Three ways to bring your Thai Wife to the UK!

[beano2274]

Just looked at my wifes Aufenthaltskarte it states:

Residence Card of a Family Member of a Union Citizen

with notes including the fact that I am exercising my Freedom of Movement, so looks good to try if we go to the UK sometime.

[Donutz]

Just looked at my wifes Aufenthaltskarte it states:

Residence Card of a Family Member of a Union Citizen

with notes including the fact that I am exercising my Freedom of Movement, so looks good to try if we go to the UK sometime.

It should though I wouldn't give you a 100% guarantee. Since your wife has a German EU/EEA RC she should be able to board a plane (or ferry but then British immigration would already need to be passed first), even if the airliner wouldn't know about the directive a call to the UK border agency should settle this.

People from other countries face more challenges: those with a Dutch EU/EEA RC are toldby British autohorities that they do not qualify for visa free entry and I have seen several reports of these people unrightfully being denied entry even though IF a visa would be required (which is not the case if the UK respected 2004/38 and accepted the RCs from all member states) one could still get a visa (A1 stamp) at the border. It's a blooddy shame that the UK has not implemented the directive 10 years on! Or that airliners at times do a piss poor job too as if no one ever flied to the EU/EEA with their EU spouse.

And try getting proper info from abroad, getting this info from an outsourced party (VFS) is rather unlikely, even actual embassy staff, ECO or borderguards don't always seem to be able to cope with less common applications.

Partner can come to Germany to reunite with you on an EU Family Permit, issued free at the German embassy abroad( they also state that the free family permit can and must be issued even at the German border control without question or hinderance).

On arrival in Germany, your partner would apply for a residence permit, with no requirement of employment.

Once she has this, you can then both come to UK. No visa, as the partner is an EU resident.

This is valid for 5 years from the date of entry into Germany.

Approximately 4.5 years into the uk stay, she would go back to Thailand, you would go back to Germany, she would then immediately re-apply for another family permit. Same process, Germany then to uk.

You cannot instantly move from Germany to the UK with your THai spouse if you are a UK national. You will have to stay atleast 3 months in an other EU/EEA country as was ruled by the EU high court in march of this year (case vs the Netherlands: C-456/12 - O. and B. ECLI:EU:C:2014:135), anything less makes it rather unlikely that you have actually moved your center of life abroad. In specific cases it may work out but I'd rather not take that risk and live atleast 3 months in the other EU/EEA state before returning to my own EU nation. Angryparent may have moved back after just two months (?) from Ireland to the UK and succesfully did so, I wouldn't advice doing that though.

And after departing Germany the German RC would expire (they may even ask you do hand it in upon announcing your emigration but you aren't obligated to do so, atleast not untill you succesfully registrated back in your EU country of origin with your spouse, though I am not sure if even then you would be obligated to return the card and have the ressidency status revoked -for no longer living there-). , so if you'd move to the UK for a few years and then would go to Thailand (why??) and then to Germany you'd need to apply for ressidency there once more (why would you go back there unless it would personally suit you?).

Brieftly: move from Thailand to Germany (UK national and Thai spouse), register there as a resident (spouse gets EU/EEA card), live there for atleast 3 months (employed, self sufficient, ...) and when you are ready move to the UK. Show UK immigration that you have excersized your rights under 2004/38/EC and the Thai spouse should get ressidency in the UK aswell.

Edit: 3 months required (2 months is not sufficient) & short trips or only spending weekends in the member state is not sufficient. In both cases there is no evidence of settling there and therefore of the Union citizen’s genuine residence :

On the other hand, an obstacle such as that referred to in paragraph 47 above may be created where the Union citizen intends to exercise his rights under Article 7(1) of Directive 2004/38. Residence in the host Member State pursuant to and in conformity with the conditions set out in Article 7(1) of that directive is, in principle, evidence of settling there and therefore of the Union citizen’s genuine residence in the host Member State and goes hand in hand with creating and strengthening family life in that Member State.

Where, during the genuine residence of the Union citizen in the host Member State, pursuant to and in conformity with the conditions set out in Article 7(1) and (2) of Directive 2004/38, family life is created or strengthened in that Member State, the effectiveness of the rights conferred on the Union citizen by Article 21(1) TFEU requires that the citizen’s family life in the host Member State may continue on returning to the Member of State of which he is a national, through the grant of a derived right of residence to the family member who is a third‑country national. If no such derived right of residence were granted, that Union citizen could be discouraged from leaving the Member State of which he is a national in order to exercise his right of residence under Article 21(1) TFEU in another Member State because he is uncertain whether he will be able to continue in his Member State of origin a family life with his immediate family members which has been created or strengthened in the host Member State (see, to that effect, Eind, paragraphs 35 and 36, and Iida, paragraph 70).

