UK Conservative election win - are more visa changes likely?

[fbf]

Sorry if it should be obvious, but what is a BRP?

[durhamboy]

Something inconvenient that would be just about compatible with their policy would be to to demand evidence of a B1 English qualification for obtaining a BRP evidencing ILR or "No Time Limit" (NTL). It seems that obtaining a BRP for NTL is already treated more like a visa extension than merely updating ID evidence. However, it would also be compatible with Labour policy.

Actually I have great difficulty in trying to understand what you mean. Your first sentence seems to say that a B1 qualification should be obtained for ILR. If that is what you mean then that is what happens already so I'm confused.

[Richard W]

Yes, it was Labour who abolished the primary purpose rule; but they still allowed spouse/partner applications to be refused on the grounds of it not being a genuine relationship; so I fail to see the difference.

The difference is between primary purpose and sole purpose.

[Richard W]

Something inconvenient that would be just about compatible with their policy would be to to demand evidence of a B1 English qualification for obtaining a BRP evidencing ILR or "No Time Limit" (NTL). It seems that obtaining a BRP for NTL is already treated more like a visa extension than merely updating ID evidence. However, it would also be compatible with Labour policy.

Actually I have great difficulty in trying to understand what you mean. Your first sentence seems to say that a B1 qualification should be obtained for ILR. If that is what you mean then that is what happens already so I'm confused.

No, I said to obtain a BRP. Are you saying that one can no longer obtain a BRP evidencing ILR or NTL without a B1 qualification? I'm not sure about ILR, but one used to be able to obtain a BRP evidencing NTL without ever obtaining any English qualification. All that was required in principle was evidence that one had ILR.

Edited May 10, 2015 by Richard W

[wooloomooloo]

Sorry if it should be obvious, but what is a BRP?

Biometrics Residence Permit, fbf.

If you're unfamiliar, it's the size of a driving licence / credit card with photo, name and address and unique Home Office reference number.

Now my wife has obtained citizenship and a British passport, we're still unsure what to do with it.

We've decided to keep it until it expires [ten-year shelf life] and take it on holiday just in case she loses her British passport. We're in LOS now and it's come with us. Saves having to go to the Embassy for passport replacement.

[fbf]

Thanks for explaining. Actually I did read about those somewhere on here but didn't get the abbreviation. I've added this page to my long list of visa application notes: https://www.gov.uk/biometric-residence-permits/overview

From reading this, you should definitely hang on to it because it will likely be asked for in many stages of UK life in future - healthcare, employment, renting accommodation...

Edited May 10, 2015 by fbf

[fbf]

Seems the BRP will be needed whenever re-entering the UK too: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/418271/v_9_overseas_BRP_leaflet.pdf

[Richard W]

Seems the BRP will be needed whenever re-entering the UK too: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/418271/v_9_overseas_BRP_leaflet.pdf

If you believe that leaflet, a replacement should have been applied for within 3 months of Mrs Wooloomooloo becoming British - perhaps her British passport counts as such. I'd suggest she only use the BRP as a last resort, as many claim that she lost leave to remain when she became British. (Or is the claim that a British citizen can have leave to remain but not leave to enter?)

[7by7]

Yes, it was Labour who abolished the primary purpose rule; but they still allowed spouse/partner applications to be refused on the grounds of it not being a genuine relationship; so I fail to see the difference.

The difference is between primary purpose and sole purpose.

Yes, under the primary purpose rule a couple had to prove a negative; that it was not a marriage of convenience entered into so that the foreign spouse could enter the UK.

Since the abolition of that rule, couples have to prove a positive; that the marriage is genuine; i.e. not a marriage of convenience entered into so that the foreign spouse could enter the UK!

I fail to see the difference.

[7by7]

Seems the BRP will be needed whenever re-entering the UK too: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/418271/v_9_overseas_BRP_leaflet.pdf

If you believe that leaflet, a replacement should have been applied for within 3 months of Mrs Wooloomooloo becoming British - perhaps her British passport counts as such. I'd suggest she only use the BRP as a last resort, as many claim that she lost leave to remain when she became British. (Or is the claim that a British citizen can have leave to remain but not leave to enter?)

