UK immigration. What would happen if..?

[bobrussell]

A friend of mine, British, lived in Thailand for 20 years, Thai wife, children etc. I emailed him today. This is what he said:

In a nutshell, she gets a UK non settlement visa, which is a pain in the arse to get, dealing with an impersonal, chaotic, outsourced agency who don't process the visa on time and only give it out when you beg them and write silly letters to explain why she needs the visa to fly to the UK the next day.

For France its a Schengen visa. Less stupid repeating questions to answer on the online application than the UK visa, but the same disinterested agency hoops to jump through, except in French.

That's pretty much it.

Perhaps you should listen to the many knowledgeable people on this forum rather than your friend!

If a spouse applies and qualifies for a settlement visa then he or she should get it as long as the paperwork is sound. If the spouse does not qualify for settlement (for example because they live in Thailand and do not plan to settle) then an application for a visit visa is more appropriate. Visa applications are often a 'pain in the ar*e' to get, thats life!

The outsourced agency (VFS for the UK) do not process applications beyond checking the paperwork is complete and passing it on to the Embassy. The decisions are made at the embassy by Entry Clearance Officers and results sent back to VFS. VFS are rarely chaotic nor are going to be in a position to speed up the processing of a visa.

It is fanciful to expect any visa to be processed for a next day flight although they can be fast tracked for example on compassionate grounds.

Much of the same information is required for a Schengen visa but EU law does simplify the requirements significantly. French visas are (to the best of my knowledge processed by a different agency (TLScontact) but by law a spouse can apply directly to the Embassy. Not surprising the process is in French.

[wondercul]

The sad fact here is that the minimum income of 18,600 pounds a year is very hard to secure for average people returning back to the UK. Add in the visa fees and TB tests and English tests and it becomes near impossible for a lot of people to take their wives/husbands and kids to the UK.Famillies are split apart.

What really bugs me is when you read about Jihadi Johns family getting houses paid for costing 10's of thousands a year, dole, assistance and their kids piss off to Iraq beheading westerners and hating the west.

This is a crazy world we live in!

May I remind/inform you that it was the Tory(conservative) government who raised the limit to £18,500 per year.

You can vote for the future government in May this year!

[Atkinsos]

We have chosen France because of the hurdles required to getting the family back to the UK. Planning the same, if not overstaying but claiming the right to stay on the grounds that she is the mother of a UK child.

Our idea is to enrol our 3yr old into school then visit the town hall armed with the birth certificate showing my partner as the mother. I dont believe any EU gov would allow family separation.

Below is a reply from SOLVIT that relates to your situation. (My Initial Q. was based on applying for a long stay 6-12mth visa & no intention to return, but based on their answer & Donutz great help went for a normal 90 day tourist visa).

This being said, the fact that your partner is also the mother of your child, an EU citizen in his/her own right, changes the perspective. There, without question, there is a family tie. So the application should be considered not only as coming from the de facto partner of an EU citizen but also as mother of an EU citizen, all three moving together to France.

We should add that you should not be obliged to apply for a long term visa just because your declared intention is to settle in France; you should be allowed to apply for a short term (3 month) tourist visa and, once on the spot, register with the local town hall as resident EU citizens, and then apply for a residence card for your partner as family member of an EU citizen.

Legal references:
Directive 2004/38/EC on the right of entry and stay.

Our chosen steps to getting back is only possible because as a UK citizen we have chosen an EU country outside of our own. A French person could not use this method/directive to move back to France but would be able to settle presumably in the UK!

Yesterday we received approval for a 90day Schengen visa with no lodging certificate nor French sponsor, only a letter saying I could take care & vouch for her return … oops!! amazing. After 5yrs ... Step 1 of getting back and giving my daughter a descent free education has begun … but this is a whole new topic!

[Donutz]

Great news and good to hear the French got it mostly right, mistakingly telling you to vouch for her return. No such requirement aslong as she sticks by your side (and you are not an unreasonable burden to the authorities). Vouching for return implies they could refuse the visa over failure to be likely to return in time, but this type of visa cannot be refused on such grounds. But you got the visa and that is what matters, good luck with the next step(s) and keep us update. Future readers in the same boat may find it very useful information.

[7by7]

May I remind/inform you that it was the Tory(conservative) government who raised the limit to £18,500 per year.

You can vote for the future government in May this year!

The income limit was not 'raised to £18,500 per year;' prior to 9/7/12 there was no official limit.

One was introduced for applications made on or after 9/7/12 of £18,600p.a. for a spouse/partner; more if children are applying as well.

If you want to bring party politics into this;-

It was Labour who doubled the residential qualifying period for ILR.

It was Labour who introduced the LitUK test and language tests.

It was Labour who introduced settlement visa and leave to remain fees which are well over the actual cost of processing the applications; effectively a tax upon applicants and sponsors.

Edited March 14, 2015 by 7by7

[newbepat]

What's the position as regards a thai partner (not married) does the same rules apply I mean going to another eu country other than your own ??

[7by7]

Basically; yes.

Unmarried partners are treated under the directive as a qualifying family member.