A fortiori, the effectiveness of Article 21(1) TFEU requires that the Union citizen may continue, on returning to the Member State of which he is a national, the family life which he led in the host Member State, if he and the family member concerned who is a third‑country national have been granted a permanent right of residence in the host Member State pursuant to Article 16(1) and (2) of Directive 2004/38 respectively.

Accordingly, it is genuine residence in the host Member State of the Union citizen and of the family member who is a third‑country national, pursuant to and in conformity with the conditions set out in Article 7(1) and (2) and Article 16(1) and (2) of Directive 2004/38 respectively, which creates, on the Union citizen’s return to his Member State of origin, a derived right of residence, on the basis of Article 21(1) TFEU, for the third‑country national with whom that citizen lived as a family in the host Member State.

It is for the referring court to determine whether sponsor O and sponsor B, who are both Union citizens, settled and, therefore, genuinely resided in the host Member State and whether, on account of living as a family during that period of genuine residence, Mr O. and Mr B. enjoyed a derived right of residence in the host Member State pursuant to and in conformity with Article 7(2) or Article 16(2) of Directive 2004/38.

It should be added that the scope of Union law cannot be extended to cover abuses (see, to that effect, Case C‑110/99 Emsland‑Stärke [2000] ECR I‑11569, paragraph 51, and Case C‑303/08 Bozkurt [2010] ECR I‑13445, paragraph 47). Proof of such an abuse requires, first, a combination of objective circumstances in which, despite formal observance of the conditions laid down by the European Union rules, the purpose of those rules has not been achieved, and, secondly, a subjective element consisting in the intention to obtain an advantage from the European Union rules by artificially creating the conditions laid down for obtaining it (Case C‑364/10 Hungary v Slovakia [2012] ECR, paragraph 58).

As regards the question whether the cumulative effect of various short periods of residence in the host Member State may create a derived right of residence for a family member of a Union citizen who is a third‑country national on the citizen’s return to the Member State of which he is a national, it should be borne in mind that only a period of residence satisfying the conditions set out in Article 7(1) and (2) and Article 16(1) and (2) of Directive 2004/38 will give rise to such a right of residence. In that regard, short periods of residence such as weekends or holidays spent in a Member State other than that of which the citizen in question is a national, even when considered together, fall within the scope of Article 6 of Directive 2004/38 and do not satisfy those conditions.

So far as concerns Mr O., who, according to the order for reference, holds a residence card as a family member of a Union citizen pursuant to Article 10 of Directive 2004/38, it should be borne in mind that Union law does not require the authorities of the Member State of which the Union citizen in question is a national to grant a derived right of residence to a third-country national who is a member of that citizen’s family because of the mere fact that, in the host Member State, that third-country national held a valid residence permit (see Eind, paragraph 26). A residence card issued on the basis of Article 10 of Directive 2004/38 has a declaratory, as opposed to a constitutive, character (see Case C‑325/09 Dias [2011] ECR I‑6387, paragraph 49).

In the light of all the foregoing considerations, the answer to the first, second and third questions is that Article 21(1) TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that where a Union citizen has created or strengthened a family life with a third‑country national during genuine residence, pursuant to and in conformity with the conditions set out in Article 7(1) and (2) and Article 16(1) and (2) of Directive 2004/38, in a Member State other than that of which he is a national, the provisions of that directive apply by analogy where that Union citizen returns, with the family member in question, to his Member State of origin. Therefore, the conditions for granting a derived right of residence to a third‑country national who is a family member of that Union citizen, in the latter’s Member State of origin, should not, in principle, be more strict than those provided for by that directive for the grant of a derived right of residence to a third‑country national who is a family member of a Union citizen who has exercised his right of freedom of movement by becoming established in a Member State other than the Member State of which he is a national.

Edited August 31, 2014 by Donutz

[beano2274]

Sent an email to UKVI got this answer back:

Thank you for contacting the UK Visas and Immigrations Internationalenquiry service. Your wife needs a visa to travel to the UK as she does not hold an EEApassport. You can check your eligibility to come in the UK through the following link:https://www.gov.uk/check-uk-visa/y Then, you would have to create an account onhttps://www.visa4uk.fco.gov.uk/ and complete the request form to get thevisa that will allow you to come to the UK.You’ll need to:register for an account fill in the application form in English pay for the visa fee online (in most cases) print out your formbook and attend an appointment at a visa application centre  You also need to:have all the supporting documents you need for your visatranslate any supporting documents and include them with the originals ifthey aren’t in English For any further details, or should you need to contact us again pleaserefer to our website at https://ukvi-international.faq-help.com/, selectappropriate country, click next and then select 'E-Mail form' and completeas instructed. We will aim to come back to you within 1 day. 