Surely that leaflet applies to biometric information and a BRP issued to persons who are not British citizens, so no longer applies to a person who has been naturalised or registered as such?

Especially once they have obtained a British passport as this can be used for every purpose described in the leaflet. Even if they don't obtain a passport, then can not their naturalisation or registration certificate be used for those purposes?

As far as I can ascertain, once someone becomes naturalised, or registered, as a British citizen, whether or not they also obtain a British passport, then not only does their BRP become redundant, they can also write to the Home Office and request their bio-metric record be destroyed pursuant to Section 143 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (as amended).

(2) If a person from whom fingerprints were taken proves that he is—

.

(a) a British citizen, or

.

( b ) a Commonwealth citizen who has a right of abode in the United Kingdom as a result of section 2(1)( b ) of the 1971 Act,

.

the fingerprints must be destroyed as soon as reasonably practicable.

But I'm not sure how, if at all, The British Nationality (General) (Amendment) Regulations 2015 part IIA Biometric Information and Citizenship effects this as it does say that applicants for citizenship may have their biometrics taken if an 'authorised person' requires it.

Para 7E gives details of when biometric information may be retained.

But Para 7F says

7F.—(1) The Secretary of State must take all reasonable steps to ensure that biometric information held by the Secretary of State by virtue of these Regulations, including any copies, is destroyed if the Secretary of State—

(a) no longer thinks that it is necessary to retain the information for use as mentioned in regulation 7E(1); or

( b ) subject to the exception in paragraph (2), is satisfied that the person to whom the information relates is a British citizen, or a Commonwealth citizen who has a right of abode in the United Kingdom as a result of section 2(1)( b ) of the Immigration Act 1971.

.

(2) The exception is that photographs of a person who is registered or naturalised as a British citizen may be retained until the person is issued with a United Kingdom passport describing the person as a British citizen.

(My emphasis)

Confusing, aint it!?

What is certain, I am sure, is that if someone presents a British passport which states that they are a British citizen to immigration at any UK port of entry then that is all that is required for them to be allowed entry.

Edited May 10, 2015 by 7by7

[Richard W]

Yes, under the primary purpose rule a couple had to prove a negative; that it was not a marriage of convenience entered into so that the foreign spouse could enter the UK.

Since the abolition of that rule, couples have to prove a positive; that the marriage is genuine; i.e. not a marriage of convenience entered into so that the foreign spouse could enter the UK!

I fail to see the difference.

Under primary purpose, the couple had to establish that the primary purpose of the marriage was not immigration to the UK. It was not sufficient to prove the marriage was genuine. See, for example, the judgement in Bhatia.

[Richard W]

Surely that leaflet applies to biometric information and a BRP issued to persons who are not British citizens, so no longer applies to a person who has been naturalised or registered as such?

That's why I started:

If you believe that leaflet, <snip>

However, I for one would rather entrust such a BRP to someone I didn't trust than a certificate of naturalisation. Some legitimate employers have been known to retain passports for hours while they inspect and copy. Circumstances differ - there will be cases where a BRP is the only evidence of a child's Britishness.

[wooloomooloo]

Confusing, aint it!?

We can attest to the utter confusion as per my post of 1 December 2014, link below, and subsequent posts.

My wife duly sailed through immigration on 5 December 2014, as documented.

We return to UK on 21 May, so who's to say we couldn't repeat the feat with her BRP and her Thai passport again but with the safety net of having my wife's British passport in her back pocket, just for educational purposes? Not that we'd want to but would be interesting.

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/index.php?/topic/757289-Timescale-of-british-citizenship-answer/page__view__findpost__p__8746657

[wooloomooloo]

From reading this, you should definitely hang on to it because it will likely be asked for in many stages of UK life in future - healthcare, employment, renting accommodation...

That's not going to happen, fbf. My wife is a fully fledged British citizen and her passport will serve her well and no further questions asked.

Though, as per previous posts, the government websites are confusing and contradictory. We just learn to look past them.

There's more chance that my wife, at some stage, would be asked to present her marriage certificate, i.e. mortgage application. No problem there as it's translated and notarised.

