English Req 4 UK Spouse Visa?

[ajb1985]

Hi

My wife is over in the UK on the first part of her spouse/settlement visa. She has recently been to an ESOL assessment at our local college. She has just started Entry Level 3 with the CAMBRIDGE exam board.

The problem is that they now want to move her to another part of the college and a different course which is with CITY & GUILDS.

Will this effect us when we apply for her FLR and then ILR in the future??

Cheers

Anton.

[7by7]

If the test and the test provider are on the list of Secure English Language Tests and she passes at the required level, then that is acceptable.

City and Guilds are on the list and an approved provider.

[ajb1985]

Thanks.

Was (wrongly) told city and guilds was not acceptable. After further investigation it seems they are useless.

Cheers.

[icefever1971]

She will need to show progression so in fact will need to take this course and the next.

I fell foul of this rule and it cost me dear.

[theoldgit]

icefever1971, on 15 Feb 2015 - 02:55, said:

She will need to show progression so in fact will need to take this course and the next.

I fell foul of this rule and it cost me dear.

There is no requirement to take any course, if the applicant can pass a test at the required level then that is all that's required.

[ajb1985]

After Entry Level 3 the missus would like to carry on to help improve her english anyway.

Cheers guys.

[durhamboy]

icefever1971, on 15 Feb 2015 - 02:55, said:

She will need to show progression so in fact will need to take this course and the next.

I fell foul of this rule and it cost me dear.

There is no requirement to take any course, if the applicant can pass a test at the required level then that is all that's required.

Actually I heard the same "rumour" on the grapevine that you couldn't take level 3 before passing level 2. Like OG I think this is nonsense however it might be that some test providers are saying this in order to increase their income.

[bobrussell]

The colleges will generally arrange an interview. The English skills level will be assessed so people can be placed in appropriate groups to take appropriate level exams. One problem might be that student numbers are too low to fill several classes. This did lead to a 'dumbing down' to the lowest common denominator at the college my wife went to!

[icefever1971]

Just to confirm what happened to me, my wife took the ESOL 3 as at the time I wanted her to learn English and not just pass the life in the UK test, which at the time in 2012 you could take 1 or the other. She was assessed and placed in this class. The course was completed and then I went to do the application for ILR, it was at this point that it became apparent that she needed to show progress.

The wording showing progress was taken by me as passing the exam of the course she was on, but UKBA said that showing progress was completing that course and the next.

Due to the lateness of the submission I did not have time to either complete the next course or take the life in the UK TEST.

The same happened to a friend, that said the rules have changed and you may need to do both bit not sure.

[PeeJay1959]

ESOL 3 is the equivalent to the B1 required for ILR, but she will need LITUK as well

[7by7]

icefever1971, from what you have said it seems to me that the mistake was at your wife's college; as they should have provided the evidence to show that she had been assessed at one level and progressed to the next.

But that is all water under the bridge now.

The current requirement is, as said previously, to pass a speaking and listening test at B1 of the CEFR or equivalent, which ESOL entry level 3 is, from an approved provider and to pass the LitUK test.

As far as UKVI and the immigration rules are concerned, there is no longer any need to show progress on a course, or even sit a course at all. Passing both tests is all that is required.

Of course, many people will need to sit an English course to bring their English up to the standard needed to pass them.

[Trevstar]

Is this lituk test and the second stage this process - so after 30 months or do you need to do this first up?

[wooloomooloo]

Is this lituk test and the second stage this process - so after 30 months or do you need to do this first up?

Trevstar, a LitUK pass is a requirement for an ILR application. That would be the second stage, as you say.

Though the applicant can study and sit the test at any stage. The LitUK certificate doesn't expire even if the questions change in the meantime.

In our experience of my wife having studied and passed LitUK, it's something I would recommend to get studying for at the earliest opportunity and the test sat and, hopefully, passed. It's one less obstacle to overcome, notwithstanding providing adequate time for further study and resits, if required. It's not easy and some are going to struggle so not something I would consider safe to leave until the last minute or it could add further financial burden to the process.