[beano2274]

The surprising thing about the answer was that it was time stamped at 01.15hrs Thai time, or in the UK 1915hrs, don"t believe that UKVI are open that time of night, leads me to believe it is outsourced to someone else maybe in another country.

[Donutz]

Seems like a copy/paste to me, possible from an outsourced party. I have contacted UKVI twice, the first reply did not make any sense at all, the second mail still not not cover my inquiry properly -asking about me as a Dutchy wishing to travel to the UK with my partner who I have had 2 years of residency with me as my unmarried partner. The second mail was by somebody with a Japanese name @ 22:24 hours UK time and the first one by somebody with a foreign name @ 2:44 AM UK time.

So yes though it doesn't state so I believe those are answers by an external party:

- Contents are very brief, perhaps from a cheart cheat and mostly copy/paste work. Though rookie UJVI staff may also not be aware about specifics except general/common Q&A and not so much rare questions such as regarding EU treaties.

- Odd time of the mails unless UKVI has staff working their asses off 24/7, so I doubt the senders are UK based.

- Foreign names, sure lots of foreigners in the UK and elsewhere in the EU, but due to the above two points it seems more likely that this is outsourced staff. Perhaps they have one huge mailbox and people who work (via an external party) may answer any mails there, or certain offices across the globe are allocated a bunch of mails? I sent both questions during Dutch office hours. Replies followed a bit (1-2) days later.

* The did seem to be written with sincere intends and kindness though (adressing me by my firstname etc.). . So I have no issues with the person who wrote these ansers, they simply did not cover my questions with sufficient detail/knowledge on the subject I inquired about.

I hope I don't have to point out that being a foreign is not the issue (if anything it would be a nice bonus, though every person needs to be judged on their own merrits). But the answers just don't seem to be made by experienced UKVI staff who have hands on experience or knowledge of both UK and EU rules, regulations etc. Same reason why I find external parties for visas a hell, they can answer general, common, questions but if ask more complicated questions or ask follow up questions then you'lll soon meet a dead end...

The answer you recieved seems rather odd too.

- The changes implemented late 2013 don't say anything about it not applying to UK nationals who executed their rights abroad in an other member state. Even though right now for some silly reason the UK only accepts Jerry and Estonian cards, surely they'd clearly state that those would not be eligable (if that would be legal by the EU directive would be a whole other thing).

- The Advocate General’s opinion in the McCarthy and Others Case C-202/13:

http://curia.europa.eu/juris/celex.jsf?celex=62013CC0202&lang1=en&type=TXT&ancre=

Though the court has yet to make a ruling, as far as I understand 2004/38/EC (and I'm not a lawyer or expert on immigration matters, just someone who has been reading into visa matters) normally a EU national cannot excersize their treaty in their own country EXCEPT if one has excersized those rights in an other EU/EEA member state.

It's a bloody shame that the UKgov or visa4uk pages don't seem to cover such things properly or atleast not in any detail. Let alone informing you about arriving at the border without visa (such as at Calais, France). Perhaps the EU court makes a ruling in a few months and/or UKVI makes it more clear as to what conditions and exceptions apply for EU/EEA family members (who have an "EU/EEA family memer" RC).

So I'd say: in theory you and your wife should be able to hop on a plane to the UK but in practise... I don't dare to say. Would also depend on what airline staff gets to hear when they call to the UK border staff and say "can we let blablabla board or will they be refused entry?" . Sadly various (non UK) people travling with their non EU spouse have been rejected at check in, because incompetent/unwilling UK border staff told they should have gotten a visa in adcvance and cannot get entry clearance at the border (which is BS, they should get entry via a visa on the spot). So much for proper training, perhaps too many officers don't give a damn or failed this particular item in their exams.. Which isn't too positive when it comes to border staff being aware of entry on EU/EEA family member visas even though (as far as I can telol from 7by7's posts) the UK borderstaff guidelines do cover entry of EU/EEA family members..

Edited September 1, 2014 by Donutz

[thonglorjimmy]

So prove I'm wrong then! Not sure what an 'old wives take' is but they told me it was 'an old wives tale' ! Plain common sense would support this.