But; each member state has it's own definition of unmarried partner!

For the UK; the couple must have been living together in a relationship akin to marriage for at least two years prior to any application; whether that be under the UK immigration rules or the EEA freedom of movement regulations.

I'm afraid I don't know about other member states.

[Donutz]

Adding to 7by7's post: The Netherlands accepts durable relationships if for example one has lived together for 6 or more months, but other factors are also taken into account. The Belgians require unmarried partners to register their partnership (after immigration?) and most other EU countries don't seem to have any definition for durable relationships, which pretty much means you win't get a visa or residencecard from them.

So you might wish to visit the Netherlands for a holiday or settlement with your Thai partner. It's a nice country with lovely cities and surroundings, they speak English reasonably well and as an added bonus they have the same lovely rainy weather climate as the UK does, so a British person should feel right at home!

Edit: bonus material for those who wish to settle in: the Dutch coalition government is run by the liberal Mark Rutte of the VVD (Volkspartij voor Vrijheid en Democratie, People's party for freedom and democracy) and coalition partner PvdA (Partij van de Arbeid, Party of Labour > Labour Party). The VVD is friends with Nick Clegg, the PvdA are friends with Labour. We have got our own version of Nigel Farrage: Geert Wilders. Rumors say that Mark Rutte and his friend Nick Glegg happen to plan and take David Cameron out, putting Clegg in power and annexing Great Britain under Dutch power just to get back at all those ships sunk back in the day and having the Dutch sell New Amsterdam to the British. Just saying...

Edited March 14, 2015 by Donutz

[teatree]

May I remind/inform you that it was the Tory(conservative) government who raised the limit to £18,500 per year.

You can vote for the future government in May this year!

The income limit was not 'raised to £18,500 per year;' prior to 9/7/12 there was no official limit.

One was introduced for applications made on or after 9/7/12 of £18,600p.a. for a spouse/partner; more if children are applying as well.

If you want to bring party politics into this;-

It was Labour who doubled the residential qualifying period for ILR.

It was Labour who introduced the LitUK test and language tests.

It was Labour who introduced settlement visa and leave to remain fees which are well over the actual cost of processing the applications; effectively a tax upon applicants and sponsors.

If UKIP has any say in the matter it will be far easier for non EU spouses to migrate to the UK

They'll be getting my vote.

[Somtamme]

Slightly astray but for those who say that the £18,600/annum figure is too high it should be noted that £27,000/annum is the figure claimed to differentiate if you are a giver or a taker regarding tax in the UK. And I think the latter was once proposed as the former until overturned after some debate. The question is will this requirement figure increase this year?

As you say, wandering off topic; but £18,600 was chosen as this is the annual income above which a British couple is ineligible for any income based public funds......r.

I'm sorry, but you are wrong on your point regarding the reason or choice for the £18.6 k test, being eligibility for any public funds.

My understanding for the reason for the income and saving test, comes from this Govts Statement of Intent policy document (Home Office, 2012). In section 70 and 71 it sets out the reason for this financial test, in that it's introduction was to safe guard the economic well being of the UK and ensure migrants do not become a burden on the taxpayer. This is the critical point, burden on the taxpayer.

However, this financial test quite rightly as you explain does not take into account outgoings, but more importantly, if the reason was to protect the taxpayer, how can this £18.6k do this when it only applies a short time prior to the settlement application?

In Thailand I would not be allowed full range of benefits like other Thai nationals, which I would accept given my migration into this country. Plus I would also concede, that I should have prove my financial independence from the state for a time even after entry / grant of visa.

However, this £18.6k test does neither of these to ensure migrants are not a burden on the taxpayer after settlement. I often wonder why this was not challenged on this basis, that it's introduction cannot pass the tests of statements in paras 70 and 71 of the SOI. It is therefore, critically flawed.

I'm not an advocate of Thailand's methods, but somewhere in the middle would have been much better.

[Jaggg88]

I understand the OP is just "thinking aloud" but to me it is the lack of any flexibility in the existing rules that forces people that want to keep their family together to find workarounds like the SS route or getting a 6 month visa and overstaying.

I am in a similar position. After around 10 years in Thailand, I have decided that the time is right to return home. I would like to take my wife and 2 young British children with me. I am not short of motivation. My parents are in ever declining health and need me to offer more by way of hands on help, my children are in need of a better education than they can get here plus I could probably do with a few more years of National Insurance contributions to boost my state pension if my retirement lifestyle aspiration is beyond a couple of cups of coffee a day.

I am not worried that I will be able to find employment at £18,600+ but I don't imagine that I will be able to accomplish it before I arrive back home which means that, I have to go first and leave my wife and children here for however long it takes me to secure said employment and then immediately ask for time off to come back to Thailand to help my wife juggle the kids in the school holidays and possible multiple trips from Chiang Rai to Bangkok for the settlement visa application process.

Or worse, if my prior year's variable amount overseas income is not deemed 'acceptable', it will take me 6 months at least to get the necessary pay slips to even be in the position where I would be able to apply.