[Trevstar]

Thanks for the reply, yeah I think this will be the real struggle - not so much the understanding just the learning part

[7by7]

ILR is not actually the second stage; it's the third.

1. Initial visa; A1, or equivalent, in speaking and listening.
2. FLR after 30 months in UK; A1, or equivalent, in speaking and listening; can use the same pass as for the initial visa even if certificate has expired.
3. ILR 30 months after FLR, total 5 years in UK; B1, or equivalent, in speaking and listening plus LitUK test.
4. Naturalisation as British, if desired, as soon as ILR is granted if the spouse or civil partner of a British citizen, after ILR has been held for at least 12 months for everyone else (provided all the other requirements are met). Same language requirement as for ILR, and the same passes can be used.

No course of study is required by UKVI at all for any of the above although, obviously, people may very well need to study to bring their English up to the necessary standard to pass these tests.

[wooloomooloo]

...yeah I think this will be the real struggle - not so much the understanding just the learning part

There's no getting away from the revision for LitUK. Twenty-four questions and 75% [eighteen] correct answers to achieve a pass and almost impossible to guess 75%.

My wife knows a lot of Thais here in the UK on longterm ILR from the old days that are put off studying for and sitting LitUK to achieve citizenship. That's their prerogative but not an immigration status that I would personally endorse. Why spend all that money just to fall short of the finish line?

[durhamboy]

...yeah I think this will be the real struggle - not so much the understanding just the learning part

There's no getting away from the revision for LitUK. Twenty-four questions and 75% [eighteen] correct answers to achieve a pass and almost impossible to guess 75%.

My wife knows a lot of Thais here in the UK on longterm ILR from the old days that are put off studying for and sitting LitUK to achieve citizenship. That's their prerogative but not an immigration status that I would personally endorse. Why spend all that money just to fall short of the finish line?

I can understand why someone with ILR (granted before needing LITUK) would not want the hassle of taking LITUK just to get citizenship. In practical terms there really isn't that much difference between ILR and citizenship. Maybe it might save having to get a visa to some places to go on holiday but that's about it.

The only real worry is that HMG might change the rules about ILR in the future and exclude people from the UK. However, that would be a highly radical and controversial change and, imo, very unlikely to happen in the forseeable future. I know one person who has lived here for 40 years with ILR (and its predecessor Patriality) and never wanted to get citizenship.

[bigyin]

There is a big difference between living long term in a country including endorsing what that country stands for and becoming the citizen of a foreign country. I can well understand a Thai person's reluctance to take that step

[7by7]

<snip>

In practical terms there really isn't that much difference between ILR and citizenship. Maybe it might save having to get a visa to some places to go on holiday but that's about it.

There's a lot more to becoming British than being able to hop over the channel without getting a visa!

Take the case of a recent poster. He and his wife lived in the UK for (IIRC) 14 years. During that time she could have been naturalised as British, but didn't do do.

They then returned to Thailand for (IIRC) 5 years.

They now want to return to live on the UK, but because his wife has lived outside the UK for more than 2 years her ILR has lapsed and so she has to apply for a spouse settlement visa and go through, and pay for, the whole process again: from initial visa through to ILR.

Had she been naturalised as British at some point during the 14 years she lived in the UK she could, of course, have simply moved back to the UK at any time without the need and cost of any visa or LTR applications; the same as her husband and any other British citizen.

Citizenship has other advantages over ILR as well, as listed here.

[durhamboy]

Yes 7by7 what you have posted via link is a comprehensive list of the advantages of citizenship. However most, if not all, relate to extended periods outside of the UK, serious criminal offences and voting rights. Apart from voting rights they are not really applicable to the vast majority of people with ILR.

So why study and pass LITUK and pay around £900 for citizenship just so they can vote every now and again? I think many people take the view that it simply isn't worth it. In the case you mentioned where someone lost their ILR after 14 years here I think the prudent thing they should have done is take out British citizenship before going abroad (I'm assuming that they knew they were going abroad for a long time when they left the UK).

