Incorrect Visa

[Mossfinn]

Following on from a previous post, I have had confirmation that the original visa, for my step-daughter was in fact issued correctly.

They are stating that they have found the relevant application form.

It appears that when the the visa application was lodged, it was stated that the visa was for a 'visit to join mother'. Nor is there any mention on the application form that her mother, ******* *******, had already been granted indefinate leave to remain in the UK. The visa therefore appears to have been correctly issued.

This is only part referencing the letter, but what I find a little disconcerting is the term, 'appears', being used on several occasions, the evidence is either there or it isn't, the term 'appears', would suggest it is not clear.

As I would have clearly stated my wife's imigration status in the application and that she had settlement issued a full fourteen months before, I cannot understand how her immigration status was not clear, particularly as I would have included a copy of the wife's passport.

As it now appears, because I have no copy of my covering letter, I may have stated requesting a visa to visit the mother, if so, why would they have given a visa for a full three years, the length of the remaining life of the passport, if she was not intending to settle.

Anyway, it all now appears to be running into a dead end as she has decided in the immediate term to continue with education in Thailand.

My intention, was to get the correct visa issued and then continue on to settlement when hopefully she would decide her future, in the medium term was in the UK.

Thanks for all your help Vinny and in particular Scouse for the help on and off this forum, I guess, sometimes it just doesn't work out.

Regards

Moss

[the scouser]

Moss,

I can see why you may not wish to pursue the matter if your step-daughter is to otherwise return to Thailand, but the decision is so outrageous that it begs to be pursued. Additionally, if her current leave to enter lapses, she will not qualify as a dependant again once she attains majority.

It should be self-evident to the Home Office that your step-daughter's current status is wrong: as a dependant, she qualifies for the same leave as her mother, in this case indefinite leave. Moreover, the visa officer would not have granted the visa without sight of the mother's passport, so he will have been aware of Mrs Moss' status in the UK.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, it is just not possible under the provisions of the immigration rules (as they relate to dependants of people married to someone settled in the UK) to correctly grant leave to enter for 3 years; it's either the remainder of the parent's probationary 2 years or indefinite leave.

This sort of bureaucratic idiocy really does get my goat!

Scouse.

PS. It would seem that the original application form has been destroyed and they're working off the residual computer records which just contain the minimum of information. That's why they say "appear" a lot. They have singularly failed to address the issue, though, which is why does this girl have leave for 3 years when that is not possible.

[Mossfinn]

Thanks for the response, Scouse.

Because of your previous correspondence it did and still does appear patently wrong, something also quite strange is that they are stating,

'In these circumstances, it would not be appropriate for the ECO to now issue a gratis settlement visa and I would recommend that when your step-daughter wishes to join her mother in the Uk, she lodges a fresh application in Bangkok for a settlement visa'.

If you remember, I never asked for a gratis settlement visa, just for the stamp to be issued correctly, so then I could go on and apply for a settlement visa, you actually advised me that I would have to pay for a settlement visa.

Why would they even suggest I want a free SV, I haven't even alluded to wanting one, I can't apply for a SV until I have gone through the proper step process to achieve one, they are almost suggesting that I am trying to circumvent the normal processes.

I must admit I have been completely honest with them and told them she is taking a year out to study in Thailand, where she is currently residing, something he viewed with deep suspicion and distrust.

I don't normally give up so easily, particularly when others have put in time and effort, but your post is so strong, I will pursue this guy again on Monday and perhaps suggest whether they will allow me to see my file, in whatever guise it presently exists, when I am back in Thailand in October.

Unfortunatly, this is only for a short time and I have other things to attend to, then I am there for a longer period in December.

Is there any mileage in this?

Thanks again

Moss

[the scouser]

Moss,

From whom did you get the letter, the Home Office or the embassy? If the latter who signed it?

Scouse.

[vinny]

A child's visitor visa would have been endorsed differently. It's clear from the wording of the visa that they issued it under 14.4 - Children of parent(s) being admitted with a view to settlement. However, as Scouse stated, it should have been self evident from her mother's ILR in her mother's passport that the visa should have been issued under 14.3 - Children of parent(s) or a relative settled (or to be admitted for settlement).

