Manchester airport harassment

[Gsh]

I was only annoyed be the attidute of the officer not his ethnicity. My wife, a university teacher in Bangkok was given a visa for a six month stay not for a short holiday. I belive the officer would be aware of this. She should be free to enter the UK as many times as she likes while this visa is valid without being given a hard time. He asked who was teaching her classes while she was in the UK. I fail to see the relevence of this question. She has taken unpaid leave for one semester as explained in the visa application.

[theoldgit]

Actually I think the question was highly relevant, until he checked your wife's application or your wife advised him the circumstances surrounding her leave of absence, then he might well suspect your wife might want to alter the length of her stay as outlined in her application, though this clearly wasn't the case.

As you're aware visas are routinely issued for a six month period and this allows the holder to present themselves to a UK Border during the validity of the visa, they must still satisfy the a Border Force Officer that visit is genuine and that they will leave the UK before the expiry date of the visa.

Unfortunately some people indicate in their application that they are intending to visit the UK for a couple of weeks or so and provide evidence of their job being available on their return as evidence that they are likely to leave the UK, they then pitch up at the UK Border with a six month return ticket. Whilst they are doing nothing illegal it could well call into question the evidence supplied with the visa application, and the change of circumstances would need to be tested.

Whilst this didn't apply in your wife's case, unless the Border Officer asked the question he wouldn't know your wife was genuine.

All that said, the officer should have treated your wife with courtesy and respect, for any officer to harass a passenger would be unprofessional.

[theoldgit]

Off topic posts removed, please restrict posts to the alleged harassment of the OP's wife by a UK Border Force Officer, not the ethnic background of UK Government employees.

[Gsh]

Wouldn't the information on his computer monitor tell him the duration of stay requested and granted. If so then further questioning seems unnessary.

[theoldgit]

Wouldn't the information on his computer monitor tell him the duration of stay requested and granted. If so then further questioning seems unnessary.

No, as I said earlier the application is available quite easily, but not at at the initial screening point, it would need to be called up on another database.

When passports are swiped they show the information about the passport and any flagged information on the Warnings Index.

[bertty]

Actually I think the question was highly relevant, until he checked your wife's application or your wife advised him the circumstances surrounding her leave of absence, then he might well suspect your wife might want to alter the length of her stay as outlined in her application, though this clearly wasn't the case.

As you're aware visas are routinely issued for a six month period and this allows the holder to present themselves to a UK Border during the validity of the visa, they must still satisfy the a Border Force Officer that visit is genuine and that they will leave the UK before the expiry date of the visa.

Unfortunately some people indicate in their application that they are intending to visit the UK for a couple of weeks or so and provide evidence of their job being available on their return as evidence that they are likely to leave the UK, they then pitch up at the UK Border with a six month return ticket. Whilst they are doing nothing illegal it could well call into question the evidence supplied with the visa application, and the change of circumstances would need to be tested.

Whilst this didn't apply in your wife's case, unless the Border Officer asked the question he wouldn't know your wife was genuine.

All that said, the officer should have treated your wife with courtesy and respect, for any officer to harass a passenger would be unprofessional.

Totally disagree, So what would be the answer to the question ? Another teacher !

This then gives the IO the chance to begin the ' trying to be funny are we'.

If someone has a 6 month visa it matters not a bit how many times they leave and re-enter the country during that period.

Or does taking a side trip to another country mean the visa should be cancelled, or bring into question the reason for coming to the UK in the first place ?

[7by7]

You don't have to search very far back in this forum to find questions about what would happen if the applicant says in the visa application that they only want to stay for 2 weeks when in fact they want to stay the full 6 months!

Or questions about visitors who obtained a letter from their employer confirming they had a months holiday who then stayed the full 6 months.

People do lie in their visa applications about their intentions; particularly about length of stay. I've even seen posts in this forum advising that they do so!

So it is not unreasonable for IOs to question visitors on this, or any other relevant, point.

Obviously, not being there I cannot comment on the IOs attitude when asking the OP's wife these routine questions; nor on the OPs attitude on his wife being questioned.

