Frequency Of Visits Refusal (Appeal) Won

[ThaiVisaExpress]

One of our clients was refused a visa under the frequency of visits ruling

My link-VAT1.5 Frequency and duration of visits

The back ground of the case was

· The applicant had been issued 3 visit visas

· Every year for 3 years she had spent 6 months in the UK the rest in Thailand

· In October 2010 she returned from her normal visit to the UK.

· In February 2011 they applied for another visa as they wished to return to the UK immediately.

· We fully explained the criteria & that they may get refused, however they wished to apply for a 2 year visit visa.

· The applicant's husband argued he wanted his 6months now for 2011, why should he wait until she had spent 6 months in Thailand.

· The application was refused as above.

· They then launched an appeal and we applied for another visa in the meantime dated From May 1 (meaning she had spent 6 months in Thailand) This visa was issued & the applicant travelled to the UK.

On Friday they attended the appeal hearing and the decision was overturned & they won the case. They agreed that frequency of visits is guidance only and the original 2 year visit visa they applied for should have been issued.

[VisasPlus]

This is an excellent result, Paul. Well done. We would all, I'm sure, like to see the appeal determination when it is available. Hopefully, this will allow applicants to visit, for instance, their partner in the UK more easily. Let's also hope that the Embassy takes note of the determination. At least we will be able to quote it to them once it is released !

[ThaiVisaExpress]

Yes I have permission to post this from my clients.

[ThaiVisaExpress]

This is an excellent result, Paul. Well done. We would all, I'm sure, like to see the appeal determination when it is available. Hopefully, this will allow applicants to visit, for instance, their partner in the UK more easily. Let's also hope that the Embassy takes note of the determination. At least we will be able to quote it to them once it is released !

The embassy will obviously already be aware of the decision ( but lets await the determination ) from the hearing first.

[bobrussell]

What a shame it had to go to these lengths. It should be nothing to do with the Embassy when an applicant travels. Their job is to ensure that the applicant is likely to enter the UK in line with their visa requirements and more importantly leave in compliance with the visa terms.

The applicant appears to have complied with visa requirements in the past and it clearly is not in their interests to fail to do so this time!

[7by7]

It should be nothing to do with the Embassy when an applicant travels

But it is: VAT1.5 Frequency and duration of visits (from the guidance issued to ECOs).

It is reasonable, however, for the ECO to consider the stated purpose of the visit in the light of the length of time that has elapsed since previous visits. A visitor should not, for example, normally spend more that 6 out of any 12 months in the UK

The guidance for Immigration Officers says the same. So even if one had a valid visit visa an IO could refuse entry (I think) on these grounds.

I'm not saying it's right; just that this is what the guidance tells both ECOs and IOs. I surmise that the purpose is to stop people using visit visas to actually live in the UK; like visa runners do in Thailand.

There is, though, nothing in the rules to say that a certain time must have elapsed since the last visit, nor any maximum time that a visitor can spend in the UK other than the maximum 6 months per visit.

I, too, will be very interested in the determination when TVE posts it. It will also be interesting to see if the above guidance changes following this result.

[bellboy86]

I think what ukba are concerned about is individuals living and working I'n the uk for 6 months and then returning home to spend the money. There's a lot of that going on, and it's not fair on the genuine visitor like yourself having to go through appeal processes I'n order for you to get a visa. Well done for sticking with the appeal. Ukba should pay any cost.

[bangkockney]

Remember it was found in Pankina [2010] that Policy Guidance does not have the status of law and cannot therefore be used to establish the requirements of the Immigration Rules. Therefore any refusal based on a guidance document is not safe.

[ThaiVisaExpress]

It should be nothing to do with the Embassy when an applicant travels

But it is: VAT1.5 Frequency and duration of visits (from the guidance issued to ECOs).

