Appealing UK Settlement Visa Rejection of Wife's son

[Kevin1908]

The rejection note is irrelevant to the comments raised but since you ask the ECO cosidered that the father had a significant role in the boy's life. that is not the case and the crux of the appeal.

But you contradict yourself at the start by saying

The crucial reason that UKBA turned doen the application seems to stem from the telephone interview with the boy. I want to get the wife to get him to make a statement correcting the interview. This was done while he was in class at school and he had problems hearing and understanding.

Your point is? I wont say what the boy said, what the transcript said is not true. Why is what I said a contracdiction. I will repest the question again. What documents does my wife need to bring from Thailand. The slag fest is off topic.

If you can't contribute what is the point of replying?

[7by7]

We don't know why the ECO believed the father plays a significant role in the boy's life because you wont tell us; so it is impossible to answer your question.

Why don't you understand that?

Why do you believe the transcript is not true? Why would the ECO make it up?

Edited August 6, 2013 by 7by7

[Kevin1908]

The rejection note is irrelevant to the comments raised but since you ask the ECO cosidered that the father had a significant role in the boy's life. that is not the case and the crux of the appeal.

The refusal notice most certainly is not irrelevant!

Why did the ECO consider that? The refusal notice should say.

I cannot understand why you wont tell us what it says, exactly, yet abuse those who do try to advise you based upon the very limited information which you are prepared to provide.

It is the reasons the ECO believed that which you have to overcome. If we don't know what those reason are, we cannot advise you.

Your lawyer presumably has seen the refusal notice; what is their advice?

The rection note is irrelevant to the question I asked on the op. I have never the less told you what the rejection note said but you chose to ignore it.

I am not asking for your advice on the appeal. I was asking about the documents that it might be a good idea for mty wife to get when she is back in Thailand, but again you chose to ignore that.

The advice that the lawyer has given is none of your concern or anything to do with this thread.

What tou wrote on page 1 "

My final word to you on this matter.

Do not take the word of a translator or someone who works at the Thai embassy in London on UK immigration matters; especially in what appears to be a complex appeal!

Seek competent, professional advice from a grade 3 OISC advisor or a UK based solicitor who specialises in immigration appeals.

Up to you whether or not you do so.

" and yet you just had to but in again.

[7by7]

You have not said exactly what the refusal notice says.

It will, or should, give the reasons for the ECO believing what s/he did.

Until we know those reasons, we cannot say what you need to provide to counter them.

I am not the only one to have asked you what it says.

But you wont tell us.

Why not?

[2yearvisitvisa]

7by7 why the fixation with knowing what the notice states? It's slightly creepy.

[Jay Sata]

I don't want to get in to an argument but I'd say your biggest problem is the telephone interview where the child let it

be known he has sufficient contact with the father over and above what your are suggesting.

You seem to think the whole thing hinges on financial support but that is not the case.

You are going to have to overcome the child's interview and I'm not sure how you do that.

Signed statements are meaningless especially when the come from a child.

I appreciate the father may wish for the child to come to the UK but what if the kid has said he'd rather stay in Thailand?

Edited August 6, 2013 by Jay Sata

[simple1]

OP: Not an expert but the only additional document, that as I understand confirms sole responsibility for the child in Thailand, is called a Kor Por 14. Ask your lawyer if it is constructive/relevant to obtain whilst your wife is in Thailand

[Kevin1908]

We don't know why the ECO believed the father plays a significant role in the boy's life because you wont tell us; so it is impossible to answer your question.

Why don't you understand that?

Why do you believe the transcript is not true? Why would the ECO make it up?

I don't know why the ECO belives that the father plays a significant part in the boys life either.

You equally don't understand the question either. I knew before posting here and asking the simple question, "what documents would it be a good idea for the wife to bring back to the UK" would just start a slag fest. I cannot believe that this case is unique so somebody must have gone through this before.

I am not saying that the transcript is untrue, just that is doesn't make sense. The questions are ambiguous. This is clear from the answers given. That the boys mother lived with me from 2004 when I didn't meet her until 2011. From 2005 until 2007 I was living in the UK with my ex wife. How could I have been livining in Thailand with another woman? The ECO didn't pick up on this or numerous other inconsistancies but some how manage to deduce that the boy's father plays a significant role in his life.