[manarak]

You don't have to search very far back in this forum to find questions about what would happen if the applicant says in the visa application that they only want to stay for 2 weeks when in fact they want to stay the full 6 months!

Or questions about visitors who obtained a letter from their employer confirming they had a months holiday who then stayed the full 6 months.

People do lie in their visa applications about their intentions; particularly about length of stay. I've even seen posts in this forum advising that they do so!

So it is not unreasonable for IOs to question visitors on this, or any other relevant, point.

Obviously, not being there I cannot comment on the IOs attitude when asking the OP's wife these routine questions; nor on the OPs attitude on his wife being questioned.

Question: will visas be granted when someone wants to bring a Thai girlfriend over for 6 months?

[theoldgit]

Question: will visas be granted when someone wants to bring a Thai girlfriend over for 6 months?

If the applicant was able to satisfy the ECO that a six month visit was a genuine visit and that she wasn't attempting to circumnavigate the settlement visa route, then yes a visit of six months could well be approved.

The biggest challenge an applicant might face is satisfying the ECO of the reasons to return, if an applicant is citing employment as a reason to return then it might prove difficult, even if a visa is granted the passenger would still need to convince the Border Force Officer at the UK Border that the visit is genuine before she is landed, the OP's wife found this out the hard way, hence this thread.

It's worth noting that the UKVI advise that details contained in the application should be carried by the passenger when presenting themselves at the UK Border.

[manarak]

Question: will visas be granted when someone wants to bring a Thai girlfriend over for 6 months?

If the applicant was able to satisfy the ECO that a six month visit was a genuine visit and that she wasn't attempting to circumnavigate the settlement visa route, then yes a visit of six months could well be approved.

The biggest challenge an applicant might face is satisfying the ECO of the reasons to return, if an applicant is citing employment as a reason to return then it might prove difficult, even if a visa is granted the passenger would still need to convince the Border Force Officer at the UK Border that the visit is genuine before she is landed, the OP's wife found this out the hard way, hence this thread.

It's worth noting that the UKVI advise that details contained in the application should be carried by the passenger when presenting themselves at the UK Border.

There is something inherently wrong with the system.

What reasons to return does a 20 year old Thai girl without children and without a job have?

What it effectively does is to put a ban on people bringing their girlfriend over for 3 or 6 months - I don't see why this shouldn't be allowed.

There is no settlement route if it's just a girlfriend and not a fiancée - the 6 months fiancée visas are also not renewable, so what they do is forcing people to marry or change girlfriends.

All these problems are caused by the government's inability to put in place rules that are fair for genuine visitors and hard enough on illegals.

Edited September 28, 2014 by manarak

[theoldgit]

Indeed it's a fact of life that most visa regimes aren't designed to accommodate six month holidays for youngsters from some countries who wish to visit many western counties.

Sadly the internet used to be littered with young woman advertising personal services who have somehow managed to circumnavigate these rules, maybe that's why it can be tough on genuine visitors, I really don't know and in any case that's a discussion for another day on another platform.

That said some youngsters are able to convince ECO's that a longer visit visa is a viable proposition, but it's an uphill struggle.

A 20 year old could visit the UK as a student for a longer period, many do each year.

[jpeg]

I always find it hilarious when reading about the problems experienced by farang trying to get their wives/girlfriends into countries, particularly those with welfare systems, complaining 's'not fair' and then reading through the visa section with post after post complaining about Thai Immigration being bloody minded with those entering this welfare-less country, even with valid visas, much like the OP. Bit of recipocracy eh?

[pitchag]

I had a problem a couple of years ago at Heathrow, I am English born in London traveling on a Australian passport, I was asked at immigration where I would be staying, I said with my brother in law,i said the address is in my case that is on the carrousel, so this extremely dark officer with quite bad English was trying to tell me I could not enter without her knowing where i was staying I stated that my relatives were meeting me outside so I did not need the address. I was getting quite stressed by this time and said what if I had no plans to stay anywhere but just to hire a car and drive around England, this kind of baffled her, my wife had already gone through her immigration and came back to calm me down, I could not believe I was going to be denied entry to the country of my birth by a obvious immigrant.