My own idea of the workaround, would be apply for a 6 month's visa for my wife in the first place so that we could all be together in England whilst I got all my ducks in a row and had accrued some holiday entitlement and then return to Thailand with them to submit the settlement visa together and while it is extremely unlikely that we would be able to accomplish that in around 2 to 3 weeks, a short separation at that time wouldn't be the end of the world.

But the problem that we have is that we would need to convince an ECO that a woman who does not have a job (although she owns 3 fully paid for houses) and has 2 children with British passports and one at University in Thailand "would have reason to return and not overstay".

If only being innocent until proven guilty applied to Immigration matters.

Anybody considered or done similar to this or think it is worth trying?

I think that plan would work. You could do most of the settlement application work before you return to Thailand as its done online but your wife would have to be in Thailand when you actually submit it. On BBC Question Time the other week they were discussing immigration when one of the panellists said it is a disgrace that the Border Agency do not check if people with visas actually leave the country - no checks are made.

I always wondered if a Thai wife could ask to stay under the Human Rights act. If you and the children stay in UK (which is your right) then to deport your wife would deny her right to family life.

However, there is currently a case in the UK where a man, his children and Thai wife returned to Thailand and he then died in an accident. The Thai wife previously had ILR in the UK but this had expired. She returned to the UK with her British children to live with her Mother-in-law but the authorities are trying to deport her.

https://www.change.org/p/david-cameron-mp-to-stop-the-home-office-from-separating-a-widowed-mother-from-her-two-young-children-who-are-both-british-eu-citizens-and-allow-her-to-remain-in-the-uk-as-their-primary-carer-to-stop-our-government-from-treating-people-in-an-unlawful?recruiter=223799091&utm_campaign=signature_receipt&utm_medium=email&utm_source=share_petition

[7by7]

......... £18,600 was chosen as this is the annual income above which a British couple is ineligible for any income based public funds.......

I'm sorry, but you are wrong on your point regarding the reason or choice for the £18.6 k test, being eligibility for any public funds.

My understanding for the reason for the income and saving test, comes from this Govts Statement of Intent policy document (Home Office, 2012). In section 70 and 71 it sets out the reason for this financial test, in that it's introduction was to safe guard the economic well being of the UK and ensure migrants do not become a burden on the taxpayer. This is the critical point, burden on the taxpayer.

That is, indeed, the reason given by the government for introducing a fixed financial requirement.

However, it is not the reason for fixing the minimum income (for a spouse/partner only) at £18,600 p.a.; the reason for choosing that particular figure is as I stated.

From the Statement of Intent (page 16)

"73. The Migration Advisory Committee recommended that the minimum gross annual income for sponsoring a partner, without dependants, should be set at between £18,600 (the level at which in most cases a couple receive no income-related benefits) and £25,700 (the level at which the sponsor is a net contributor to the public finances).

74.The Government has decided to set a minimum gross annual income threshold of £18,600........"

Perhaps you should have read a little bit further down the page!

However, this financial test quite rightly as you explain does not take into account outgoings, but more importantly, if the reason was to protect the taxpayer, how can this £18.6k do this when it only applies a short time prior to the settlement application?

Because it doesn't; the financial requirement has to be met at least three times over a 5 year period.

At FLR after 30 months living in the UK and again 30 months after that, 5 years in total, when applying for ILR.

If, for some reason such as not passing KoLL, the person applies for another FLR rather than ILR, then this financial requirement has to be met for each and every FLR application and finally at the ILR application whenever that is made. (See the last part of Para 74 in the SoI.)

The only difference being that in the initial visa application only the sponsor's income can be used, whereas for FLR and ILR applications the applicant's income, if any, can be added to the sponsor's to meet the requirement.

Of course, a SoI is just that; it is not law nor regulation until approved by Parliament; which this was. For the full details of the financial requirement and how to meet it, as amended since the SoI and the requirement was first introduced, see:-

Immigration Directorate Instructions

Family Members under Appendix FM and Appendix Armed Forces of the Immigration Rules

Annex FM Section FM 1.7: Financial Requirement.

In Thailand I would not be allowed full range of benefits like other Thai nationals, which I would accept given my migration into this country. Plus I would also concede, that I should have prove my financial independence from the state for a time even after entry / grant of visa.

However, this £18.6k test does neither of these to ensure migrants are not a burden on the taxpayer after settlement. I often wonder why this was not challenged on this basis, that it's introduction cannot pass the tests of statements in paras 70 and 71 of the SOI. It is therefore, critically flawed.

I'm not an advocate of Thailand's methods, but somewhere in the middle would have been much better.

As anyone who knows anything about the UK family settlement rules will be able to tell you; immigrants are banned from receiving public funds until they have ILR, that is for at least 5 years after first entering the UK.

The exception, of course, being contribution based benefits for which they have paid the relevant NICs.

Additionally, whilst their British or UK resident sponsor may claim any and all public funds to which they may be entitled, they cannot claim any extra due to their immigrant partner living with them. For example, if they became unemployed and claimed income support, they would have to claim and receive it as a single person, not a married one.