Edited May 10, 2015 by wooloomooloo

[wooloomooloo]

Seems the BRP will be needed whenever re-entering the UK too: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/418271/v_9_overseas_BRP_leaflet.pdf

Indeed, but not once the holder possesses a British passport. Edited May 10, 2015 by wooloomooloo

[moobie]

_{To guess what may happen look at the blocks that the Lib Dem's placed on the Conservatives during the coalition years.}

_{From what I can gather the Con's wanted the financial minimum requirement set around the £28k per year mark but the Lib-Dem's pegged this back to the £18.6k per year mark. Since a poll today suggests that people are still concerned about immigration (rated just behind the fears for the NHS) then I wouldn't be surprised if this initial figure was introduced.}

_{Since both Labour and the Lib Dem's are now leaderless and in disarray it would be the ideal time for the Government to plough ahead with many things such as the above.}

[durhamboy]

I'm also alarmed by this. Conservatives now have an overall majority so don't need another party to exert any sort of control over them as the Lib Dems did (not that it did the Lib Dems any good - they have been anihilated!).

Of particular concern to me is enhanced English tests for those seeking to extend family visas. That suggests to me that they want a B1 pass for FLR. If so, what do they do if someone fails - deport them and ask questions later? What if they have UK born children? I guess the first step will be to see what they put in the Queen's Speech. At least they haven't mentioned LITUK for FLR but who knows what they will do.

Btw, Donutz there is a party that takes seriously the unfairness of spouse visas. It's the Green Party. Natalie Bennett (their leader) was the only person I heard mention this in the entire election process. She referred to it twice in 2 of the our national tv debates. But they can't do anything - they only got 1 seat and, as said, the Conservatives have an overall majority anyway.

That would be a positive if they did make it a requirement for FLR to have B1 I think the English requirement at the moment is too low. The applicant would have 30 to start a course to get to the required level, There are far to many people that want to settle in the UK but have very limited understanding of English. How do these integrate with other people around them?

And what would you do if they failed B1? Deport them? What if they had UK born children?

Please enlighten us as to how you would handle that situation.

M-H - can you please not just ignore my question and have the courtesy to answer it.

It is one thing to deny entry to the UK on the grounds of poor English but it is something entirely different to impose greater standards of English as a condition of extending their visa when they are living in the UK. The ramifications are significant and alarming.

You seem to agree with this policy but, as with the Tories, have failed to say what you would do if the applicant failed B1. Please justify your position.

Maprang-Holmes, I have asked you twice to say what you would do if anyone failed B1 English. You have declined to respond which is your privilege.

So I'm now going to say what I think of the idea and your apparent attitude to it. It sucks on both counts! I kind of expect this nonsense from the Tories but not someone in this forum who has a Thai wife. I'm guessing she came here before the English requirement for a settlement visa.

If there is to be a policy that anyone applying for FLR requires a B1 English pass (as the manifesto implies) then their also needs to be a policy about what happens to them if they fail. Now HMG may say ok we will give you 6 months extra time in order to pass. I don't know but ultimately I see no other sanction than deportation for those that can't pass. Would you like to see that M-H? Would anyone in this forum like to see that? Smacks of the National Front back in the 1970s.

[bobrussell]

Heading back to the original subject of the thread!

Now the electioneering has come to a halt, I suspect there will be a break in the visa changes. The government are committed to an EU referendum (and hopefully renegotiation so we remain within a reformed EU) so this has to be their priority.

Before the election everyone had to look strong on immigration to keep the Sun and Daily Mail readers on side. UKIP was the big bogeyman waiting in the wings to eat voters.

The real target is going to be the real or imagined EU immigrant that is stealing all our tax money and sending it home! Very much a minority IMO.

In the real world non-EU migration numbers are small and most sensible people would not begrudge a wife or husband being allowed to join a spouse settled in the UK. Separating mothers from children also makes bad press for a government.

In the unlikely event that B1 is required for FLR then applicants just have to get on with learning English to the still very basic level that B1 represents. The exam is not much more than a simple interview and demonstrates skills needed for day to day life. Youtube has plenty of demonstration exams if you doubt this!

My sister-in-law has just passed her LitUK test for naturalisation and this is far more challenging! Her B1 is tomorrow.