It is reasonable, however, for the ECO to consider the stated purpose of the visit in the light of the length of time that has elapsed since previous visits. A visitor should not, for example, normally spend more that 6 out of any 12 months in the UK

The guidance for Immigration Officers says the same. So even if one had a valid visit visa an IO could refuse entry (I think) on these grounds.

I'm not saying it's right; just that this is what the guidance tells both ECOs and IOs. I surmise that the purpose is to stop people using visit visas to actually live in the UK; like visa runners do in Thailand.

There is, though, nothing in the rules to say that a certain time must have elapsed since the last visit, nor any maximum time that a visitor can spend in the UK other than the maximum 6 months per visit.

I, too, will be very interested in the determination when TVE posts it. It will also be interesting to see if the above guidance changes following this result.

Lets await the determination we only have our clients word on what has happened but I also want to see this in black & white.

[bobrussell]

It should be nothing to do with the Embassy when an applicant travels

But it is: VAT1.5 Frequency and duration of visits (from the guidance issued to ECOs).

It is reasonable, however, for the ECO to consider the stated purpose of the visit in the light of the length of time that has elapsed since previous visits. A visitor should not, for example, normally spend more that 6 out of any 12 months in the UK

The guidance for Immigration Officers says the same. So even if one had a valid visit visa an IO could refuse entry (I think) on these grounds.

I'm not saying it's right; just that this is what the guidance tells both ECOs and IOs. I surmise that the purpose is to stop people using visit visas to actually live in the UK; like visa runners do in Thailand.

There is, though, nothing in the rules to say that a certain time must have elapsed since the last visit, nor any maximum time that a visitor can spend in the UK other than the maximum 6 months per visit.

I, too, will be very interested in the determination when TVE posts it. It will also be interesting to see if the above guidance changes following this result.

The first part of the guidance states:

"There is no restriction on the number of visits a person may make to the UK nor any requirement that a specified time must elapse between successive visits."

This is in line with my comment - I do not believe it is the UKBA's place to decide when a visitor comes to the UK. Their job is to ensure that the legal terms of the visa are complied with. Much of the guidance seems to give them carte blanche to interfere in peoples lives.

Having said this when my gf travelled over regularly on visit visas we were never given any hassle. That only happened after we got married!

[7by7]

The first part of the guidance states:

"There is no restriction on the number of visits a person may make to the UK nor any requirement that a specified time must elapse between successive visits."

This is in line with my comment

Indeed, hence my earlier comment "There is, though, nothing in the rules to say that a certain time must have elapsed since the last visit, nor any maximum time that a visitor can spend in the UK other than the maximum 6 months per visit."

I do not believe it is the UKBA's place to decide when a visitor comes to the UK. Their job is to ensure that the legal terms of the visa are complied with

Not exactly; an ECOs job is to judge whether, on the balance of probabilities, an applicant meets the criteria for the visa they have applied for. Including judging whether or not that applicant is a genuine visitor and not attempting to use visit visas to get around the settlement rules*. Hence the convention that a visitor should not normally spend more than 6 months out of 12 in the UK.

Convention, not rule. So if a visitor does have a genuine reason for doing so, then they should not have a problem; and as your experience shows IOs at ports of entry very rarely check this anyway.

However, as TVE says, let's await the determination.

*I am not, of course, implying in any way that this was the intention of TVE's client.

[ThaiVisaExpress]

A settlement visa is not for everyone may I add, my client wishes to spend 6 months in each country.

His argument may I add is he wanted his 6 months for 2011 now, why should he have to wait until she has spent 6 months in Thailand.

Guidance only.

[Phuyai]

I realise that this thread concerns UK visitor visa conditions, however, I wonder if a similar guidance/instruction exists for Australian tourist visas. Does any member have knowledge and advice on where such guidance might be found?

[7by7]

Phuyai, I have started a new topic for you here, as I feel your question has more chance of being seen by someone who knows the answer than if left in a topic about UK visas.

If anyone can help Phuyai out, can they please post their replies there.

Thank you.