However, some benefits, such as WTCs, have to be claimed jointly by spouses; so if the British spouse is claiming them the immigrant spouse not only can be, but must be included in the claim.

If I post incorrect information I am more than happy to be corrected; as some of my recent posts show.

However, with respect, may I suggest you carry out a little bit more research before you attempt to correct other posters; especially when the document you have referred to in order to 'correct' me actually confirms what I originally said!

Edited March 15, 2015 by 7by7

[Somtamme]

7by7 you have missed my point, in that the reason for the financial test of £18.6k is to reduce risks on UK tax payer as per the paras quoted. Yes, the sum chosen is based on para 73, but the reason to introduce it is different case altogether.

Once a Thai partner obtains settlement then, isn't this person then allowed full range of benefits sane as any other UK resident? If this is the case, then surely it could place a burden on UK taxpayer after settlement / naturalisation. This is counter to the SOI. The only exemption as I see it is ones pension, in that this is based on NI contributions.

This SOI is therefore flawed, and the only reason as I see it having been introduced, is merely as a tick box for officials, rather than allowing a degree of discretion.

But I think the debate regarding impact of migrants on UK tax payer after settlement should have been subject to more in depth research, to understand whether there were any additional tools needed to be introduced to reduce these risks on UK taxpayer. These are the important issues, like private health care insurance, access to state benefits based on NI contributions, or merely introduce similar visa requirements as in Thailand.

[7by7]

Sommtamme;

I stated, correctly, the reason for the minimum income figure being £18,600.

You stated, wrongly, that the reason stated by myself was incorrect.

Nothing in the post of mine which you chose to 'correct' had anything to do with the reasons for choosing a set figure. Though I did strongly criticise the figure chosen, and criticised having a set figure at all, pointing out that the requirements this new requirement replaced were more fit for purpose.

You seem to think, from what you have posted, that prior to 19/7/12 there was no financial requirement of any sort for family immigrants. You are incorrect.

You also seem to think, based on what you posted, that the new, current income requirement only has to be met once; I corrected you on that.

You also seem to think, based on what you posted, that family migrants could claim public funds immediately they entered the UK. I corrected you on that.

As for the arguments you are now introducing; these have been discussed at length in various topics so I do not intend to do so again here.

Except to say that many family immigrants do work and pay income tax and NICs during the 5 years they spend qualifying for ILR.

Plus, all family migrants, working or not, pay tax during and after that period; ever heard of VAT?

[Somtamme]

7by7, the reason for the £18.6 was to protect the UK taxpayer, and this is the intention of this Govt's SOI policy. The level set, yes you are correct, comes from recommendation made by the Migration Advisory Committee in that it was considered the threshold a couple would receive no income related benefits.

But paragraph 74 goes to add and clarify that this figure of £18.6k was considered the level of gross annual income needed to ensure there is no burden on UK taxpayer and to help their integration into society.

So, yes you are correct in part, but it's not the full story.

Having gone through the process successfully, I still believe there was little or no evidence provided at the time to support the hypothesis in this SOI, that family migrants were indeed a burden on UK taxpayer. If there was, it would have been correct to consider proportionate means to mitigate these risks.

But actually, all the Govt has introduced is a figure used to assess applicants prior to settlement, but it does not review this year on year, much like the Thai system. This is something you choose to ignore and also likewise, the Home Office.

Furthermore, as far as I can make out, there was no evidence provided to support the view, that the tax revenue collected from income tax and NICs during 5 years qualifying for ILR or indeed VAT after settlement, was insufficient to warrant the £18.6k criteria being introduced in the first place. Because of this the SOI is flawed.

The SOI is based on a presumption only that family migrants would be a burden on UK taxpayer, and therefore needed this income threshold

Was it too much to ask the Home Office to have looked at the balance sheet of family migrants, such as the tax revenue accrued (benefits to UK a taxpayer) against costs such as health care, education and impacts on state benefits?

[wooloomooloo]

I also worry about my child's future and if it is best for them to come to the UK why should the family be split up because of this arbitrary financial requirement?

I should pose the question 'why should your wife reside here illegally?'. Your child is a British citizen, so no problem there.

Rules are rules and you're no better than the rest of us. Try it, and see how far you get.

Edited March 15, 2015 by wooloomooloo

[theoldgit]

One flame removed, please no more insults.

[durhamboy]

I also worry about my child's future and if it is best for them to come to the UK why should the family be split up because of this arbitrary financial requirement?

I should pose the question 'why should your wife reside here illegally?'. Your child is a British citizen, so no problem there.

Rules are rules and you're no better than the rest of us. Try it, and see how far you get.

The OP never said he was "better than the rest of us" he merely posed a question as to what would happen if his wife overstayed.

Your "rules are rules" response is not very helpful. Do you believe all rules are fair and that everyone has to obey them no matter what?

These rules that HMG have introduced are arbitrary and, as we have seen from many other posts in this forum, they are sometimes keeping families apart. What would you do if you couldn't meet the financial requirement or some other arbitrary requirement?