It strikes me that the ECO chose to believe certain statements then totally ignore others.

[Kevin1908]

OP: Not an expert but the only additional document, that as I understand confirms sole responsibility for the child in Thailand, is called a Kor Por 14. Ask your lawyer if it is constructive/relevant to obtain whilst your wife is in Thailand

Thanks you for that. That is the sort of advice that might be useful. I will look into this.

[2yearvisitvisa]

You may also wish to instruct a Thai lawyer so you wife can be awarded sole custody through the provincial court. In that case you would not require the por kor14. A friend recently did this and it cost 15000 the only.

[Jay Sata]

Just out of curiosity (and nothing to do with Kevin's problem) what happens during an interview if a child says he does not want to leave his

extended family and friends for a new life in the UK?

Would such an answer to the question 'do you want to go to the UK' negate the application?

[Kevin1908]

I don't want to get in to an argument but I'd say your biggest problem is the telephone interview where the child let it

be known he has sufficient contact with the father over and above what your are suggesting.

I agree with that.

You seem to think the whole thing hinges on financial support but that is not the case.

No I don't. The word used by the ECO was responsibility. I don't consider Facebook chat as taking responsibility. If that were the case then all absent dads everywhere could make one or two Facebook chats a week then claim they were "repsonsible"

You are going to have to overcome the child's interview and I'm not sure how you do that.

Agree. That is why I want him to make a statement to the facts.

Signed statements are meaningless especially when the come from a child.

Why is a signed statement less relevant than an interview on a mobile phone during a school day during a class. If that was the case we would despense with court hearings and try criminal cases by mobile phone.

I appreciate the father may wish for the child to come to the UK but what if the kid has said he'd rather stay in Thailand?

The kid has stated that he wants to go to the UK. The father has said he does not object to him going.

My preference is for him to come to the UK and attend the hearing himself and he can speak in his own words, well the words of a translator.

[2yearvisitvisa]

I should add that this carries considerably more weight thank pk14 and will be closely considered by the ukba.

[Jay Sata]

Could he get a family visit visa to attend the hearing?

I'm not sure if children are allowed a voice in such a court case?

[Kevin1908]

You may also wish to instruct a Thai lawyer so you wife can be awarded sole custody through the provincial court. In that case you would not require the por kor14. A friend recently did this and it cost 15000 the only.

The divorce decree Kor Por 6 clearly states that the sole custody is with the mother. What is the Kor Por 14 exactly?

[Kevin1908]

Could he get a family visit visa to attend the hearing?

I'm not sure if children are allowed a voice in such a court case?

Doesn't that counter your arguement about the phone interview? I thought Tony said that that was possible.

[simple1]

You may also wish to instruct a Thai lawyer so you wife can be awarded sole custody through the provincial court. In that case you would not require the por kor14. A friend recently did this and it cost 15000 the only.

The divorce decree Kor Por 6 clearly states that the sole custody is with the mother. What is the Kor Por 14 exactly?

Sorry, its correctly called a Por Kor 14. From a Thai government website "a letter guaranteeing sole guardianship issued by her domicile district office (Por Kor 14)" Look at the wording in the URL below as it may provide some additional insight .As I said, suggest you check with your lawyer to see if it is relevant or not to your wife's circumstances.

http://www.mfa.go.th/main/en/services/1415/21479-Requirements-for-the-Ordinary-e-Passports-Applicat.html

Edited August 6, 2013 by simple1

[7by7]

7by7 why the fixation with knowing what the notice states? It's slightly creepy.

For the reasons stated; but I will repeat.

Without knowing the exact reasons given by the ECO for believing that the father still plays a significant role in the boy's life it is impossible to advise on how to counter the ECO's belief.

Which I'd have thought was obvious.

But Kevin thinks otherwise and has consistently, in this and other topics, for some refused to post those reasons

As said by someone far more knowledgeable than I:-

It would be good to know what the refusal notice says, and the content of the telephone transcripts. I suspect that there may be more there than just the apparent continued contact, to whatever degree, with the father.

Edit:

A PK 6 is a sole custody document; but it is not evidence of sole responsibility and will not be accepted as such.

A PK 14 can be used to support a claim of sole responsibility, but by itself will not be enough. Particularly as, for reasons Kevin wont tell us, the ECO believes that responsibility is shared.