Yes before you lot berate me I am as racist as the average person but normally only against pumped up <deleted> in uniform

And yes I do live in a racist country Thailand

If you are English born in London then are you not British? if so you have every right to enter the UK and should have used your British Passport, if you do not have a British Passport you should have shown proof you are a British citizen with right of abode in the UK, they can not refuse you entry.

But even if you were of English decent but were registered as another nationality and not registered British then you are just another foreigner.

On my Australian passport it states I was born in England

[7by7]

Being born in England, or anywhere else in the UK, doesn't make you British.

It depends on when you were born, the rules changed for those born after 1/1/1983, whether at least one of your parents is/was British or, if not, legally resident in the UK without time limit at the time of your birth.

Your Australian passport may say you were born in England but I doubt it states the nationality or immigration status in the UK of your parents at the time of your birth.

No doubt you will correct me if I am wrong on that point.

Edited September 28, 2014 by 7by7

[7by7]

There is something inherently wrong with the system.

What reasons to return does a 20 year old Thai girl without children and without a job have?

One could equally ask what reasons does a 20 year old Thai girl without a job have for wanting to stay in the UK for 6 months! If she can show she has believable reasons, she'll get her visa, as many posts in this and other forums show.

What it effectively does is to put a ban on people bringing their girlfriend over for 3 or 6 months - I don't see why this shouldn't be allowed.

It is allowed; as many posts on this and other forums show.

There is no settlement route if it's just a girlfriend and not a fiancée - the 6 months fiancée visas are also not renewable, so what they do is forcing people to marry or change girlfriends.

Settlement is a commitment; a couple should only go for this if they intend to spend the rest of their lives together.

If a British man changes girlfriends because he can't get a visit visa for his current one then he obviously didn't have much of a commitment toward her!

Which fills me with sympathy for her and contempt for him.

All these problems are caused by the government's inability to put in place rules that are fair for genuine visitors and hard enough on illegals.

All these problems are caused by people using visit visas to enter the UK for purposes other than a visit; often illegal work of some kind.

Some of the requirements may seem over the top, but people do get visit visas for their Thai girlfriends; as many posts on this and other forums show.

The same rules apply to all non EEA nationals; even if the person seeking entrance is not a visa national and so a visa in advance is not required for visits.

I remember a TV programme called UK Border Force. One episode featured a Canadian girl (Canadians are not visa nationals) being questioned at Heathrow.

The reason for questioning her was that she had spent 6 months in the UK as a visitor, returned to Canada for 4 weeks and was now attempting to enter the UK as a visitor again.

The questioning revealed that she had spent that 6 months in the UK with her British boyfriend, whilst in Canada she had cancelled the lease on her apartment, sold her possessions and effectively broken all her ties with Canada.

Now she was trying to convince the IO that she intended only another visit, not to remain in the UK.

Would you have believed her?

Immigration didn't; she was refused entry and returned to Canada. Rightly, in my opinion, being told that if she wanted to live in the UK with her boyfriend she should apply for settlement.

[Basil B]

Thanks 7x7 you saved me bother of replying, and put it more tactfully...

Being born in Britain does not always make him British. he may have the right to apply for British citizenship but until (and if) such status is granted he is a foreigner...

He should check the following: https://www.gov.uk/check-british-citizen

[Stocky]

The annoying thing was the Immigration Offocer, his English was poor

The English of most white aboriginal Brits is poor - init

[nontabury]

The annoying thing was the Immigration Offocer, his English was poor

The English of most white aboriginal Brits is poor - init

So why are you bringing race into it.?.

[tullynagardy]

Otherwise, why bring the IO's appearance up at all?

I actually agree with the jist of your post but (if the OP is anything like me and shares some of the experiences I have had at Heathrow) the sheer aggression and lack of understanding is more surprising when they themselves have clearly been through the same immigration process in the recent past.

Edited September 28, 2014 by tullynagardy

[beano2274]

My wife has visited the UK many times and we always use the EU line, we both go to the IO together, and have always been treated very well, when her mother came with us the IO was very polite.

I find even the German IO's are polite. My wife enjoyed it when she entered Switzerland as the IO even tried a few words of Thai.