Isn't it somewhat ludicrous that if the OP was Romanian rather than British then he could take his family from Thailand to Britain as a matter of right because of EU rules? But, because he is British, he cannot. So much for your "rules are rules".

[7by7]

Isn't it somewhat ludicrous that if the OP was Romanian rather than British then he could take his family from Thailand to Britain as a matter of right because of EU rules? But, because he is British, he cannot. So much for your "rules are rules".

No, it is not ludicrous as you are comparing apples and oranges; different sets of regulations for different circumstances.

Many people who complain about it forget that the freedom of movement directive is a two way street, and well over a million British nationals use it to live in other EEA states. The OP could do this if he so desired, and after just three months living there use the directive to move with his family to the UK via Surinder Singh.

Your hypothetical Romanian could not automatically move to the UK with his Thai family as a matter of right; he would still need to satisfy certain criteria under the directive and UKVI's interpretation of those criteria, which in some areas is actually not in accordance with said regulations!

If your Romanian wanted to take his Thai family to live with him in Romania he would have to comply with whatever criteria the Romanian immigration rules required.

[7by7]

7by7, the reason for the £18.6 was to protect the UK taxpayer, and this is the intention of this Govt's SOI policy. The level set, yes you are correct, comes from recommendation made by the Migration Advisory Committee in that it was considered the threshold a couple would receive no income related benefits........

The reason given by the government for introducing a financial requirement was, indeed, to 'protect the British taxpayer.

Forgetting that the adequate maintenance requirement and ban on receiving public funds previously did just that!

I think that we are both, basically, saying the same thing; that the financial requirement as it currently stands is an ill thought out piece of regulation which is not fit for purpose and penalises families who are perfectly capable of living and supporting themselves in the UK without any aid whatsoever from the state.

Agreed?

The only point of disagreement is that I said that the minimum income figure, for a spouse/partner only, of £18,600 was chosen because it is the level of income above which a British couple would not be eligible for income related benefits.

You at first disputed that; but now seem to be agreeing with me!

[Donutz]

Isn't it somewhat ludicrous that if the OP was Romanian rather than British then he could take his family from Thailand to Britain as a matter of right because of EU rules? But, because he is British, he cannot. So much for your "rules are rules".

No, it is not ludicrous as you are comparing apples and oranges; different sets of regulations for different circumstances.

Many people who complain about it forget that the freedom of movement directive is a two way street, and well over a million British nationals use it to live in other EEA states. The OP could do this if he so desired, and after just three months living there use the directive to move with his family to the UK via Surinder Singh.

Your hypothetical Romanian could not automatically move to the UK with his Thai family as a matter of right; he would still need to satisfy certain criteria under the directive and UKVI's interpretation of those criteria, which in some areas is actually not in accordance with said regulations!

If your Romanian wanted to take his Thai family to live with him in Romania he would have to comply with whatever criteria the Romanian immigration rules required.

Indeed, as I stated in various posts, blame the national governments for conjuring up more (ever) more strict rules for their own citizens rather then applying the 2004/38 directive to all. Britain could aplpy the directive to British citizens if they wanted too or even have more relaxed rules for British citizens and their non-EU family (which probably was the case in the past?) But when immigration became a hot topic in many EU nations (UK, NL, BE, ...) the administrations in power decided to increase the immigration rules and now you have the rather silly situation that national citizens are actual discriminated against in their own country. Blame those who decided it was a good idea to enforce such strict rules before any possibel change of 2004/38 (the directive seems fair too me but if it has flaws then changes can be made of the memberstates agree to update the directive, which currently is not the case).

[newbepat]

Basically; yes.

Unmarried partners are treated under the directive as a qualifying family member.

But; each member state has it's own definition of unmarried partner!

For the UK; the couple must have been living together in a relationship akin to marriage for at least two years prior to any application; whether that be under the UK immigration rules or the EEA freedom of movement regulations.

I'm afraid I don't know about other member states.

My question was, just to remind you again : What's the position as regards a thai partner (not married) does the same rules apply I mean going to another eu country other than your own ??

Thanks for your reply 7by7

First of all I find the rule, where by one has to be living together for 2 years, very hard to comply with, when we can only get 90 day visit visas.

At this moment, I cannot go and live in Thailand with my Thai GF due to work commitments, she can only come to visit me 2 x 90 days per year if we are lucky, we have doing this for the last 7 years now. when she comes to me we live together, when I go to her we live together.

I am Irish so can I go to England ( EU country) for say 6 months, use the rule above ?

estion was :

[Donutz]

NL might be an option for you, as they are much less strict when it comes to what an "exclusive and durable relationship" (akin to marriage) is.

This topic/post might be useful:

ToG had contacted directly with Kuala Lumpur, where the Dutch visa's are processed. I guess that the embassy in NL forgot about the requirements since this task of judging over visa's was taken away from them. Or they copy/pasted the wrong information. Indeed your documentation should be enough. The directive and EU Handbook are quite clear:

3.6. Supporting documents
In order to prove that the applicant has the right to be issued with an entry visa under the Directive, he must establish that he is a
beneficiary of the Directive. This is done by presenting documents relevant for the purposes of the three questions referred to above, i.e. proving that:
• there is an EU citizen from whom the visa applicant can derive any rights;
• the visa applicant is a family member (e.g. a marriage cert
ificate, birthcertificate, proof of dependency, serious health grounds,
durability of partnerships ...) and his identity (passport); and
• the visa applicant accompanies or joins an EU citizen (e.g. a proof that the EU
citizen already resides in the host Member State or a confirmation that the EU
citizen will travel to the host Member State).