Edited August 6, 2013 by 7by7

[Jay Sata]

I suspect Kevin feels that financial support for a child is 90% of the argument. As those of us who have been divorced in the UK know the courts

don't look at things like an accountant.

In the case of my wife and myself we have supported my stepson financially 100% since he was a baby. (He is now 17).

However because we only spend part of the year in the UK it was never going to make sense to bring him over so he has lived with his grandmother in Thailand. We see him for about half the year and talk two or three times a week but I would say that his grandmother

is the primary figure in his life.

I wonder if there is another part of Kevin's story we don't know which perhaps mirrors ours?

[2yearvisitvisa]

7by7 why the fixation with knowing what the notice states? It's slightly creepy.

For the reasons stated; but I will repeat.

Without knowing the exact reasons given by the ECO for believing that the father still plays a significant role in the boy's life it is impossible to advise on how to counter the ECO's belief.

Which I'd have thought was obvious.

But Kevin thinks otherwise and has consistently, in this and other topics, for some refused to post those

As said by someone far more knowledgeable than I:-

It would be good to know what the refusal notice says, and the content of the telephone transcripts. I suspect that there may be more there than just the apparent continued contact, to whatever degree, with the father.

Edit:

A PK 6 is a sole custody document; but it is not evidence of sole responsibility and will not be accepted as such.

A PK 14 can be used to support a claim of sole responsibility, but by itself will not be enough. Particularly as, for reasons Kevin wont tell us, the ECO believes that responsibility is shared.

I take it back. It's not slightly creepy

[Seekingasylum]

I rather think folk, including the OP, are getting a little hung up on documentation sourced from Thailand.

The essence of what constitutes sole responsibility is clearly defined in the guidance notes for ECOs, the thrust of which is, inter alia, the degree of support from the sponsoring parent, their contact with the child, the duration of any separation and confirmation the child has been resident with the sponsoring parent's family during such a period and the lack of any parental guidance and support from the other parent.

A custody order is obviously useful but not in itself indicative of any contribution the father in this case may or may not have made to the child's development that may be taken into account by the ECO. Usually, sole custody orders do not exclude or prohibit one parent from exercising some responsibility unless such a condition was expressly made by the Court issuing the order.

The OP states the ECO's refusal is irrelevant. This may well be right but it is only the immigration judge who can determine that and after hearing evidence that whatever formed the basis of the refusal was flawed either in law or on the basis of fact. That is, after all, what the appeal is about and for the OP to dismiss it in the context of this thread is really quite perverse.

Evidently, the child told the ECO something upon which he subsequently placed great weight. I can only speculate but I imagine it may have been something in the order of: "Yes, I speak to my father regularly and frequently" or, in response to a hypothetical question wherein the child was asked who he might live with if his mother could not take him, " I would stay with my father etc ".

If whatever the child said transpires to have been misunderstood by the ECO or was entirely erroneous then any such contention would have to be considered by the judge. Frankly, depending upon the age of the child, I doubt any judge would place great store by what a minor may have said during a telephone call with a stranger, the importance of which he could not reasonably be expected to understand, if it were to fly in the face of proven facts adduced by the mother.

The problem facing those submitting applications based on sole responsibility is that the strict interpretation of the test is further constrained by the current " all or nothing " approach adopted by ECOs. Crudely put, one sniff of the other parent and they'll knock it back and leave to the judge to sort out as the case worker of final resort. Quite wrong really but there it is.

[Kevin1908]

I rather think folk, including the OP, are getting a little hung up on documentation sourced from Thailand.

The essence of what constitutes sole responsibility is clearly defined in the guidance notes for ECOs, the thrust of which is, inter alia, the degree of support from the sponsoring parent, their contact with the child, the duration of any separation and confirmation the child has been resident with the sponsoring parent's family during such a period and the lack of any parental guidance and support from the other parent.

A custody order is obviously useful but not in itself indicative of any contribution the father in this case may or may not have made to the child's development that may be taken into account by the ECO. Usually, sole custody orders do not exclude or prohibit one parent from exercising some responsibility unless such a condition was expressly made by the Court issuing the order.

The OP states the ECO's refusal is irrelevant. This may well be right but it is only the immigration judge who can determine that and after hearing evidence that whatever formed the basis of the refusal was flawed either in law or on the basis of fact. That is, after all, what the appeal is about and for the OP to dismiss it in the context of this thread is really quite perverse.