Looking forward to taking the missus to the UK from Munich in November as we will use just her Thai passport and her German residence card to get in, waiting to see if the IO lets her in, already armed myself with all the relevant documentation.

[manarak]

<<There is something inherently wrong with the system.

What reasons to return does a 20 year old Thai girl without children and without a job have?>>

One could equally ask what reasons does a 20 year old Thai girl without a job have for wanting to stay in the UK for 6 months! If she can show she has believable reasons, she'll get her visa, as many posts in this and other forums show.

<<What it effectively does is to put a ban on people bringing their girlfriend over for 3 or 6 months - I don't see why this shouldn't be allowed.>>

It is allowed; as many posts on this and other forums show.

<<There is no settlement route if it's just a girlfriend and not a fiancée - the 6 months fiancée visas are also not renewable, so what they do is forcing people to marry or change girlfriends.>>

Settlement is a commitment; a couple should only go for this if they intend to spend the rest of their lives together.

If a British man changes girlfriends because he can't get a visit visa for his current one then he obviously didn't have much of a commitment toward her!

Which fills me with sympathy for her and contempt for him.

<<All these problems are caused by the government's inability to put in place rules that are fair for genuine visitors and hard enough on illegals.>>

Some of the requirements may seem over the top, but people do get visit visas for their Thai girlfriends; as many posts on this and other forums show.

The same rules apply to all non EEA nationals; even if the person seeking entrance is not a visa national and so a visa in advance is not required for visits.

I remember a TV programme called UK Border Force. One episode featured a Canadian girl (Canadians are not visa nationals) being questioned at Heathrow.

The reason for questioning her was that she had spent 6 months in the UK as a visitor, returned to Canada for 4 weeks and was now attempting to enter the UK as a visitor again.

The questioning revealed that she had spent that 6 months in the UK with her British boyfriend, whilst in Canada she had cancelled the lease on her apartment, sold her possessions and effectively broken all her ties with Canada.

Now she was trying to convince the IO that she intended only another visit, not to remain in the UK.

Would you have believed her?

Immigration didn't; she was refused entry and returned to Canada. Rightly, in my opinion, being told that if she wanted to live in the UK with her boyfriend she should apply for settlement.

You make it sound so easy!

You even use the same lulling words as the officials to make readers believe visas are easy to obtain - the reality check comes with what hides beyond the words, such as "reasons to return".

Regarding committment with a girlfriend - this is none of the government's business, the government has to stay out of the bedroom.

And what if the inviting person wanted two girlfriends simultaneously if he has the means to support them?

I am asking this to provoke thought.

The bedroom is none of the government's business.

In the case of your Canadian, what's the problem if she terminates her flat and job in Canada if her boyfriend/sponsor has the means to support her in UK? Does it make sense to pay for an emply flat?

She broke all her ties, you mean she had no family and no friend in Canada where she could live for some time until she finds an apartment when she comes back from UK?

I don't really see a problem with her getting in - she just isn't allowed to work and has to leave six months later.

The reason why this is a problem is because there aren't enough checks inside UK and not enough guarantees.

The sponsor should guarantee an amount of money, for example 10.000 pounds, which would be used to send her back if she is found to be working or if she misses the date for her return.

Why they instead choose to inconvenience honest people is a thing I don't understand.

As I said above, I don't think a settlement is a viable solution, it practically forces people to marry after six months or to break up.

7by7, we already had debates in previous threads - our views are almost always opposed.

Your recurring stance is to curb abuse by setting up blanket rules which inconvenience everybody, mine is to make sure honest citizens can do what they want while increased checks make sure most offenders are found and punished more harshly.

P.S.

about these shows on border agencies, I sometimes watch them too. while maybe three quarters of cases are justified, there are still these 25% where I either feel ashamed for my country (when the show is about my country's border) or where I feel sorry for the people that were abused by the system (when the show is about other countries' borders). There seems to be a rule to have at least one of such cases per show.

Edited September 28, 2014 by manarak

[teatree]

They give non EU people who are legitimately married to UK citizens a hard time just getting into the UK, but have an open door policy for any EU citizen, whether they can speak English or not, whether they have any connection to the UK or not, whether they are ex cons or not.