If your step-daughter had correctly gotten an ILE, then she would have qualified as a Returning Resident if she returns to settle in the UK within two years of departure. Moreover, she may have successfully applied for British Citizenship with her mother before temporarily leaving the UK.

Edited September 16, 2006 by vinny

[Mossfinn]

Moss,

From whom did you get the letter, the Home Office or the embassy? If the latter who signed it?

Scouse.

Hi Scouse,

Peter Roberts, Policy Advisor, Home Office.

I addressed the letter to him after being given their number by the solicitor who endorsed the Wife and Daughters passport, who were specialist in immigration matters.

Cheers,

Moss

[Mossfinn]

Thanks Vinny,

The endorsement is'visit to join mother/cyr and as you know it should have been evidently clear that the mother had indefinate leave to remain.

The information regarding ILE is most informative and a bit of a kick in the teeth if they remain steadfast and will not change their view.

As Scouse as stated and was a bit of a shock also that they may be working off limited computer records and not a complete file, which was why I thought something was wrong when they kept usuing the term, 'appears'.

Thanks again Scouse and Vinny,

I will use this info when I ring them tomorrow.

Regards

Moss

[vinny]

As Scouse stated, the Embassy's Visa Section must have inspected your wife's passport when processing her daughter's visa application. If you can show that your wife's ILR (see 1, 2, 3, 4, 5) was issued before her daughter's visa application then the Embassy will have a hard time justifying that they issued the correct visa. The visa they had issued was not in line with their own policy (14.3).

Edited September 18, 2006 by vinny

[Mossfinn]

Thanks for all the advice Vinny, it has helped me see things clearer, as you can obviously read, I am still a little confused on interpretations of the correct visa names.

I have asked Scouse to help me draft a letter and put the finer points more lucidly than I could possibly attempt to, so that will be off tomorrow.

Thanks again for your keen in-put, i will let you know how I get on.

Regards

Moss

[Mossfinn]

End of the road it would appear.

Again my appeal to UKvisas has ended in refusal.

Bangkok are still insisting that the visa was correctly issued, but are now stating that the ECO who dealt with application 'is no longer at post'.

They are still stating that the mother did not provide evidence of having been granted ILR when the application was considered in 2004.

It is patently obvious that the mother would have to show her immigration status at the time of application, of which it would clearly be seen that she had ILR for over a year previous.

They also state that 'it is possible that the ECO may well have issued a further visa on the balance of probability'.

There is no way they would have issued a visa on the balance of probability without knowing the mothers immigration status, as she was coming to the UK as the visa states 'to join mother'.

What on earth does that mean, when taken in context, just another poor attempt at a cover.

they seem to accept that the 'issue is further complicated by the unusual stamp issued, ,valid until the end of the passport, rather than the two years generally granted'.

The whole issue is really a sad indictment of the appeal process and the inability to accept that a mistake has been made.

Anyway it all seems academic now as the step-daughter believes her future is in Thailand as she never really settled.

So that is the end of the story.

Thanks for all the help, over several different threads, lessons learnt, guidance gratefully accepted, in Particular thanks to Vinny and Scouse who provided invaluable pointers and support.

Best Regards

Moss

[the gent]

A disturbing case offering a rare insight into just how reluctant an organisation can be to admit to incompetence by its staff.

While your stepdaughter may well be disenchanted with the UK it remains a sad fact that she has been deprived of her entitlement to settlement and qualification for British citizenship which she might have valued sometime in the future.

Why not maintain your correspondence with the Home Office/UkVisas declining to accept their miserable response and indicating that you will seek a judicial review if needs be. This can be expensive but in your stepdaughter's case I doubt if Treasury solicitors acting for the HO would let it go the full distance, not least because of the patent idiocy of statements made to you over the recent months.

Go stick it to them!

[atlastaname]

The State never likes to admit its wrong, which wouldn't matter so much if it wasn't for the misery caused by those mistakes. I have no doubt that jails around the world including the UK contain many who are innocent , the proof of which lies in a govt dept "buried" forever intentionally. The State can get away with it because of public apathy . The public apathy is there because the newspapers decide it doesn't make sensational reading , they would rather print exaggerrated stories about immigration or paedophiles because they can whip up the generally non-thinking public.