Evidently, the child told the ECO something upon which he subsequently placed great weight. I can only speculate but I imagine it may have been something in the order of: "Yes, I speak to my father regularly and frequently" or, in response to a hypothetical question wherein the child was asked who he might live with if his mother could not take him, " I would stay with my father etc ".

If whatever the child said transpires to have been misunderstood by the ECO or was entirely erroneous then any such contention would have to be considered by the judge. Frankly, depending upon the age of the child, I doubt any judge would place great store by what a minor may have said during a telephone call with a stranger, the importance of which he could not reasonably be expected to understand, if it were to fly in the face of proven facts adduced by the mother.

The problem facing those submitting applications based on sole responsibility is that the strict interpretation of the test is further constrained by the current " all or nothing " approach adopted by ECOs. Crudely put, one sniff of the other parent and they'll knock it back and leave to the judge to sort out as the case worker of final resort. Quite wrong really but there it is.

When I said irrelevant that as in the context of the discussion here, not to the appeal. It wasn't necessarily official documents that I was seeking bit I was uncertain on Thai law as to what was available but I have now had some advice on what to supply such as correpondence from the school, doctor, anything witha reference to the where the child has been living.

My concern with the results of the telephone interview is that I know were answers given to certain questions that were not true. I know that they are not true because they apertain to me. Now I don't know whether he intentaionally lied, whether he gave the answer he thought that they wanted to hear for fear of being turned down, didn't understand the question or the question was ambiguous or the transcipt does not represent was was asked and said. I don't believe the first two but having seen the transcripts the questions are vague and ambiguous.

Q When did your parents seperate.

A They divorced in 2003. The question was when did they seperate, not divorce. To the mother the question was When did the father leave. A I divorced the father in 2005. Again not an answer to the quesion. To the father the question was when did you leave. A I divorced his mother in 2004. Apart from 3 different answers ranging over 3 years neither the boy, the father of the mother answered the question as it was put in the transcipt.

The next question put to the boy was where did you live after their separation. The next question was where was your mother. I suppose that you can infer that the interview ment where was your mother after the separation bout the boy answered She met stepfather and stayed with him in Bangkok.

Who was the stepfather? Well it certainly wasn't me but the ECO never the less stated in the rejection that the mother was living with me and stated my name. After the divorce the mother was living with her brother. I don't know what other questions were not understood or answered incorrectly.

[Kevin1908]

7by7 why the fixation with knowing what the notice states? It's slightly creepy.

For the reasons stated; but I will repeat.

Without knowing the exact reasons given by the ECO for believing that the father still plays a significant role in the boy's life it is impossible to advise on how to counter the ECO's belief.

Which I'd have thought was obvious.

But Kevin thinks otherwise and has consistently, in this and other topics, for some refused to post those reasons

As said by someone far more knowledgeable than I:-

It would be good to know what the refusal notice says, and the content of the telephone transcripts. I suspect that there may be more there than just the apparent continued contact, to whatever degree, with the father.

Edit:

A PK 6 is a sole custody document; but it is not evidence of sole responsibility and will not be accepted as such.

A PK 14 can be used to support a claim of sole responsibility, but by itself will not be enough. Particularly as, for reasons Kevin wont tell us, the ECO believes that responsibility is shared.

If you can explain how sharing the details of the rejection affects the question that I posed in the op then I will have something to consider. Merely adding the rejection word for word because a cyber bully demanded it is not relevant to the question asked in th op.

[7by7]

I have no intention of giving into a cyber bully and retype or attach a scan of a three page rejection letter that has no bearing on the question that I asked on the op.

You just don't get it.

As you have been told on numerous occasions by numerous people in numerous topics, the refusal notice has every bearing on the matter and all questions to do with it.

Unless people know exactly what it says, any advice given to you, any answers to your questions are pure speculation.

Yet you still refuse to post it, and all you do when people who are trying to help you point the above out to you is throw insults at them.

Unbelievable!

[metisdead]

I think there has been plenty of good advice and suggestion offered. As the OP seems to skirt the issue and not provide answers to questions that have been asked, I think it's time to close this so that other people's time is not wasted any longer in this matter.

CLOSED