It is an established principle of EU law in the area of free movement that visa applicants have
the right of choice of the documentary evidence by which they wish to prove that they are
covered by the Directive (i.e. of the family link, dependency ...) . Member States may,
however, ask for specific documents (e.g. a marriage certificate as the means of proving the
existence of marriage), but should not refuse other means of proof.

For further information in relation to the documentation, see Commission Communication
COM (2009) 313 final 22.

3.7. Burden of proof
The burden of proof applicable in the framework of the visa application under the Directive is
twofold:
Firstly, it is up to the visa applicant to prove that he is a beneficiary of the Directive. He must
be able to provide documentary evidence foreseen above as he must be able to present evidence to support his claim.

If he fails to provide such evidence, the consulate can conclude that the applicant is not
entitled to the specific treatment under the Directive. Additional documents may not be required regarding the purpose of travel and means of subsistence (e.g. proof of accommodation, proof of cost of travelling),which is reflected in the exemption for family members of EU citizens from filling in the following fields of the visa application form:

Source: http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/home-affairs/what-we-do/policies/borders-and-visas/visa-policy/docs/20140709_visa_code_handbook_consolidated_en.pdf (from the EU Home Affairs page).

You could quote the handbook to this staff member and inform that you will submit:

- The application form (filled out, skipping the * questions)

- 2 passport photo's

- Pasport and copies of the applicant

- Copy of the EU passport (show the original at the counter if you wish)

- The marriage certificate (if you wish translated into English either officially or a self written translation, you could supply more such as certification if you wish but youo should be fine if you cannot or won't, aslong as you make clear you are legally and genuinly married!!)

- Something that shows the Thai will travel with the UK citizen to NL. A letter very much like what you wrote in your e-mail will do but if you feel like it you are free to submit more evidence that make it clear that you will head to NL (and UK) together).

- Are unable (and rather not spent the time and money) on providing official translations and certification from the UK embassy which are not stricly required under the directive.

ToG told me privately that he was told by the Dutch embassy (same person you are now mailing with) that an appointment isn't required, can lodge any day Monday - Thursday from 14.00-15.00.

I believe ToG included copies of his flight to the UK (and NL?) as extra evidence. ToG didn't include a marriage certificate but evidence of a durable relationship by providing a copy of their joint lease (a relationship is durable of you lived 6+ months together according to the Dutch instructions).

Oh and the Dutch have a manual of their own for embassy/visa staf but it's pretty much a copy of the EU handbook in it's contents, ofcourse customized to fit how the staff should process correctly in the Dutch computer system etc. This handbook thus, like the EU one, does not tell staff to request certification, official translations, insurance etc.

See: http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/804545-taking-thai-mrs-to-france/?p=9174941

Edit: I realize that you are living apart (living together would make things much easier!) but if you have had a relationship for a while and have been together frequently I'd definately contact the Dutch ( asiaconsular [at] minbuza.nl ). If she is eligable for the fast, free, simplified procedure then once in NL you could start the SS route by living in the Netherlands for 3 (6) months.

Edited March 16, 2015 by Donutz

[durhamboy]

Isn't it somewhat ludicrous that if the OP was Romanian rather than British then he could take his family from Thailand to Britain as a matter of right because of EU rules? But, because he is British, he cannot. So much for your "rules are rules".

No, it is not ludicrous as you are comparing apples and oranges; different sets of regulations for different circumstances.

Many people who complain about it forget that the freedom of movement directive is a two way street, and well over a million British nationals use it to live in other EEA states. The OP could do this if he so desired, and after just three months living there use the directive to move with his family to the UK via Surinder Singh.

Your hypothetical Romanian could not automatically move to the UK with his Thai family as a matter of right; he would still need to satisfy certain criteria under the directive and UKVI's interpretation of those criteria, which in some areas is actually not in accordance with said regulations!

If your Romanian wanted to take his Thai family to live with him in Romania he would have to comply with whatever criteria the Romanian immigration rules required.

Indeed, as I stated in various posts, blame the national governments for conjuring up more (ever) more strict rules for their own citizens rather then applying the 2004/38 directive to all. Britain could aplpy the directive to British citizens if they wanted too or even have more relaxed rules for British citizens and their non-EU family (which probably was the case in the past?) But when immigration became a hot topic in many EU nations (UK, NL, BE, ...) the administrations in power decided to increase the immigration rules and now you have the rather silly situation that national citizens are actual discriminated against in their own country. Blame those who decided it was a good idea to enforce such strict rules before any possibel change of 2004/38 (the directive seems fair too me but if it has flaws then changes can be made of the memberstates agree to update the directive, which currently is not the case).