In this case the cover up is disgraceful and although i don't always agree with the gent ...on this occasion i would be putting it even more strongly than he does. Luckily for the State most people affected by the injustices/mistakes tend to give up and blame lack of time for not pursuing it . Hopefully the OP here will find the time .

[Mossfinn]

Go stick it to them!

Thanks for the advice, but as you have correctly surmised she has grown disenchanted with the U.K, particularly the schooling aspect, whereas being quite bright they were unable to get the best from her abilities and actually left school feeling a considerable failure despite our best efforts to the contrary.

I don't normally need an invitation to get involved in a beef, but I have found it quite wearisome fighting a battle I do not fully understand and would never have got this far without the Scouse and Vinny's invaluable help.

It doesn't help when you ring UKvisas and the guy on the other end of the phone can hardly believe or try and justify the decision.

What is further annoying and I stand to be corrected here, but if she had the correct visa in place now, she could continue to renew every two years until, in our belief anyway, she would come to her senses and realise that Brit Cit may well be beneficial in the future.

Anyway, I may just give it another go, some thought required here, me thinks.

Thanks again for the gee up.

Moss

[Mossfinn]

In this case the cover up is disgraceful and although i don't always agree with the gent ...on this occasion i would be putting it even more strongly than he does. Luckily for the State most people affected by the injustices/mistakes tend to give up and blame lack of time for not pursuing it . Hopefully the OP here will find the time .

Unfortunately, lack of time, although always a constant battle will not be the over-riding principle, but whether I can be bothered to bang my head against a brick wall, when it is obvious something is rotten in the state of the Bangkok Embassy.

UKvisas did advise me to appeal to them, but when I said, 'Well who do you think I am talking to now', his reply, 'Yes I know but we will deal with it this time and not pass it on to the Rest of the World desk' who went on to pass it on to the Bangkok embassy and then back to UKvisas.

Bureaucracy gone mad

Thanks for the reply.

Moss

[meadish_sweetball]

Mossfinn, you really have my sympathy. These issues cause a neverending amount of grief.

I really hope your perseverance will pay off in the end.

All the best

Meadish

[samran]

Sorry to hear Mossfin, it sounds like an absolute balls up.

Just my experience, my wife and I are in BKK cause I came back for a 1 year contract. We both have FLR till 2008 in the UK under the highly skilled migrant programme and while I am in Thailand, I still derive a small income in the UK through some very small time consulting work.

To cut a long story short, our daughter was born here in LOS, and I enquired via email to the embassy about what visa our daughter would need in the event we went back to live and work in the UK. In essense, their answer was waffle, which basically gave away the fact that they had no idea, which sent shivers up my spine.

[GU22]

Again my appeal to UKvisas has ended in refusal.

Moss, have you considered taking this case to the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal? Although, I would strongly suggest getting some professional advice first. (Scouse?) Best of luck with this, obviously mistakes have been made and people are now trying to cover their backs.

Other than that, I have no other comment to make. Unlike others, I do not wish to use your plight to peddle my own prejudices.

Samran, were you able to detail the exact circumstances which will be pertaining at the point when you may wish to apply for a visa for your daughter? If not, then I can understand why the embassy were reluctant to to give you a detailed specific response. However, if you would care to post their actual response then I'm sure that people here would be happy to comment on it.

[Mossfinn]

Mossfinn, you really have my sympathy. These issues cause a neverending amount of grief.

I really hope your perseverance will pay off in the end.

All the best

Meadish

Thanks Meadish, appreciate the support.

Moss

[Mossfinn]

In essense, their answer was waffle, which basically gave away the fact that they had no idea, which sent shivers up my spine.

It is a little worrying isn't it.

I trusted their judgement initially, without actually checking the stamp.

Well, what a fool believes......

thanks for the concern and response

Moss

[Mossfinn]

have you considered taking this case to the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal?

No I havn't as yet, my thoughts before the recent posts was just to give up.

I will check it out tomorrow.

Thanks for the advice about professional help and Scouse, this is certainly another option, I still get confused about the correct names for the right visa's, so this would obviously be the way to go.

To be perfectly honest, I had thought of just finishing here, my post to kick this off again was purely to let people who had followed the original posts know how it had ended.

