Has Anyone Ever Used An Immigration Barrister?

[JusticeFT96]

Basically with these new laws for settlement visas in the UK its near impossible for me to get her a visa. Along with my job as a poker player that is not favorable and my past bad credit it looks unlikely that I will be able to get one ever unless something changes.

I keep hearing people tell me, get an immigration barrister, its against human rights for the mother not to be able to live with her baby and husband. I keep thinking it would be a waste of time but would it?

I dont need any help from the state neither would my wife all I want to do is live in England so my son can have good health and education in life. She is due to come over here with my son in about a month or so on a tourist visa as I have just returned home. Has anyone heard of any cases where people claim its against their human rights and get their wife granted a visa?

Edited November 11, 2012 by JusticeFT96

[VisasPlus]

Human Rights legislation is a minefield. I think the bottom line would be that your human rights are not being abused as nobody is stopping you from living with your wife. It's just that, if you want to live with her in the UK, then you must meet the financial requirements that currently apply.

I have no idea what being a poker player for a living involves, but I assume it doesn't involve regular wage slips , or even tax returns, and that is what the UKBA want to see ? That said, if you a self employed, you can probably work anywhere, and that would be the UKBA's argument. Presumably you can play poker anywhere in the world. I think you would find it very difficult to make a case on human rights' grounds.

[ThaiVisaExpress]

My advice is to secure some regular employment in the UK and bring your wife over on a visit visa to bridge the gap.

[durhamboy]

Justiceft96 - for what it's worth I used to be a commercial lawyer and about 10 years ago I sued the Home Office over a spouse visa issue. I personally took them to the County Court and lost and had to pay costs. The judge said that whilst she sympathised with my case the Home Office did not owe a "duty of care" either to me or my then wife. Therefore it seems that the Home Office can do what the hell it likes and you have no recourse in the UK courts.

It would seem that the only way to get justice is the European Court of Human Rights - I think Article 8 is the relevant one about the right to family life. In my opinion I think on the face of it you may have a case as you are being prevented from living as a family in your own country (which is obviously within Europe). However, that is only my opinion and others may differ with me (as above). Going to Europe I'm sure would not be easy and it may be that you would have to sue in the UK courts first to establish a legal refusal by the UK Government. It probably is a minefield and may be very costly (especially if you lose). I really wish someone sometime actually does it and kicks the UK Government from here to eternity.

I wish you the best of luck.

[7by7]

Many people seem unaware that Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights is a qualified right.

1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.
   
2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.
   

The government argue that the new rules, and the financial requirements in particular, fall under the exception I have highlighted.

They have no doubt had expensive lawyers look into this before the proposals were even published; let alone before they became law.

If anyone does wish to take this matter to the European Court of Human Rights, be warned that it will be a lengthy and expensive process.

First you will have to apply for an be refused a visa; then appeal the refusal to the AIT; that appeal being rejected, appeal that refusal; have that appeal rejected and so on until you have reached the Supreme Court and failed there.

Only then could you take your case to the ECHR.

[Saudi Sid]

And rightly so.

[durhamboy]

7x7

2.There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

The government argue that the new rules, and the financial requirements in particular, fall under the exception I have highlighted.

This, as you say, may be the government's interpretation of the exceptions but they would say that wouldn't they? As far as I know it has never been tested at the ECHR and may never be because the procedure as you explained is so onerous. However, if it were tested then I am sure that the INTENTION of the exceptions was not to prevent the possibility of someone claiming social security benefits more to prevent extreme (or extremist) cases e.g. a terrorist marrying a UK citizen and claiming the right to live in the UK.

Saudi Sid - I cannot understand your post - are you happy that these procedures are so onerous for Joe Public?

[7by7]

I'm sorry, but I can't agree with you.

The exceptions are clearly laid out in paragraph 2 of article 8.

Exclusion of a terrorist or other criminal from a signatory country would come under the 'national security,' 'public safety' or 'prevention of disorder or crime' exceptions, not the 'economic well being' one.

When they first published the proposals the government made it clear that they had considered the human rights situation and their opinion, or more likely the opinion of their lawyers, was that the new proposals did not breach article 8.

As you say, though, whether or not that opinion is correct will only be determined when, and if, a case comes before the courts.

Edited November 14, 2012 by 7by7

[meatboy]

move to poland or romania become citizens of that country then the uk will welcome you with open arms.after 65yrs in the uk enough is enough,even my wf.after 20yrs and earning good wages 30-35k thai bht a week couldnt wait to get out.<deleted> ole.