Finally, and this doesn't apply to Thailand, a lot of countries do not recognise dual nationality and when they get British nationality they automatically lose their "home" nationality.

[7by7]

The decision whether or not to naturalise as British is a personal one, involving many considerations, not just the cost.

I merely pointed out that there were more advantages to doing so than your bald statement "Maybe it might save having to get a visa to some places to go on holiday but that's about it."

All of our Thai friends have done so or intend to do so once qualified. None of them see any conflict in this; not even with the oath or affirmation of allegiance. As my wife put it at the time "Swearing allegiance to the English Queen doesn't stop me from loving and obeying the Thai King."

Granted, this may prove difficult if the UK and Thailand ever declare war; but I doubt that's going to happen any time soon!

True, some countries do not allow dual nationality; but as this is a Thai forum and this is a topic about the UK and both those countries do allow it, that point is, with respect, irrelevant to this topic.

As for the specific case of a lapsed ILR; I think that, like many people, the couple thought that ILR was for life. They did not realise that it would lapse if the holder lived outside the UK for more than 2 years.

Edited March 6, 2015 by 7by7

[durhamboy]

Actually for Thai people I never said there was a conflict. Your wife is quite right - Thai people of course will still love the King even after swearing allegiance to the Queen. I just pointed out that some countries, not Thailand, do not permit dual nationality. Yes this is a Thai forum but it is sometimes helpful to highlight examples of what happens in other countries - something that I think you have done a number of times.

I go back to what I said initially - for the vast majority of people the only difference between ILR and citizenship is that they can vote every few years and possibly save them getting a visa occasionally. So is having to study and pass LITUK and pay nearly a grand for the privilege worth it? Many people think it isn't.

[englishoak]

You think its going to get cheaper or less stringent for UK citizenship in the future or more so ?

While there in the UK a few grand looked at as family stability insurance for life and ability to remain together in at least one country or a second option of citizenship for anyone seems a no brainier to me.

Edited March 7, 2015 by englishoak

[JockPieandBeans]

Whilst I can fully understand the frustration of being a UK Citizen and having barriers put in place to bringing a foreign spouse back to the UK, although this will not make it easier for those concerned to swallow.

Sometimes hard decisions have to be taken for the greater good.

In my opinion, what the UK government is trying to implement is already 40 years too late. A start has to be made somewhere.

Here is an article from 2007 regarding UK expenditure on translation services.

What we do know is that Local councils spend at least £21 million, the courts system spend over £10 million (not including legal aid) and the NHS spends £55 million. These figures are, however, very conservative and are likely to me much higher…in fact the cost nationally, across all public services is likely to be well in excess of £100 million.

http://www.lingo24.com/articles/How_much_does_the_UK_government_spend_on_translation_in_public_services--60.html#sthash.B94U4VVB.dpuf

[bigyin]

I don't think any reasonable person would dispute that immigrants to the UK should be expected to learn English but the very last group they should be tackling are spouses of UK citizens. By the very nature of the relationship this group speak English every day. At the end of the day a UK citizen should be entitled to bring their wife (or husband) back to the UK with them subject to a check that there is a proper relationship.

[JockPieandBeans]

I don't think any reasonable person would dispute that immigrants to the UK should be expected to learn English but the very last group they should be tackling are spouses of UK citizens. By the very nature of the relationship this group speak English every day. At the end of the day a UK citizen should be entitled to bring their wife (or husband) back to the UK with them subject to a check that there is a proper relationship.

I wholeheartedly agree with you. I am not for 1 second suggesting that spouses of UK Citizens are the cause of this ridiculous amount of expenditure on translation services.

I also agree that in my opinion, a spouse of a UK Citizen should not even need to speak English, unless they wish to enter the UK workforce and subject to the provision the that the UK Citizen will act as a translator should the need arise, when that is not possible they will bear the cost of any translation services.

That report was from 2007, I have no idea what it is today, probably a lot higher. A line has to be drawn somewhere and unfortunately a minority will be caught up in this.