[bobrussell]

Should add that I bet the fees go up!!!

[Basil B]

If Home Secretary Teresa May's efforts to bring Immigration down to 10,000s of thousands,turn out to be 260,000 as has happened now,then there will not be too much to worry about! and she has been given the job of Home Secretary, again in today's reshuffle! One could be tempted to say: that the Conservatives are all about cheap labour coming in,in droves, it keeps the Plebs in their place! and gives the Fat Cats ammunition for whinging about yet more cut backs needed,so they can get more back to work in their wheel chairs. Time to open some more food Banks and Soup kitchens! And don't think there aren't any in your home town back home,believe me it's a growing market! they take food donation in the Supermarkets,the Schools,churches,and anywhere,and under another 5 years of this Government can only get much worse! Bumping the Visa Fees up is also a growing industry too!

It beets me how she kept her job... let alone be reappointed?

It was not just Immigration, but virtually all the departments under her control had major problems during the last parliament, so many junior ministers sacked or resigned, it is just unbelievable she was not replaced.

[bobrussell]

Many of the departments under Home Office control were in such disarray that I suspect it will take years to get them straight. UKBA staff just kept finding rooms full of unprocessed asylum applications.

Under present rules immigration is unstoppable under EU rules. Perhaps the biggest mistake they made was to have unrealistic expectations of numbers!

Not so sure that cheap labour is the main issue with employers. My wife works in a five star hotel. They offer jobs to British people all the time but most give up within days because it is hard work! The staff are mainly Polish and Hungarian and they work really hard. They are paid living wage not minimum. English classes are held every week and they get fed well!

Definitely off topic but my belief is it is the quality of the labour that is more important than it being cheap.

[wooloomooloo]

There we have it. Paragraph 3 of the following BBC article.

What the new bill on immigration rules consist of remains to be seen.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-32714802

[durhamboy]

"

Heading back to the original subject of the thread!

Now the electioneering has come to a halt, I suspect there will be a break in the visa changes. The government are committed to an EU referendum (and hopefully renegotiation so we remain within a reformed EU) so this has to be their priority.

Before the election everyone had to look strong on immigration to keep the Sun and Daily Mail readers on side. UKIP was the big bogeyman waiting in the wings to eat voters.

The real target is going to be the real or imagined EU immigrant that is stealing all our tax money and sending it home! Very much a minority IMO.

In the real world non-EU migration numbers are small and most sensible people would not begrudge a wife or husband being allowed to join a spouse settled in the UK. Separating mothers from children also makes bad press for a government.

In the unlikely event that B1 is required for FLR then applicants just have to get on with learning English to the still very basic level that B1 represents. The exam is not much more than a simple interview and demonstrates skills needed for day to day life. Youtube has plenty of demonstration exams if you doubt this!

My sister-in-law has just passed her LitUK test for naturalisation and this is far more challenging! Her B1 is tomorrow.

Bob you say "In the unlikely event that B1 is required for FLR then applicants just have to get on with learning English to the still very basic level that B1 represents. The exam is not much more than a simple interview and demonstrates skills needed for day to day life. Youtube has plenty of demonstration exams if you doubt this!"

Firstly I don't really accept the premise of your point that B1 is still very basic. It's the third level up from A1. A1 is supposed to be very basic. There was a case in this forum where a lady failed A1 (twice I think). She had previously passed A1 in Thailand and mistakenly thought she had to take it again for FLR.

So I ask the question again - what would you do if someone failed B1 for FLR? Would you deport them? Do you think the government would deport them? If so, do you think that that is morally right?

[bobrussell]

My sister-in-law is doing her B1 as we speak. The level of English is reasonable conversation level. There are plenty of short courses to prepare those with fair English. She has a four hour preparatory course.

Others with less good conversation skills have over 2 years to prepare.

What happens if the applicant fails B1? There will have to be a mechanism to extend FLR for a set period and applicants will have to put in a lot of study if required.

Have you looked at sample videos of B1 exams? They are similar to interviews but some preparation of topics needs to be done.

Google B1 English test format to get examples. This is a doddle compared to LitUK!