Actually Donutz I agree that the Directive 2004/38 is in essence a good thing. The problem is that the EU has expanded far too quickly and allowed countries such as Romania to join the EU. Countries such as Romania have economies that our out of synch with their Western European neighbours and therefore there is a huge imbalance in the movement of labour. I wonder how many more Romanians come to the UK than Brits go to Romania?

So we end up with a situation where a Romanian can roll up at Dover and live in the UK for as long as he likes (7by7 - that is the reality of it) whereas a Brit who has lived with his Thai family for many years in Thailand cannot bring his family to live in the UK. Indeed we have even seen examples where they cannot even get a visit visa!

So when it comes to blame for all this. I do not blame the Romanians etc for coming to the UK - good luck to them. Probably I would do the same if I was in their position. I do not bame Directive 2004/38. I do partly blame the EU for allowing membership to countries whose economies are not developed enough - similar story with the euro and Greece.

But mostly I blame the British government for having a whole series of arbitrary hoops for Brits to satisfy in order to bring their loved ones to their own country. Why do they have all these hoops? Partly to cut down on immigration numbers in order to try and counter-balance the number of Eastern Europeans we have let in! I believe that each member state of the EU has the right of veto over applications from other countries. De Gaulle consistently vetoed UK applications in the 1960s. I think the UK could have vetoed Romania etc but didn't.

Edited March 17, 2015 by durhamboy

[7by7]

<snip>

So we end up with a situation where a Romanian can roll up at Dover and live in the UK for as long as he likes (7by7 - that is the reality of it)

No; the reality is that a Romanian, or any other EEA national, can live in the UK only for as long as they meet the requirements of the directive; i.e. are exercising an economic treaty right and do not become an unreasonable burden upon the state.

Until and unless they obtain permanent residence, which takes at least 5 years, for which they have to satisfy certain requirements to qualify. PR is not automatic.

......whereas a Brit who has lived with his Thai family for many years in Thailand cannot bring his family to live in the UK. Indeed we have even seen examples where they cannot even get a visit visa!.....

Yes they can; provided they satisfy the requirements of the immigration rules.

The only one of which I have any problems with being the financial requirement. Not that I am saying there should not be one, but that the current one as it stands is not only unwieldy and unfair but, for reasons I have gone over on numerous occasions, not fit for purpose.

That and the outrageous, profiteering fees charged for each application; visa, FLR and ILR.

(Incidentally, among other things, I gave evidence to the APPG on migration when they investigated the new settlement rules. Other than moan on internet forums, what have you done?)

In Thailand year after year over 95% of visit visas are approved. Of those failed applications we read about on forums such as this the main reason for rejection is down to simple errors by the applicant or sponsor.

All countries, as previously said, have their visa requirements; many being a lot stricter and harder to meet than those of the UK. Maybe you should read a few posts from our American and Australian fellow members, then you will see how comparably simple, easy and quick a UK settlement visa is to obtain!

You may very well say that is not relevant to a topic on the UK immigration rules; but neither is the EU freedom of movement directive.

[moobie]

I don't know if this is worth starting a new topic over but with regards to the UK form 8th April 2015 there will be the re-introduction if Exit checks.

I'm guessing that this may highlight more visa "irregularities" and the imposition of future return travel restrictions for those who have opted to play "fast and loose" with the visa rules? A further problem for the OP?

(Expect queues at points of embarkation seems to be the message in today's UK media.)

[durhamboy]

7by7 - you say "the reality is that a Romanian, or any other EEA national, can live in the UK only for as long as they meet the requirements of the directive; i.e. are exercising an economic treaty right and do not become an unreasonable burden upon the state.

Until and unless they obtain permanent residence, which takes at least 5 years, for which they have to satisfy certain requirements to qualify. PR is not automatic"

You know as well as I do that the requirements of the directive are minimal in order to facilitate freedom of movement of labour in the EU. Therefore all an EU national has to do when they roll up at Dover is say "I am exercising my EU treaty right under Directive 2004/38." They can only be refused entry for extremely limited reasons e.g. if they are a danger to public health. As you know there is no finance requirement, no accommodation requirement, no English requirement and no TB check. Now compare that with the Brit who wants to bring his Thai wife to the UK and all the arbitrary hoops they have to go through. You say that I am not comparing apples with apples. Try telling that to the British guy in this forum who lived in Thailand for 17 years with his wife and wanted to bring his wife to the UK for a friend's wedding and was refused - remember that case? Whereas a Romanian just turns up with his family and stays for as long as he wants to - oh sorry 7by7 as long as he "meets the requirements of the directive" which IN REALITY is for as long as he likes! Therefore I think you are being disingenuous.

You say that over 95% of visit visas are approved but what is the figure for settlement visas because that is what we are really talking about here. I believe they no longer publish the figures. How many people figure out that they cannot meet the criteria and therefore don't bother making an application because they know they will be refused and saving themselves about £1000? No point applying if e.g. you don't pass the English test or fullfil the financial requirement. So if you are saying there is a high success rate with settlement visa applications then really you need to take into account those that cannot meet the requirements - an unknown figure.

