Partner stopped at Immigration for one hour

[BritManToo]

I only wish Thai immigration would do their job as thoroughly!

If they did ... maybe they wouldn't have alowed my first visit ...

If you had money to spend, they did their job and let you in.

Once you have spent all your money, they will again do their job, and escort you to the plane wearing cuffs.

Edited April 4, 2014 by BritManToo

[theoldgit]

OK, lets reign this in and stick to the topic of the original post.

[Seekingasylum]

Since the introduction of visas as leave to enter, the immigration officer's function is to verify the validity of the visa and that it is indeed held by the rightful holder. There is provision to examine further but as a matter of policy this is limited to establishing that the current circumstances in which the person is seeking entry is in accordance with the visa issue and that there has been no change in circumstances that would render the visa ineffective.

This is a simple process and should take an inexperienced officer a matter of minutes and is as routine as it gets. The officer will have immediate access to the original VAF and supporting documents and may refer to this in order to satisfy himself there has been no change. Additionally, if the officer is still dissatisfied he can telephone the sponsor whose number he will most certainly have, either from the VAF or more likely from the passenger, and it would only take a minute or so to assuage any doubts.

However, in this case it seems the officer was in effect on a fishing expedition which evidently resolved to bullying tactics and intimidation. If I were submitted to such treatment I would certainly make a written complaint. The sponsor should have asked to speak to the Chief Immigration Officer present on the control during the desk interview and either obtained his name or, at the very least, his warrant number. Officers must provide this information when asked which is necessary to identify personnel during any subsequent complaints process.

The increasing problem currently being experienced by passengers is the fact that in many instances they are encountering inexperienced staff who may well either be "converted " customs officers or assistant immigration officers who are not, putting it delicately, as intellectually blessed as their senior colleagues. In my experience, they scarcely understand the Rules much beyond the lay person and, certainly, in comprehending the concept of "frequent and regular stays " within Para. 43 etc of the Rules relating to visitors many officers simply haven't a clue.

Always make a written complaint if you feel you have been treated shabbily. Eventually, the offending officer will be identified through their conduct to their management as a consequence.

Desk interviews are neither arduous nor onerous and should not challenge any competent immigration officer. Indeed, for most immigration officers worth even half their salt, it is generally regarded as money for old rope.

[David48]

Since the introduction of visas as leave to enter, the immigration officer's function is to verify the validity of the visa and that it is indeed held by the rightful holder. There is provision to examine further but as a matter of policy this is limited to establishing that the current circumstances in which the person is seeking entry is in accordance with the visa issue and that there has been no change in circumstances that would render the visa ineffective.

This is a simple process and should take an inexperienced officer a matter of minutes and is as routine as it gets. The officer will have immediate access to the original VAF and supporting documents and may refer to this in order to satisfy himself there has been no change. Additionally, if the officer is still dissatisfied he can telephone the sponsor whose number he will most certainly have, either from the VAF or more likely from the passenger, and it would only take a minute or so to assuage any doubts.

However, in this case it seems the officer was in effect on a fishing expedition which evidently resolved to bullying tactics and intimidation. If I were submitted to such treatment I would certainly make a written complaint. The sponsor should have asked to speak to the Chief Immigration Officer present on the control during the desk interview and either obtained his name or, at the very least, his warrant number. Officers must provide this information when asked which is necessary to identify personnel during any subsequent complaints process.

The increasing problem currently being experienced by passengers is the fact that in many instances they are encountering inexperienced staff who may well either be "converted " customs officers or assistant immigration officers who are not, putting it delicately, as intellectually blessed as their senior colleagues. In my experience, they scarcely understand the Rules much beyond the lay person and, certainly, in comprehending the concept of "frequent and regular stays " within Para. 43 etc of the Rules relating to visitors many officers simply haven't a clue.

Always make a written complaint if you feel you have been treated shabbily. Eventually, the offending officer will be identified through their conduct to their management as a consequence.