Because of the support, you know, I might just get back in the saddle.

Thanks again to all for your responses it is greatly appreciated.

Good Luck

Moss

[samran]

Samran, were you able to detail the exact circumstances which will be pertaining at the point when you may wish to apply for a visa for your daughter? If not, then I can understand why the embassy were reluctant to to give you a detailed specific response. However, if you would care to post their actual response then I'm sure that people here would be happy to comment on it.

The exact circumstances were outlining that I was on a HSMP visa with FLR to 2008. My wife also has FLR by virtue of marriage to me.

I outlined that I am a 'contractor' that I have a strong work history in the UK (HSMP allows you to work for anyone without the additional need for a work permit). My wife and I also have substantial savings, available accomodation in the UK. I also stated that I came to LOS for a one year contract -and had the intention to return.

They stated that I'd have to get a dependent of a work permit holder visa for my daughter and would need my employer to basically sponsor that.

I wrote back and pointed out that technically I am not a work permit holder, and as a HSMP holder I don't need the offer of an employment (the whole idea for the HSMP visa is for people to live and work in the UK without restriction - you have to jump through lost of hoops to get it in the first place though) and only need to show evidence that I can support myself without recourse to public funds and have accomadation available for my entry (which is what I had to do when I first entered and canberra issued the visa to me and my wife).

So that was the story. I think in the end, she recommended the FLR-1 form, but I was far from convinced that if we actually went to apply the embassy would know what to do with my situation.

[Mossfinn]

Third Refusal, it barely stands up, and for a gov't organisation, well, well, well.

Here is the refusal in full.

Dear Mr Botely ( Although they managed to address it to me in the right name, the name they address me on the letter is this, for those of you who do not know me, that is not my name )

Thank you for your letter of 1st Dec 06 regarding your step-daughter ***** *****.

Your letter, together with the attached documentation was sent to the ECM at the Visa Section of our Embassy in Bangkok.

The ECM has reiterated on the advice that you were given in a letter from my colleague dated 9 Oct, which gave you the background to the case.

**** **** has been issued a visa in 2002 endorsed "to join mother", the visa was granted for one year. ( This is correct )

The ECM at our Embassy in Bangkok has stated that **** **** visa application form does not show that her mother provided evidence of having been granted ILR in the UK when the application was considered 2004, However it states that the previous visa issued has not been used because her grandfather was very ill and it was too traumatic to take her at that time.

( As previous posts, they had to know Mothers Immigration status, to give the Daughter a Visa to join Mother)

The ECO was satisfied that **** ***** mother was still in the UK but no evidence can be produced that she had ILR. ( This statement has been stated in the two previous refusals and countered by me in each subsequent response, they had to know the immigration status of the Mother, which was ILR a full year earlier. )

As previously stated *** **** has been issued with two settlement visa's, ( is a visa to join Mother/CYR a settlement visa ), neither of which has been used. ( She lived in the UK for a year and a half!!! ) The current visa was made valid until the end of the passport April 2007, rather than the two years generally granted, his further complicated the issue. The ECM can therefore only judge the case on the basis of the visa application form and notes that are available. However,as there has been a change of circumstances the ECM maintains that **** ***** needs to lodge a fresh application to settle in the UK.

Yours

Not only have they consistently refused to answer the questions stated in the previous appeals that were put in proper legalese and stated the correct paragraphs explaining that the whole issue was a mistake they have gone on to get their response completely incorrect as well.

The first line of the last paragraph is almost unbelievable.

What is a little annoying also, is that when I spoke to UKvisas about the previous refusal, they said to appeal and they would deal with it, all they have done is sent it back to Bangkok as previous with the same inevitable response.

Oh well.

Here we go again.

Good Luck

Moss

[the scouser]

Moss,

I'm off out for a pint now, so I'll give a more detailed response when I have the opportunity, but it basically resolves to whether they were aware that your wife possessed ILR at the time of your step-daughter's application. As you have commented, there is no way they would have issued any duration of visa without knowing the mother's immigration status in the U.K.

Did you point them in the direction of their own instructions which say that satisfying themselves of the parent's status is a prerequisite of issuing the visa?

Scouse.