Having just got a visa I can categorically state that the UK visa office told me that it is an old wives take that they give a hoot how much of the 6 month visa you use. Ie if as advised on here frequently you tell them you want to get her in for 2 months but use up the full six it will NOT harm future applications!
I haven't got time to bust a few others according to the chat I had with the visa office but wanted to get this one straightened

I think theoldgit was quoting your original post

[ulike]

I read your first point.

1. You are reasonably well established in the UK, have had a job for 6+ months with a salary in excess of 18,600 GBP, have a place to live in that is deemed of a suitable size, no criminal convictions etc. The Thai wife can pass English and medical tests etc. Great!!! Pay the almost 1000 GBP visa fee, ensure that you have done your research and have completed all the paperwork! Via the express service you could be in the UK in about 2 weeks!.

I do not care for the label, 'Thai wife' its just so daily mail..... Would you say 'American wife' ?

Also, you are incorrect about the criminal convictions also as my husband has two (naughty boy) and he sponsored me and our 'daughter' as you can see on other threads.

[ThaiVisaExpress]

Having just got a visa I can categorically state that the UK visa office told me that it is an old wives take that they give a hoot how much of the 6 month visa you use. Ie if as advised on here frequently you tell them you want to get her in for 2 months but use up the full six it will NOT harm future applications!

I haven't got time to bust a few others according to the chat I had with the visa office but wanted to get this one straightened

As a former "visa officer" I am going to disagree with you on this. However, if you can add some foundation to your statements, such as who you spoke with, and at which "UK visa office", then it might give you some credibility.

Please "bust a few others". I would love to hear what else this visa officer told you.

At least try to disguise the fact you are asking me to grass someone up !

I have no wish for you to grass someone up. But, if you want to make unattributed claims, then they will be given the credibility they deserve. What about the other issues that you claim to be able to straighten out ? No need to name names, but let's see what you you were told by your friend of a friend. At the moment your claims have no foundation whatsoever.

[beano2274]

Next answer from the UKVI, this leads me more to believe the help desk is outsourced, also where do they get the idea about asylum?

Thank you for contacting UK Visas and Immigration International EnquiryService.  We provide general information on pre-applications, Visa applicationprocess and post application. We can give you advice which is alreadyavailable on our website: https://www.gov.uk/browse/visas-immigration Please follow the relevant guidelines provided on our website for differentVisa categories.      Please note we operate on a non-advisory policy and hence cannotadvice/guide on legal matters. You can contact the Office of theImmigration Services Commissioner (OISC) to find regulated legal advisersor representatives in your area who can help you with immigration or asylumproblems. Please follow the link for more information: https://www.gov.uk/legal-advice-immigration-asylum Meanwhile we are going to escalate this query to the relevant departmentand we will contact you back once we receive any updates on this.       For any further details, or should you need to contact us again pleaserefer to our website at  https://ukvi-international.faq-help.com/ selectappropriate country, click next and then select “E-Mail form” andcomplete as instructed. We will aim to come back to you within 1 day. 

[beano2274]

I remember seeing that Fujitsu have something to do with the UKVI but not sure what.

[sustento]

I remember seeing that Fujitsu have something to do with the UKVI but not sure what.

They probably provide the IT system. Fujitsu do quite a lot of IT outsourcing for the UK government.

[Donutz]

Next answer from the UKVI, this leads me more to believe the help desk is outsourced, also where do they get the idea about asylum?

Thank you for contacting UK Visas and Immigration International EnquiryService.  We provide general information on pre-applications, Visa applicationprocess and post application. We can give you advice which is alreadyavailable on our website: https://www.gov.uk/browse/visas-immigration Please follow the relevant guidelines provided on our website for differentVisa categories.      Please note we operate on a non-advisory policy and hence cannotadvice/guide on legal matters.

Lol, so basically if you mail UKVI (visa4uk via ukgov on visas) and ask a question via the online form you will get a reply from an outsourced party which basically wil answer (copy / paste) the most basic of questions with information that can already be found online. If you have some more complicated questions about policies and regulations, find legal advice? Errr....thus the contact form is to service lazy or people slow of understanding and people who have questions which they would like to adress to experienced UKVI staff cannot go anywhere ? Great service. =/

[Tony M]

I think you are taking life a little too seriously !! The 'claims' are attributable to the visa office, I've already told you that. You've already stated no need to name names so where do I go from there ? Whether I receive 'credibility' from you or anyone else is I'm sure you'll understand not important.