Desk interviews are neither arduous nor onerous and should not challenge any competent immigration officer. Indeed, for most immigration officers worth even half their salt, it is generally regarded as money for old rope.

A nicely worded post ... but how much of that is supposition?

I'm not saying that you are wrong, but you haven't provided any documented evidence to support your strong statements.

[Seekingasylum]

From the horse's mouth, my dear chap, the horse's mouth.

[bobrussell]

The Immigration officer is entitled to question pretty much anyone attempting to enter the UK. If that person is delayed for an hour then so be it. However all people questioned must be treated with respect and any failure to do this should be reported as a matter of routine.

Bullying and pressure including threats that a further visa will be refused is absolutely unacceptable. It will not be this IO that grants or declines a visa and refusal of entry has to be based on clear evidence that something has changed to make a traveller ineligible for entry. Refusal also has to be confirmed/agreed by a Senior Immigration Officer.

It took the intervention of my MP to prevent my wife and daughter being bundled onto the next available flight because of what I consider a technicality (basically she had a marriage visit visa and re-entered the UK after returning to Thailand following our wedding. The IO decided that she intended to settle in the UK. Not pleasant and I have to say I did not find dealing with them easy.

Luckily for me my MP is just up the road from the house and within 3 days a Chief immigration Officer was putting things right.

[7by7]

Shouldn't it be relatively easy and a preferenance of both applicant and issueing officer to hand out a long term (5-10 year) multi entry visa to the UK after somebody has already visited 2-3 times? I very much like the plan of the Schengen area to hand out multiple entries by default if somebody is a frequent visitor. Lessens the burden on both the authoriticities and and the applicant in means of time and costs.

The UK has for as long for many years, more than I can remember, issued long term visit visas, 2, 5 or 10 years. But the traveller has to apply for one and show that they have a genuine reason to regularly visit the UK.

Unfortunately, the longer the term, the higher the fee. Also if, for some reason, the ECO decides to issue a shorter term than that applied for there is no refund of the difference in fees!

Whatever the term of someone's visit visa, they can still only spend a maximum of 6 months in the UK on any one visit and, usually, no more than 6 months out of any 12 in the UK.

They may still be subject to questioning by immigration on their arrival.

[Donutz]

The UK has for as long for many years, more than I can remember, issued long term visit visas, 2, 5 or 10 years. But the traveller has to apply for one and show that they have a genuine reason to regularly visit the UK.

Unfortunately, the longer the term, the higher the fee. Also if, for some reason, the ECO decides to issue a shorter term than that applied for there is no refund of the difference in fees!

Whatever the term of someone's visit visa, they can still only spend a maximum of 6 months in the UK on any one visit and, usually, no more than 6 months out of any 12 in the UK.

They may still be subject to questioning by immigration on their arrival.

Just my personal opinion but it would seem more fair and attractive (to draw more tourists who will revisit more easily or frequently) to have the same fee for all " short term visas" , let the applicant fill in and argue how many years (s)he wishes to get a visa for. A first time application as a standard being the most thoroughly checked and les likely to get a visa for longer terms or multiple entries. Re-applying applicants being granted a visa which is valid for a longer period (up to 5-10 years) so people may decide to spent their holiday every summer season in the UK, having a visa by hand and really only having to book a flight and get some accommodation. And if a longer term is applied for but denied, then refund the difference... Why would you want to discourage somebody who intents to visit regularly? Such a bona fide traveller only means more money spent in the UK and more money going to the economy, treasury etc. As you say at the border one can always be subjected to questioning and refused iterance if something seems to be off...

The UK visa seems rather expensive too with the fee for biometrics, not having the right of a direct application etc. in total a frequent visitor wastes a lot of money on direct and indirect costs... Hardly encourages bona fide tourists or foreign lovers to come over to the UK frequently. Ohwell if the Schengen states easen up on their visa policies (which already seems less strict then the UK's) tourists may flock their in larger numbers... One wonders if the balance/priority between filter out people with bad or illegal intentions and bona dite regular visitors is set right... At first sight it seems to be off to me, but I haven't read up on UK visa details, regulations and it's outcomes (for traveller, businesses and the state).