[Basil B]

They give non EU people who are legitimately married to UK citizens a hard time just getting into the UK, but have an open door policy for any EU citizen, whether they can speak English or not, whether they have any connection to the UK or not, whether they are ex cons or not.

That is part of the terms of being part of the EU, and while we are part of the EU we have to abide by the rules unless we can get them changed, but then it is an open door policy for us Brits in all the EU/EEA countries too.

[7by7]

Manarak,

The visa statistics do show that consistently around 95% of visit applications and around 90% of settlement applications in Bangkok are issued.

Visits are for just that; visits. They are not for those wishing to remain in the UK long term and the UK does not have anything similar to Thai border runs.

The UK rules say that a visitor can spend a maximum of 6 months in the UK per visit; far more generous than the Schengen countries which allow a maximum of 90 days.

There is no hard and fast rule, but the convention is that a visitor should not spend more than 6 months out of any 12 in the UK; unless they can show they have a good reason for so doing.

Would you prefer that visitors to the UK can stay as long as they like, with at worst having to do a visa run every 6 months?

How would they live? They can't work.

What if they fall sick? They can't access the NHS.

OK, in some cases their UK sponsor will be rich enough to support them and pay for private medical treatment if they need it; but they'd be the exceptions; most couldn't.

It was obvious in the case of the Canadian girl that she was returning to the UK to live with her boyfriend; why else would she cut all her ties in Canada (not family ties, obviously, but commercial ones!) and return in such a short time?

If she wanted to live in the UK, she should have applied for settlement; as per the rules and as everyone else from outside the EEA who wants to live in the UK has to. If she and her boyfriend had met the criteria then she would have been granted it. But they tried to by pass these rules; and failed.

To be granted settlement as the spouse, civil partner, unmarried partner or fiancé the applicant and sponsor do have to show that they are in a committed relationship, even though the primary purpose rule was abolished long ago. They have to show this relationship at the initial visa stage, show it is still on going at the FLR stage and again at the ILR stage; over 5 years in total.

I see nothing wrong in this; but maybe you are happy for people to enter into marriages of convenience just so someone can enter and live in the UK?

But that is not what I meant when I talked about commitment. I meant the commitment between the couple; and if a British man dumps his Thai girlfriend just because she couldn't get a visa to visit him in the UK then he obviously does not feel that committed toward her.

Which, as I said, fills me with sympathy for her and contempt for him.

Bigamy is illegal in the UK; so it is not possible to sponsor multiple partners for settlement in the UK; even if not actually married to those multiple partners.

Do you wish this to change? Would you be happy for anyone to bring into the UK as many wives/girlfriends/husbands/boyfriends to live as they wish?

The rules are there for a purpose; to ensure as much as possible that genuine applicants get their visa and the non genuine don't.

Every applicant has to satisfy the rules particular to their application. Some of those rules I disagree with, I believe the financial requirement for settlement is way too high for example, but these rules do provide the checks you wish for and aim to eliminate those who wish to abuse the system.

Not all, unfortunately; some do manage to get through and some genuine applicants do get refused. No system is perfect.

So, how you would change the rules?

How would you ensure that the genuine are granted their visa, of whatever category, while the non genuine are kept out?

[manarak]

I think a lot of applications don't even make it to the stage where they become a proper "application".

To answer your question, yes, I would be very permissive with entries and stays, but very strict on checks, guarantees and sanctions.

If someone has the means to support 2, 3 or 4 visitors and can explain why these persons would not engage in criminal activites or work illegally, I see no problem with that person inviting these visitors - I would have the inviting person pay into a deposit fund a sum of 10.000 pounds for every visitor - that sum would be lost incase of any problem with the authorities and used to send the person back.

Incase of visitors without a sponsor, they would be requested to show sufficient financial means to support themselves and would also be required to pay a deposit (if not qualifying for any other visa scheme that would not require a deposit).

I don't consider there are genuine and non-genuine applicants.

Visa applications should be examined and granted as applicable in the different visa categories.