I simply relayed what I was told (and again, unless you can prove that information wrong, would appear to be correct in the light of I've never read of an instance where a second, third fourth, application etc has been denied, heavily scrutinised due to someone staying longer than they may have mentioned, and now backed up from a visa office source, however I'm sure you have many examples to dispute this .............................(cue tumbleweed.............)

Obviously I don't have to prove your information wrong as it has no foundation whatsoever, and is not worth the time you took to write it. If you don't want, or care about, credibility, for your posts, then just carry on making unfounded claims here in the forum. From what you have posted above, you obviously believe everything you are told ( the visa office categorically told you, or was it the friend of a friend who told you ?), but there are many instances ( reported in this and other forums) of second, third or fourth visas being denied. And yes, I do have examples, and have quoted them previously in this forum.

To continue this will cause the thread to be closed, so I will not comment any further.

[Donutz]

Perhaps I might be adding something stupid here but how about trusting common sense?? And trusting UKVI does apply common sense too.

in some cases staying longer then request (but within the legal maximum time ofcourse) may be very much valid and not raise any eyebrowns, in other instances it may very well bé a problem or raise doubts.\

Each visa application is judged on it's own merits after all.Alarmbells are ringing: "this cannot be right, thus guy/gal says she has studies/work to return to but then stays 6 months a year in the UK" . Alarmbells not ringing: "this guy/gal applied or 3-4 weeks on two occasions but stayed about a week longer on both", seeing this was within school/work holiday (seasons) this is very much plausible".

[7by7]

Indeed, Donutz; each case is judged on it's own merits; including the reasons for staying longer than originally stated in the application.

Benroon, you need to untangle your underwear. No one here has said that staying longer than originally stated means a future visit application will definitely be refused.

What has been said whenever this subject arises is that staying longer than originally stated in the application may damage the applicant's credibility in their next application unless they adequately explain why and how they were able to do so.

This information does not come via a friend of a friend, but directly from people who have worked as ECOs and IOs.

A hypothetical example:

In the first application an applicant says they are going to stay in the UK for 2 weeks and submit an employer's letter confirming that they have to return to work after 2 weeks.

They then stay 6 months.

Six months after their return they submit another application; again saying they intend to stay in the UK for 2 weeks and submitting a letter from the same employer confirming, again, that they have to return to work after 2 weeks.

How credible is the second application?

Not very, I suggest, without an adequate explanation of how they managed to keep their job and why their employer is giving them time off again when they have previously been granted 2 weeks leave but didn't return to work for 6 months!

[makescents]

More info on this EU/EEA family route please.

Can I simply live in EU country without working & for how long?

How long would my wife have to stay there before applying for UK visa. Sounds too simple.

What happens once in UK? What if she leaves UK for holiday / visit Thailand?

There's no minimum time but less than 3 months could cause you problems.

It exploits an EU directive that allows EU citizens to move with their non-EU spouse and children to an EU country as long as it's not their home country. Effectively you can bypass all of all financial constraints as well as the vague substantiating relationship crap you have to go through with the Home Office.

It's not feasible for everyone to live in another country, especially if you are working. But like people have said - 3 months in Romania wouldn't cost much if you had savings. Working in Ireland is feasible for many.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surinder_Singh_route

[bobrussell]

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/757459-eu-to-investigate-uk-interpretation-of-surinder-singh/

suggests the EU do not agree that the three month limit is acceptable.

Wait a few months and move to Scotland???

[makescents]

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/757459-eu-to-investigate-uk-interpretation-of-surinder-singh/

suggests the EU do not agree that the three month limit is acceptable.

Wait a few months and move to Scotland???

Scotland will more than likely have to negotiate it's membership of the EU which could take a while. It's uncertain at this point.

This is a typically scummy response from the UK government to block people exercising their EU free movement rights.

I'd expect this infringement will end up in European courts with the UK being fined if they don't amend or repeal said requirements.

[7by7]

<snip>

Therefore staying longer than specified for perfectly innocent reasons would NOT inpact further applications.

I said "What has been said whenever this subject arises is that staying longer than originally stated in the application may damage the applicant's credibility in their next application unless they adequately explain why and how they were able to do so."

What is it about that you don't understand?

Your remark, as quoted above, seems to indicate that you now agree!

Like the offer extended to Tony provide ONE example to prove otherwise that the act alone MIGHT cause a refusal ..........

I am 99% sure that we have had at least one case where the applicant had stayed longer than originally stated and did not explain it in their next application and that second application was refused for that reason reported in this forum.

However, due to the way the search function works, it will take me a while to find the relevant post; please bear with me.