[durhamboy]

Bob, I agree with a lot of what you say. B1 is easy compared to LITUK. Yes I have looked at sample B1 videos.

But you still haven't answered the questions. What if an extension was given and the applicant still failed? So I ask you the questions again. Would you deport them? Do you think the government would deport them? If so, do you think that that is morally right?

I'm sorry to be persistent but it is all very well to have English tests but their could be very serious consequences for those who fail. And remember they may fail for very good reasons e.g. having children.

[Richard W]

What happens if the applicant fails B1? There will have to be a mechanism to extend FLR for a set period and applicants will have to put in a lot of study if required.

But MaprangHolmes thought it would be fine if B1 were made a requirement for FLR.

[johnch1213]

What happens if the applicant fails B1? There will have to be a mechanism to extend FLR for a set period and applicants will have to put in a lot of study if required.

But MaprangHolmes thought it would be fine if B1 were made a requirement for FLR.

Sorry for the late reply but Thaivisa wont let me long on with my face book user name but anyway you are right I would like to make that English speaking requirement far higher than the current level. The main point is integration and for that you need to speak English. I would do any with the LITUK test and make the speaking requirement higher to the point that if after 5 years a person can still not understand English then yes I would have know problem with deporting them

[fbf]

Now the electioneering has come to a halt, I suspect there will be a break in the visa changes. The government are committed to an EU referendum (and hopefully renegotiation so we remain within a reformed EU) so this has to be their priority.

That does indeed seem to be what's happening. They're going after terrorism and hate speech today, and picking fights with the EU already.

I suspect they'll make appealing immigration refusals harder in general, targeting the separate groups of terrorist preachers and asylum seekers, with spouse visa appeals included as a by-product of any changes. Not that my plan for marrying a Thai lady includes an appeal necessarily - here's hoping! (And anyway, if the visa does get refused, and leaving cost aside for a moment, is a new application the better route?)

As you say, a lot of changes were made before the election. So perhaps we'll see tougher appeals process and above-inflation price rises for now but not much else (here's hoping).

[fbf]

I'm sorry to be persistent but it is all very well to have English tests but their could be very serious consequences for those who fail. And remember they may fail for very good reasons e.g. having children.

I don't think anyone can be sure what will happen here.

It could turn into a mess, with a test case going to the supreme court (and any new 'British bill of rights' we get still needs to meet our UN treaty obligations, or at least look like it does), or with people being left in limbo, expected to leave the country but in a backlog to be actually enforced behind a long queue of asylum seekers.

Or, and I think more likely, they'll set out the rules more clearly with a 3-6 month grace period to retake the test, maybe who knows with a couple of retries. The government might be satisfied that the worry/expense incurred is enough of a 'sanction' for failing to learn English.

All pure speculation on my part... but I think it's fair to say, nobody knows right now!

[fbf]

Sorry for the late reply but Thaivisa wont let me long on with my face book user name but anyway you are right I would like to make that English speaking requirement far higher than the current level. The main point is integration and for that you need to speak English. I would do any with the LITUK test and make the speaking requirement higher to the point that if after 5 years a person can still not understand English then yes I would have know problem with deporting them

I agree learning English is highly valuable for integration and should be promoted and encouraged at every stage. Past governments perhaps missed an opportunity here, the current situation seems more balanced.

In my case I'm confident that my fiancée will have no trouble attaining the standards needed. Maybe she won't be ready to converse with Stephen Fry just yet, but after a few years she'll at least reach the level of an average X-Factor judge I hope.

Also I am not in favour of too much sudden/uncontrolled migration (as seen from a very big change to the policy with respect to 10 EU countries).

Yet I would not be quick to deport people on the basis of English speaking alone, I think it's a step too far. There's a danger of discriminating on the basis of intellect, because it's hard to prove how much effort was made in learning English/trying to pass the test. It's also manifestly unfair if someone is allowed to enter the country, establishes a life here, and then the goalposts move - so at the very least, I don't believe deportation should be imposed retrospectively on anyone who's made the move under the current regime.

There's also the small matter, if the UK decides to leave the EU, of Spain deporting all the English-only-speaking ex-pats...

Edited May 13, 2015 by fbf