As I said to you in a PM, my gf (since 2010) who has living with me in NL on a residence permit since late 2012 and visited me before on short term Schengen visas would like to hop over to see London. Don't feel like bothering with going to a centre fora visa in Germany or Belgium or applying via some sort of centre in NL (who mails the biometrics to the UK, which costs a fee). A visa on arrival should be possible for spouses and long term partners. But getting aboard a ship or plane may be difficult, would have to carry evidence around to show we are entitled to a free visa on arrival and may face a grumpy officer.. in all it's far more appealing to simply go on holiday in the Schengen area and spent our money and time there... More easy and standard short term visa regulations for the entire EU could boost tourism I'd think... Can't see the UK joining Schengen anytime soon... ohwell, stories like the one from the OP is one more reason for not even going to try to get in the UK until my girl obtained dual Dutch-Thai citizenship in a less then two years from now..

[RAZZELL]

If it makes the OP feel any better my wife (now a British Passport holder) got stopped at Heathrow last week.

He looked at her photo and looked again...then asked the female IO next to him for her opinion...my wife laughed and said "I've just been to Thailand and I haven't stopped eating - I've got fat!"

Waved on through with a smile

RAZZ

Edited April 4, 2014 by RAZZELL

[theoldgit]

Off topic post removed, this thread is about the UK Border questioning process.

[soihok]

It was only an example OG.

My missus was questioned (or rather I was about her) in the first of our 2 trips to the UK in 13 years (back in 2004), only to visit family.

With 6 month visa, the first question was "Is she your wife?" (Doh), the second was "How long is she staying for?" (Doh again- 6 month visa in hand).

Then they commented that my passport was dirty.

So much sh**te getting the visa in the first place and for what?

She ain't bothered about going through it all again, and I have to say (as a Brit), neither am I.

As I posted before - the grass is greener on the other side.

[Seekingasylum]

Unless your surnames were the same, her visit visa would not by itself indicate your relationship. Furthermore, all visit visas permit six months entry but not everyone intends a six month stay when they visit. How else would the immigration officer elicit the information he wanted except by asking? Clearly, you are not very intelligent, are you?

Edited April 5, 2014 by Seekingasylum

[worzel]

jeasus mate ive lived and worked in thailand for ten years thai imigration are a load off shits and i bet youre misses dosent have to go to france every 90days and be put in her place by the idiots . yes i could pay more tax ect so i dont have to leave every 90 days but for what get nothing for tax i pay here so stop moaning if gb had tigthened the laws years ago it wouldnt be in the shit it is now

Sent from my GT-P1000T using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[NanLaew]

I first read this post a couple of days ago. Then today, I was listening to an Economist podcast for "The week ahead: March 29th 2014", and it mentioned that the UKBA was introducing their "Anti-slavery Teams" at UK airports from 'next week'. I did a quick google search and came up with this link from 21st February that states, "The first team will be based at Heathrow from 1 April before the scheme is rolled out to other airports." There's other new wires, agencies and media reporting the same thing.

I would think that the OP's partner was observed as possibly being linked to the group of other Thai ladies and that was why they were all given the third degree. The comments from the UKBA officer regarding being in touch with the OP may happen if there's any doubt after her release but I would think not. The statement may have been an attempt to shake his partners resolve if indeed she was being trafficked. However, their further espousing that the OP's partner should get married and future visit visas would be in jeopardy wouldn't seem to be in their remit. They are just doing their jobs but some may be better at it than others. It is a new task force btw so maybe procedures are a bit untested right now.

I think this is something that anyone with a Thai partner who travels unaccompanied and frequently to the UK needs to be aware of as the actual introduction of the service hasn't seen as much media exposure as the February article.