The fact that Australia and the US may or may not have stricter requirements is not really relevant. Are you saying that you think the UK is only half as bad as those countries then it's all ok and we should be grateful?

Finally yet again you say to me "Other than moan on internet forums, what have you done?" Seems that you have a short memory 7by7. I told you before that I sued the Home Office over a settlement visa. Yes actually took them to the County Court and represented myself. I lost the case. The judge said that whilst she was sympathetic to the facts of my case she could not make any order against the Home Office because it has no duty of care to me or my then wife. I am reluctant to do anything now whilst my Thai wife is still subject to immigration control. So I try and highlight the absurdity and shambles of our immigration system on the internet. You call it moaning. Well if you don't like it then there is an easy solution for you - don't read my posts. So far in about 3 years of arguing with you here you, in my opinion, have failed to show that I am wrong in what I have been saying.

[7by7]

Durhamboy, rather than relying on what you read in the press you really should familiarise yourself with the directive itself and the UKVI guidance , the UKVI casework instructions and the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006, plus, of course, subsequent amendments to same.

You will then see that it is not as simple for EEA nationals to live in the UK as "roll(ing) up at Dover (and saying) "I am exercising my EU treaty right under Directive 2004/38.""

BTW, what have you got against Romanians? Are you as fervently against other EEA nationals exercising their treaty rights; EEA nationals like the well over a million Brits currently doing so?

If someone knows that they do not qualify for a UK visa and so does not apply for one, then of course they are not going to be included in any figures! I don't qualify to be a judge, so should I be included in the figures of those who have failed to become one?

The US and Australia are as relevant as the EEA to this discussion; though if you have read or understood anything I have ever posted about UK settlement visas and the financial requirement in particular you would know that I most certainly do not think "the UK is only half as bad as those countries then it's all ok and we should be grateful!"

You are complaining that EEA nationals find it easier to settle in the UK than non EEA nationals do. That is true, just as it is true that UK nationals find it easier to settle in other EEA states than non EEA nationals do. I merely pointed out to you that settlement in the UK is a hell of a lot easier than it is in other countries.

Taking the Home Office to court and losing is not the same as actively campaigning and lobbying for change.

Having said all that, the main reason why I find it difficult, if not impossible, to take you seriously is because you have posted on several occasions that you feel the settlement requirements should apply to everyone except the Thai partners of British citizens! (See, I can remember what you post.)

In other words, you are looking at this from a purely selfish position; whereas I, and many others, want a fair and equitable system for all; not just our partners.

No doubt you will feel the need to come back with more; but I have said all I have to say to you on this matter in this topic.

[7by7]

I don't know if this is worth starting a new topic over but with regards to the UK form 8th April 2015 there will be the re-introduction if Exit checks.

I'm guessing that this may highlight more visa "irregularities" and the imposition of future return travel restrictions for those who have opted to play "fast and loose" with the visa rules? A further problem for the OP?

(Expect queues at points of embarkation seems to be the message in today's UK media.)

It certainly means that overstayers and other illegals are far more likely to be caught should they ever try and leave the UK.

Which, in my opinion, can only be a good thing.

[teatree]

Durhamboy, rather than relying on what you read in the press you really should familiarise yourself with the directive itself and the UKVI guidance , the UKVI casework instructions and the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006, plus, of course, subsequent amendments to same.

You will then see that it is not as simple for EEA nationals to live in the UK as "roll(ing) up at Dover (and saying) "I am exercising my EU treaty right under Directive 2004/38.""

BTW, what have you got against Romanians? Are you as fervently against other EEA nationals exercising their treaty rights; EEA nationals like the well over a million Brits currently doing so?

If someone knows that they do not qualify for a UK visa and so does not apply for one, then of course they are not going to be included in any figures! I don't qualify to be a judge, so should I be included in the figures of those who have failed to become one?

The US and Australia are as relevant as the EEA to this discussion; though if you have read or understood anything I have ever posted about UK settlement visas and the financial requirement in particular you would know that I most certainly do not think "the UK is only half as bad as those countries then it's all ok and we should be grateful!"

You are complaining that EEA nationals find it easier to settle in the UK than non EEA nationals do. That is true, just as it is true that UK nationals find it easier to settle in other EEA states than non EEA nationals do. I merely pointed out to you that settlement in the UK is a hell of a lot easier than it is in other countries.

Taking the Home Office to court and losing is not the same as actively campaigning and lobbying for change.

Having said all that, the main reason why I find it difficult, if not impossible, to take you seriously is because you have posted on several occasions that you feel the settlement requirements should apply to everyone except the Thai partners of British citizens! (See, I can remember what you post.)

In other words, you are looking at this from a purely selfish position; whereas I, and many others, want a fair and equitable system for all; not just our partners.

No doubt you will feel the need to come back with more; but I have said all I have to say to you on this matter in this topic.

I think the point he is trying to make is that it is far, far easier for a non UK EU passport holder to take their non EU wife to live in the UK. Some might say it is a formailty compared to the absurd and unfair hoops UK nationals have to jump through.