Unmarried Partner Uk Settlement Visa Question

[lookingeast]

Hi,

I have been in correspondence with a nameless person/s at : [email protected], to try to get an answer to what looks like a very simple question to me. After 3 emails back and forth, i've been left with a "Unfortunately we are unable to be more specific than the guidance we have already given...I am sorry that we cannot be of further assistance." kind of dead-end.

My question was this : To qualify as 'Unmarried Partners', my Thai partner and i have to live together as 'man and wife' for a period of 2 Years, with periods apart for reasons such as work or family commitments amounting to a maximum of 6 months in total. No problem. So, if we were to apply for that visa after we had been together for 3 Years, would the allowed period apart be a maximum of 9 Months - i.e. 25% of 3 Years - as 6 Months is 25% of 2 Years ? I imagined that would be a simple, yes or no kind of question. And to me at this time, it is a crucial one upon which i could make informed decisions about my movements during 2013. But the answer i got was merely a copy & paste of the '2 - Year rule', with no reference to my actual question.

I'd be very grateful if anyone has come across this before and knows the answer, OR, could anyone suggest what to do in terms of contacting officials at the UKBA or the Embassy who might actually engage with the issue ?

This is no 'academic' exercise for me - my mother is 97 this year and i'm trying hard to juggle time spent in LOS with my Thai partner and time back in the UK visiting Mum. We have already been together 2 years 4 months, and apart for only 5 months in that time, but for reasons to do with her job and family, and not having in Thailand all the Original documents i need, we would prefer to apply for the Visa around the 3 - Year mark. Hence the question. Thanks in advance.

[7by7]

Unfortunately there is no definitive answer to your question, which is why the UKBA has been unable to give you one.

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.

Each application is judged on it's own merits, and the ECO does have discretion in the matter. S/he will have to make a decision based upon the full circumstances of your situation at the time of the application.

[ThaiVisaExpress]

I think 7x7's answer sums it up nicely. The ECO will look at the application, and make a decision on whether what you say is reasonable or not. Logically, the period of time spent apart must increase with the length of time you have been together. Or the ECO would be able to argue that, after 10 years together, you can still only have spent 6 months apart in total. That's unreasonable.

[lookingeast]

Thanks to you both, 7 x 7 and ThaiVisaExpress. I think this is one of those 'boring little details' when first looked at, but as so often with details, they can be the whole deal either for good or evil.

7 x 7 - yes, i do understand the rule as written - i've been researching this topic for over two years. My beef with the UKBA is that if they won't give a ruling on time-apart after two years together, then anyone applying after that time-scale is pretty much gambling with £800+, which i think is unjust.

TVExpress - your : "Or the ECO would be able to argue that, after 10 years together, you can still only have spent 6 months apart in total. That's unreasonable" - reads my mind perfectly. The problem is, doing such a big application in the hope that the UKBA will actually BE, 'reasonable' makes me very uneasy. I'm not big on Trust, especially where faceless bureaucracies are concerned.

I might write to the CEO of the UKBA in London, Rob Whiteman to ask for a more developed structure for this rule over a longer time-scale...ultimately, it's all overseen by John Vine, Chief Inspector, Borders & Immigration...but maybe we will just give up on the whole 'Unmarried Partner' route altogether. If i do write (actual letter) and get a useful answer, i will post it on this thread.

Thanks again, and if there are members out there with relevant experiences please jump in!

[7by7]

One thing you seem to have overlooked; the guidance says ".....periods apart....." plural, ".....for up to 6 months...." that is up to 6 months per period.

How many periods? As said, depends on the reasons for them and the length of the relationship.

There is no set rule on this in the immigration rules; and a good thing too, in my opinion.

A set rule with defined time limits removes all discretion from the ECO and will only make it more difficult for many applicants who don't meet the specified criteria. As the removal of ECO discretion over finances and the setting of a fixed minimum income has done.

The point TVE makes about reasonableness is very valid.

Refusal of settlement applications can be appealed. If your partner were refused and did appeal then the UKBA would have to show that the refusal was reasonable within the rules.

I look forward to reading any replies you receive to your further enquiries, but suspect that they will be extremely similar to those you have already recieved.

[lookingeast]

Thanks for that 7 x 7. Well, you've put me on the back foot with that. I've always assumed - and emails from UKBA have never contradicted me - that the ruling means a Total of 6 Months apart. This is from one of their recent answers to me -

"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."

I have always read it a as 'Periods apart (adding) up to six months'. It does not say : 'Periods apart for up to six months EACH' ? One reason for this is that if one imagines 2 or 3 'periods apart for up to six months' it all gets weird. I mean, even just 2 x 6 months apart, amounts to 1 Year, 50% of the 2 - year qualifying period, which i can't imagine would be acceptable to UKBA at all.