I do not think the OP's partner has grounds to complain, much less the OP himself.

Good to see that there's some focus on trafficking versus the random stop, lucky-dip approach but at the same time, I hope it is refined and developed and not just a one-off to check some government Minister's 'look what I have done' box that runs out of steam because nobody gives a toss.

Edited April 5, 2014 by NanLaew

[chiang mai]

One only needs to go on gumtree and type "Thai" and you can understand.

I did that, out of curiosity, I see the problem I'd not seen before.

[BritManToo]

Anyone thought of recording these interviews on a smartphone?

Being obvious while doing it.

"Sorry my English not so good, mind if I record it for later, to check I understand everything?"

[Seekingasylum]

Akin to Thai restaurants, not all businesses in the UK purporting to offer "Thai " services, etc., are necessarily Thai.

Nevertheless, in the UK there are approximately 500,000 + indigenous nationals offering such services so any migrant contribution has to be seen in that context.

The notion that all Thai females aged between 18 - 35 arriving at UK airports should merit closer scrutiny on the grounds they may be trafficked for purposes of prostitution is silly, not a little offensive and quite discriminatory. Certainly, if my wife were to be questioned along such lines the offending officer would find my boot swiftly up their arse and that isn't totally a metaphor.

[chiang mai]

A person has to wonder if this is not the "Sun" effect coming into play, I mean, immigration from Thailand is such a small, almost microscopic percentage of the the total immigration count, why focus on Thai females? Because they can, because it's easy, because it's a power trip.

And despite my earlier remarks about gumtree which I have now reconsidered, my suspicion is that in any total of say twenty adverts, there's only two or three actual suppliers!

[Rimmer]

One nasty post removed.

[Donutz]

Chiang Mai, don't forget about short stay visas. I don't know the number of visa issued to Thai people but with Schengen visa's Thai are roughly in the 15-16th place. I don't know the UK statistics of Thai either but in the Netherlands Thai immigrants are in the top 20 as well (don't have the stats at hand and unfortunately don't know them by heart). The focus is probably mostly or only on short term visas to detect and stop victims of human trafficking, those who plan to work illegally (which would include massage, prostitution etc.) or illegal settlement. What the numbers are of Thai being victim of human trafficking, illegal employment or not returning in time I do not know, not for the Schengen area or neither the UK. All of Europe seems to focus on these types of risks though for obvious reasons. If the focus on Thai in general or on an individual Thai traveller are therefor called or uncalled for I do not know..

[soihok]

Unless your surnames were the same, her visit visa would not by itself indicate your relationship. Furthermore, all visit visas permit six months entry but not everyone intends a six month stay when they visit. How else would the immigration officer elicit the information he wanted except by asking? Clearly, you are not very intelligent, are you?

Same surnames.

Same surname for 3 year old disabled daughter with British passport but made to wait in the non EU passport queue (which was miles long). Its a family get it?

Regarding length of stay, would anyone with a 6 month visa say 6 months a day?

Clearly you have no idea what you are on about.

Wierdo

Edited April 5, 2014 by soihok

[anon11]

Oh come on border controls have the right o pull anyone over for a chat check them out......bet over it...you really think that your complaint will do anything ....hellooooooooooooooooo

[ravip]

UKBA had pulled her over for questioning for over an hour and was saying things like why do you keep coming to the county (UK) every year and stay for several months, why don't you get married, you wont be able o come next year as your visa will be refused.

Now imagine that this was concerning a UK citizen visiting his Thai girlfriend, and he got this reply from Thai immigration.

I wonder if the same posters as above still would say, immigration was just doing their job .

Same question came to my mind reading all these posts.

It is incredible how the human mind works!

(human being (Homo sapiens), a culture-bearing primate that is anatomically similar and related to the other great apes but is distinguished by a more highly developed brain and a resultant capacity for articulate speech and abstract reasoning).

