-apart mix - but i do take your point about the difference between genuinely living in LOS as a couple and only being forced apart by pressing needs, versus living mostly in the UK and only coming to LOS for holiday-type periods with one's partner - i get that.

Yes, i am really interested in the 'Unmarried Partner' route and trying to organise my/our life and my trips back to the UK around the Border Agency's brief for this type of visa. Considering that i have already been with my Thai partner since October 2008 (online), and from February 2009 (first visit to LOS) 'in the flesh', and in view of the 23 months + permission to work on arrival in the UK, this less-common (?) visa looks like a great route to me. I have taken steps to beef-up the evidence of co-habitation - 1) Rental Contract with both names on; 2) joint bank-account; 3) both names on TOT internet contract; 4) Life-Insurance policy with the other as named beneficiary....plus of course all of the usual hundreds of emails, texts, parcels, photos etc etc....that we all need to horde. I need to return to the UK in April to attend to all sorts of personal business, and i will travel alone as my partner is a government-school teacher ( hence a Thai civil-servant ) and is only allowed 1 month away without very special reasons and permission for anything longer. I am booked on a One-way flight back, so the reason for my starting this thread was to get other peoples' views on how long i could safely be in the UK without upsetting the Unmarried Partner application route. I've started to come to my own hunch/interpretation now, after your (7by7) valuable inputs - and that is that just to play it safe, it would be preferable to keep the periods away from on'e partner to a TOTAL of 6 Months within the 2-year qualifying period - i know that's not what the guidance says precisely, but it's my own guidance to myself based on the way i live generally, which is via the 'Precautionary Principle': Behave as if anything that can go wrong, will go wrong repeatedly - so wear crash-helmets, look both ways in so-called one-way streets, etc etc. So to avoid an embassy oficer who is having a bad day dumping my application in the bin on the basis that i was away for say, 9 months in 2 years, i would feel much more relaxed if the away-time is kept to under 6 months in total. Confession: Last Thursday, i accidentally threw all my house-keys into the Mekong River off a boat, and then fell 8 feet onto concrete off the top of a step-ladder cos i was determined to get into the house through an upstairs window for a cup of tea and couldn't contact the landlord to get spare-keys - so its not always an automatic impulse to remember the precautionary principle ! (Bizarrely, i've had 3 falls down stairs or steps; 3 motorbike smashes (cars in London!); 3 car-crashes (once demolishing a bridge made of steel scaffold-poles (skidded on ice at night on a hump-back bridge); and the only time i got a broken bone was from a fast delivery of a cricket-ball in a college match. Life can be weird, and very, very lucky sometimes.)

I will write again in more detail about the Unmarried Partner process, and I'd be very grateful if anyone who has been through it - hopefully successfully, but also not - would find the time to report here how it all went.

[crazydrummerpauly]

Correcting myself: It's 27 Months in the UK on the Unmarried Partner visa, with the assumption that after 24 Months, the Thai will apply for an ILR in the 3 remaining months. A permission to work from the day of arrival in the UK is also included. A very attractive visa-route for any couple who have lived together for a 2-year period prior to applying, in my opinion.

[RAZZELL]

Correcting myself: It's 27 Months in the UK on the Unmarried Partner visa, with the assumption that after 24 Months, the Thai will apply for an ILR in the 3 remaining months. A permission to work from the day of arrival in the UK is also included. A very attractive visa-route for any couple who have lived together for a 2-year period prior to applying, in my opinion.

Maybe a lot easier to just get married

RAZZ

[crazydrummerpauly]

Correcting myself: It's 27 Months in the UK on the Unmarried Partner visa, with the assumption that after 24 Months, the Thai will apply for an ILR in the 3 remaining months. A permission to work from the day of arrival in the UK is also included. A very attractive visa-route for any couple who have lived together for a 2-year period prior to applying, in my opinion.

Maybe a lot easier to just get married

RAZZ

Now you're frightening me !

Yeah, i know that route - first tried it 43 years ago....got out of it 41 years ago, never to try again...as yet.

When i married way back then, i had known my intended only 3 months ( impending offspring ), obviously not long enough to know anyone even somewhat....these days, even 2+ years doesn't feel long enough to know enough about the implications, consequences, entanglements and possible pitfalls involved in marrying a foreign national from a radically-different culture to mine ( south-east England ). It's only my opinion, but my perception of most farang-Thai weddings is that they are way way too soon, and lacking in adequate knowledge on both parties sides of the cultures and expectations of the other party. They are, in other words, 'doomed', 'doomed'... (Fraser). In my mature years, i agree with the old (Eartha Kitt?) song: "But an Englishman (should) takes time". As for marriage being a solid way to obtain a visa, which i imagine some people still believe - i know of many married couples refused visas by various countries (the USA particularly)- often after many many years of marriage - though on what grounds they're refused i'm not clear. Thousands of folks 'back home' now live their whole lives together (and have kids) without going through the legal process of marriage - and i'm one of those who just doesn't have the FEEL for marriage...maybe i can just seriously ask everyone : What are the advantages in the modern world of being married ? Or, what's the point of marriage now ? By the way, just a small point of info: if you legally marry here (in an amphur etc) - the marriage is of course entirely legal back in the UK (+presumably most other 'western' and other countries), and one sometimes overlooked consequence of that is that any WIll you've made will be immediately revoked, trashed. Pay up for a new WIll unless you want everything to go to your lovely new wife if you snuff it when you fall down the escalator at the airport arrivals lounge 'back home' !

It might be "A lot easier to just get married"...but for me it's worth the demands of the red-tape to stay a happily unhitched, "Unmarried Partner", for now at least.

[7by7]

An unmarried partner's visa and a spouse visa are to all intents and purposes the same thing. The only difference is that with an unmarried partner's visa you need to show that you have been living together in a relationship akin to marriage for at least the last two years, whereas with a spouse visa you need to show that you are in a genuine marriage.

Although with a spouse visa there is no minimum time that you need to have known each other, only that you have met.

I would never advocate marrying just to get a visa. However, if you are in a committed relationship and marrying does make it easier, then why not?

I appreciate that to some (many?) a marriage certificate is just a bit of paper that they can't be bothered with; each to their own. But when I married my wife it wasn't to get her a UK visa, it was because we loved each other and wanted to commit to each other for the rest of our lives. If she hadn't got a UK visa I would have done what I could to live in Thailand and if that hadn't been possible we would have found some place where we could be together.

Sorry to be blunt; but from what you have said it seems to me that you are not yet in a place where you feel ready to make a lifetime commitment to her; whether you marry her or not. If you are not yet ready to make such a commitment to her; what the hell are you doing contemplating moving her 6000 miles from home to be with you, and what the hell is she doing agreeing to it?

[Lite Beer]

An inflammatory post has been deleted.

[Lite Beer]

A post discussing Moderation has been deleted.

[Lite Beer]

Another inflammatory post has been deleted.