I am hoping you are entirely right on this one and that i am wrong. I need further clarification, but i'm not holding my breath as far as the UKBA help-centre is concerned.

[lookingeast]

I have just landed on this UKBA page, which is a definitive one, but it can still be read the two ways in my eyes -

http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/sitecontent/documents/policyandlaw/IDIs/idischapter8/section9/annexz.pdf?view=Binary

Edited March 14, 2013 by lookingeast

[Tony M]

I have just landed on this UKBA page, which is a definitive one, but it can still be read the two ways in my eyes -

http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/sitecontent/documents/policyandlaw/IDIs/idischapter8/section9/annexz.pdf?view=Binary

I'm of the opinion that it must mean a total of 6 months over the two year period. Othewise it is not really a "short break(s)". As you say, one year apart in a two year period is not a short break.

[7by7]

I see what you mean, Tony.

But a total of 6 months apart over a 10 year period? As Paul says above, that would be unreasonable, would it not?

I am of the opinion that the 6 months is a guideline and that the ECO is allowed to use their discretion and that the number and length of periods apart will be looked at in conjunction with the total length of the relationship.

You have more knowledge and experience of this than I, so I would value your thoughts on that.

[ThaiVisaExpress]

I see what you mean, Tony.

But a total of 6 months apart over a 10 year period? As Paul says above, that would be unreasonable, would it not?

I am of the opinion that the 6 months is a guideline and that the ECO is allowed to use their discretion and that the number and length of periods apart will be looked at in conjunction with the total length of the relationship.

You have more knowledge and experience of this than I, so I would value your thoughts on that.

I think the 6 months refers to the two year period only, and that longer periods of time together will attract longer periods to be apart. The guidance does talk about "the preceeeding two year period" and "short breaks apart of up to six months". That is slightly more than a guideline for the two year period. For longer periods I would hope that common sense would prevail (!)

[lookingeast]

Thanks for all the replies - the differences of interpretation do at least prove that the UKBA could have gone further to make it crystal clear with the addition of a word here or there, and in my opinion they still could/should.

As an old philosopher of language, i still see 'Short periods apart of up to 6 months' as readable in the two completely different ways already laid out above. As Each of 6 months; or a Total of 6 months. But i'm leaning towards Tony M and ThaiVisaExpress in the emphasis on the phrase 'SHORT BREAKS', since a 6-month break in the context of a 2-year framework just cannot be regarded as 'Short'. It is after all, 25% of the full qualifying period.

I did email UKBA for a final, binding answer, but i think they are fed up with me and my 'anal' questions by now, so i'm not holding my breath on that front !

THANKS.

[Foggy Bottom]

LookingEast - consider it from the perspective of offshore workers - the old North Sea routine of 3 weeks offshore / 3 weeks onshore, and similar divisions in other production areas could make time apart as much as 50% and thus also the mention of the "unable to accompany" requirement.

I'm curious though, when did the only 2 years of substantive relationship come in? The requirements in Appendix FM and FMSE of the immigration rules for non-EEA settlement still says 4 years.

Also, please note the content of the home office document in the following link, paragraph 23 states only 30 out of 500 spousal/partner settlement visas were granted worldwide in the 2nd half of 2012 - that's just 6% get approved where the applicant is the non-EEA spouse/partner of a natural Briton settled in the UK - - - http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/137718/response/357476/attach/html/3/25041%20Britcits%20IR%20Final%20Response%20and%20report.pdf.html it is a response to enquiry under the Freedom of Information rules.

I also urge all British Thai Visa members to sign the following UK gov e-petition regarding the changes to the rules last July -

http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/34835

[Tony M]

LookingEast - consider it from the perspective of offshore workers - the old North Sea routine of 3 weeks offshore / 3 weeks onshore, and similar divisions in other production areas could make time apart as much as 50% and thus also the mention of the "unable to accompany" requirement.

I'm curious though, when did the only 2 years of substantive relationship come in? The requirements in Appendix FM and FMSE of the immigration rules for non-EEA settlement still says 4 years.

Also, please note the content of the home office document in the following link, paragraph 23 states only 30 out of 500 spousal/partner settlement visas were granted worldwide in the 2nd half of 2012 - that's just 6% get approved where the applicant is the non-EEA spouse/partner of a natural Briton settled in the UK - - - http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/137718/response/357476/attach/html/3/25041%20Britcits%20IR%20Final%20Response%20and%20report.pdf.html it is a response to enquiry under the Freedom of Information rules.