Shame, shame , shame!

[ravip]

I only wish Thai immigration would do their job as thoroughly!

If they did ... maybe they wouldn't have alowed my first visit ...

If you had money to spend, they did their job and let you in.

Once you have spent all your money, they will again do their job, and escort you to the plane wearing cuffs.

Perfect!

Which country would pay me to stay once my money is gone?

[JesseFrank]

UKBA had pulled her over for questioning for over an hour and was saying things like why do you keep coming to the county (UK) every year and stay for several months, why don't you get married, you wont be able o come next year as your visa will be refused.

Now imagine that this was concerning a UK citizen visiting his Thai girlfriend, and he got this reply from Thai immigration.

I wonder if the same posters as above still would say, immigration was just doing their job .

Same question came to my mind reading all these posts.

It is incredible how the human mind works!

(human being (Homo sapiens), a culture-bearing primate that is anatomically similar and related to the other great apes but is distinguished by a more highly developed brain and a resultant capacity for articulate speech and abstract reasoning).

Shame, shame , shame!

I think in that case this thread would have now about 500(0) posts, instead of 54, all condemning Thai immigration..

Edited April 5, 2014 by JesseFrank

[NanLaew]

Akin to Thai restaurants, not all businesses in the UK purporting to offer "Thai " services, etc., are necessarily Thai.

Nevertheless, in the UK there are approximately 500,000 + indigenous nationals offering such services so any migrant contribution has to be seen in that context.

The notion that all Thai females aged between 18 - 35 arriving at UK airports should merit closer scrutiny on the grounds they may be trafficked for purposes of prostitution is silly, not a little offensive and quite discriminatory. Certainly, if my wife were to be questioned along such lines the offending officer would find my boot swiftly up their arse and that isn't totally a metaphor.

Where has anything ever been said about ".. all Thai females aged between 18 - 35 arriving at UK airports..." being subject to greater scrutiny? Is that how you read it?

Why would an organised and legitimate procedure to detect and assist those being illegally trafficked cause you and your wife such great offence? Just because she comes from a country that is RENOWNED for it's very active participation in such activities? There's a greater amount of people being sold into slave labour than participating in sex slavery so try and think outside your narrow constructs that apparently has the average UKBA officer thinking, "His wife is Thai, she must be a hooker."

You sound like some sort of pompous NIMBY where the UKBA officer can do their job but PLEASE don't apply "your offensive and quite discriminatory procedures" to my wife and I.

As for your "boot swiftly up their arse" reaction, I guess we will "see you in court" then?

NO metaphor!

[theoldgit]

Insulting post removed, if you have something constructive to add to this debate please feel free to post, please don't resort to making insulting remarks at Immigration Officers.

[marstons]

Akin to Thai restaurants, not all businesses in the UK purporting to offer "Thai " services, etc., are necessarily Thai.

Nevertheless, in the UK there are approximately 500,000 + indigenous nationals offering such services so any migrant contribution has to be seen in that context.

The notion that all Thai females aged between 18 - 35 arriving at UK airports should merit closer scrutiny on the grounds they may be trafficked for purposes of prostitution is silly, not a little offensive and quite discriminatory. Certainly, if my wife were to be questioned along such lines the offending officer would find my boot swiftly up their arse and that isn't totally a metaphor.

Spoken like a true key board warrior. |So how would you go about swiftly getting your boot up his arse, go back through immigration, locate the officer then assault him. humour me talk me through it, before the part where you would have been arrested.

Called profiling for which they are well trained.

[RAZZELL]

I would've thought IO's would be better off checking Albanians, Czechs and Slovaks, Poles, Romanians, Russians and the odd Brazilian or Columbian if they're truly interested in trafficking.

Look at any Court List in the UK and see the names

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2601749/Pimp-raked-2MILLION-running-Britains-sex-call-centre-ordered-pay-just-10-ill-gotten-gains.html

RAZZ