People who fulfill visa requirements (no criminal record, sufficient funds, have a sponsor, etc.) but have a weak file (reason to return, previous employment, etc.) should just opt to pay a deposit.

After the visa, I think there are only visitors who comply or do not comply with the rules.

Strict checks have to be made, rulebreakers sent back and their sponsors, if any, barred from sponsoring again for 3 years.

Edited September 30, 2014 by theoldgit
Long quotes removed

[Trevstar]

I'll add my two cents.

When this missus came over this summer she was asked some simple questions all of which matched the info she had provided the UKBA.

Then was allowed in, no problems. This procedure is the same in many places. I've been asked the same questions in the USA and in Oz.

Just be honest and there will be no problems

[IMA_FARANG]

I am an American with a U.S, passport.

When I retired I went through Hull to get a Thai visa to come to Thailand.

Going through Heathrow I was asked why I wanted to enter The U.K., and I politely told him I was going to Hull to get myself a Thai visa for a trip to Thailand.

Mistake I guess, as his next question was why I would "bloody well" want to go to Thailand and not stay in the U.K.

I kept my cool, and just said I had a Thai girlfriend there.

No comment from him after that.

Maybe he was just having a bad day.

[nontabury]

I'll add my two cents.

When this missus came over this summer she was asked some simple questions all of which matched the info she had provided the UKBA.

Then was allowed in, no problems. This procedure is the same in many places. I've been asked the same questions in the USA and in Oz.

Just be honest and there will be no problems

In theory maybe, but not on practice.

[7by7]

Why do you say that, nontabury?

If the answers given to questions asked by the IO match the answers given in the application; which they will do if all have been answered honestly; why should there be any problems?

[7by7]

(Quotes edited for clarity)

If someone has the means to support 2, 3 or 4 visitors and can explain why these persons would not engage in criminal activites or work illegally, I see no problem with that person inviting these visitors - I would have the inviting person pay into a deposit fund a sum of 10.000 pounds for every visitor - that sum would be lost incase of any problem with the authorities and used to send the person back.

There is currently no limit on the number of visitors a UK resident can sponsor, separately or all at the same time; but you seemed originally to be talking about sponsoring multiple partners for settlement! Apologies if I misunderstood.

If I had to provide a deposit of £10,000 for every visitor I sponsored then my step son and sister in law would never have visited us in the UK! I simply don't have that sort of spare money, and I'm sure many other sponsors don't either.

Incase of visitors without a sponsor, they would be requested to show sufficient financial means to support themselves and would also be required to pay a deposit (if not qualifying for any other visa scheme that would not require a deposit).

All visitors, sponsored or not, have to show that they have sufficient funds available to them to support themselves whilst in the UK.

If all visitors were required to pay a deposit, that would kill the UK tourist industry stone dead!

I don't consider there are genuine and non-genuine applicants.
Visa applications should be examined and granted as applicable in the different visa categories.
People who fulfill visa requirements (no criminal record, sufficient funds, have a sponsor, etc.) but have a weak file (reason to return, previous employment, etc.) should just opt to pay a deposit.

Not sure what you mean by the first sentence; but to me a non genuine applicant is someone who wants to enter the UK for a purpose other than that stated in their application; a visit applicant who intends to work once in the UK, for example.

People who fulfil the requirements for the visa applied for, and show that they do, get their visa; unless the decision maker makes a mistake.

A voluntary deposit system for those who may have a weak application has some merit; particularly for family or friends sponsored by a UK citizen or resident. But it would be open to much abuse and would have to be very high to dissuade someone who intends to come to the UK to work; particularly in the sex industry.

After the visa, I think there are only visitors who comply or do not comply with the rules.
Strict checks have to be made, rulebreakers sent back and their sponsors, if any, barred from sponsoring again for 3 years.

The law already allows visitors, and those in other categories, who do not comply with the conditions of their visa or attempt to obtain a visa by deception, whether successful or not, to be banned from the UK for 10 years, or even life.

The law does not allow people to be held responsible for the actions of a third party; unless conspiracy can be proven. In which case the British or UK resident sponsor could find themselves in jail!

Apart from the notion of a deposit, all you ideas are already contained in the immigration rules and other relevant law!