I also urge all British Thai Visa members to sign the following UK gov e-petition regarding the changes to the rules last July -

http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/34835

Am I missing something ? The question in the FOI request seems to be ( my bold type) :

"How many non-EU parents of British citizens/those with indefinite leave to remain, have applied for a UK settlement visa since 9th July 2012 under the new rules (not 8th July, 9th July) - and of these, how many have been approved, refused and are pending, up until what date?"

What does this have to do with spousal visas ?

[bkk_mike]

If you've been together 2½ years already, why not get married.

It gets rid of this whole question on the visa application

Edited March 17, 2013 by bkk_mike

[lookingeast]

If you've been together 2½ years already, why not get married.

It gets rid of this whole question on the visa application

Generally speaking a reasonable question - and i do see the advantages - but at this time i'm trying to negotiate things with my wider family, AND i had one bad marriage+divorce before so quite frankly, i'm quite cowardly about the whole involvement of the State in what is and always has been a nice harmonious relationship. BUT - i take on board your point completely and we have not ruled out marriage at some point.

[lookingeast]

LookingEast - consider it from the perspective of offshore workers - the old North Sea routine of 3 weeks offshore / 3 weeks onshore, and similar divisions in other production areas could make time apart as much as 50% and thus also the mention of the "unable to accompany" requirement.

I'm curious though, when did the only 2 years of substantive relationship come in? The requirements in Appendix FM and FMSE of the immigration rules for non-EEA settlement still says 4 years.

Also, please note the content of the home office document in the following link, paragraph 23 states only 30 out of 500 spousal/partner settlement visas were granted worldwide in the 2nd half of 2012 - that's just 6% get approved where the applicant is the non-EEA spouse/partner of a natural Briton settled in the UK - - - http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/137718/response/357476/attach/html/3/25041 Britcits IR Final Response and report.pdf.html it is a response to enquiry under the Freedom of Information rules.

I also urge all British Thai Visa members to sign the following UK gov e-petition regarding the changes to the rules last July -

http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/34835

Sorry, but you haven't got hold of the original post at all. By bringing in 'Off-shore workers' (no doubt a special category); but above all by referring to the '4-Year Rule' which has been completely scrapped, and was in any case a route to get straight to 'Indefinite Leave to Remain' (ILR) for couples who'd lived as man & wife for 4 years already. This was scrapped, along with the extension of the total time-scale for moving from simple Entry, to Extension/Permission, to Indefinite Stay/ILR, from 2 years to 5 years in July 2012.

[7by7]

Indeed.

Requirement for unmarried partners and same sex partners is 2 years, and as far as I know always has been.

Four years was the requirement for ILE (Indefinite Leave to Enter); a category for spouses and partners which was scrapped in the changes which came into effect last July.

The FoI question linked to is about the non EEA national parents of British citizens or those with ILR. Nothing to do with the number of spouse/partner applicants and issues rate of same!

However, as far as I am aware off shore workers are not a special category and that is, I believe, one reason why ECOs have an element of discretion in this matter.

[cptruff]

Indeed.

Requirement for unmarried partners and same sex partners is 2 years, and as far as I know always has been.

Four years was the requirement for ILE (Indefinite Leave to Enter); a category for spouses and partners which was scrapped in the changes which came into effect last July.

The FoI question linked to is about the non EEA national parents of British citizens or those with ILR. Nothing to do with the number of spouse/partner applicants and issues rate of same!

However, as far as I am aware off shore workers are not a special category and that is, I believe, one reason why ECOs have an element of discretion in this matter.

Indeed.

Requirement for unmarried partners and same sex partners is 2 years, and as far as I know always has been.

Four years was the requirement for ILE (Indefinite Leave to Enter); a category for spouses and partners which was scrapped in the changes which came into effect last July.

The FoI question linked to is about the non EEA national parents of British citizens or those with ILR. Nothing to do with the number of spouse/partner applicants and issues rate of same!

However, as far as I am aware off shore workers are not a special category and that is, I believe, one reason why ECOs have an element of discretion in this matter.

It is two years. They would also like evidence to support this such as you and your partner's mail addressed to the same address over that period.

I'm still in the very long process of this application. Ours was refused due to lack of 'reliable' evidence of our living together. We appealed and I explained all the reasons why we don't have much evidence. After a very long wait (about 8 months) we finally received the Judge's decision. The judge overturned the ECO's decision.

Even though we had letters from our landlord and from our neighbour the ECO still saw it as insufficient and unreliable. The judge on the other hand saw no problem with it and ruled in our favour.

Hopefully you won't have any of these problems but it does worry me when people talk about the ECO's discretion.