[durhamboy]

I'm sorry, but I can't agree with you.

The exceptions are clearly laid out in paragraph 2 of article 8.

Exclusion of a terrorist or other criminal from a signatory country would come under the 'national security,' 'public safety' or 'prevention of disorder or crime' exceptions, not the 'economic well being' one.

When they first published the proposals the government made it clear that they had considered the human rights situation and their opinion, or more likely the opinion of their lawyers, was that the new proposals did not breach article 8.

As you say, though, whether or not that opinion is correct will only be determined when, and if, a case comes before the courts.

I take your point about 'economic well being' but again I somehow doubt that the intention of the article's exception is to prevent someone claiming social security benefits. Surely it is within a signatory government's power to enact legislation to exclude certain people (e.g. foreign spouses without ILR) from claiming benefits thereby preserving their human rights. IMO I think that the intent of 'economic well being' is to prevent, say, someone who has previous convictions for major credit card fraud from rights under Article 8.

[7by7]

Whether or not that was the intention of those who drafted Article 8 and the convention's original signatories, the current UK government's opinion is that the new regulations do not breach it.

We will have to await the result of the current judicial review, and probably a judgment from the ECHR, before we discover if they are right.

[Richard W]

move to poland or romania become citizens of that country then the uk will welcome you with open arms.

An easier route for an EEA national is just to work in an EEA country of which you are not a national where you can support and accommodate your wife, bring her over to there, and six months later, return to you own country. This method was established by the case of Surinder Singh.

[7by7]

To be pedantic, there is no actual minimum time an EEA national needs to have been living and working in another EEA state with their non EEA spouse and family before they can take advantage of the Surinder Singh ruling. Merely that they have done so.

Whether such an approach would be practicable depends on a couple's circumstances. Remember that to qualify the EEA national must have actually employed or self-employed in the other EEA state; job seeking, studying or living on independent means are not covered by the judgment.

For those who are wondering what we're talking about, see EUN2.14 Can family members of British citizens qualify for an EEA family permit? ('Surinder Singh' cases)

[Stevedirtycash]

To be pedantic, there is no actual minimum time an EEA national needs to have been living and working in another EEA state with their non EEA spouse and family before they can take advantage of the Surinder Singh ruling. Merely that they have done so.

Whether such an approach would be practicable depends on a couple's circumstances. Remember that to qualify the EEA national must have actually employed or self-employed in the other EEA state; job seeking, studying or living on independent means are not covered by the judgment.

For those who are wondering what we're talking about, see EUN2.14 Can family members of British citizens qualify for an EEA family permit? ('Surinder Singh' cases)

Iv read it but im still not clear on it , this is what i understand please correct me if im well wrong on the matter .

Im British , i can go to another EU country find a job , get the Thai g,f over or do i need to be married in thailand first ?

Then apply for this EEA Permit ? for then she can come in the UK without me having to show i have earns of £18,600 because i dont have earns of this much?

Many Thanks on who can reply and help me

[7by7]

Almost.

Yes, as an EEA national you have the right to live and work in any other EEA state and to have your non EEA national family member(s) live there with you.

Having been exercising this right in another EEA state you could then return to the UK and your non EEA national family member(s) can return with you using the EEA regulations, not the UK immigration rules. This means no minimum income requirement and EEA family permits are free.

But; a girlfriend does not count as a family member under the EEA regulations. She would either have to be your wife or unmarried partner to qualify for the initial permit to live with you in whichever EEA state you have chosen and then to return with you to the UK.

Different EEA states each have their own definition of what counts as an unmarried partner; for the UK you must have been living together in a relationship akin to marriage for at least the two years prior to applying.

So, unless you are living with her in Thailand and have been for at least two years, you would need to marry her to take advantage of this route.

But she would not qualify to settle in the UK with you under the UK immigration rules if she were simply your girlfriend either. You would need to be married or unmarried partners, unless she applied as your fiance in which case you would have to marry within 6 months of her arrival.

Hope that's clear.

[Stevedirtycash]

Thanks for your reply 7by7 . yer its clear now , does the other EEA states have financial requirements for an non eea partner to come to stay with you there?

Thanks

Steven

[7by7]

If applying under the EEA freedom of movement regulations then they must use the same criteria as the UK does; so no.

Different story if you were a national of that state and applying under their immigration rules, of course.

Edited November 30, 2012 by 7by7