FLR Refusal Notice.

[Liquorice]

A very good friend of mine in the UK, married 5 years, applied for a Settlement Visa for his wife about 3 years ago, has just had her FLR application refused. They are both absolutely distraught. Really nice genuine couple. He is 73, his wife 55.

The reasons for refusal make no sense whatsoever.

The first reason being that the Financial requirement of £18,600 cannot be met.

(He submitted letters from his Pension providers detailing his annual Pensions and a number of bank statements covering the period showing over £24,600 per annum).

The second reason being doubt of a genuine and continuous relationship.

They make numerous reference to parts of the Immigration rules, including children, refugee and long term residency clauses, non of which are applicable to their situation. (7 pages long).

There final statements of refusal are even more confusing:

“When considering the requirement outlined in paragraph 276ADE (1) it is noted that you are a national of Thailand and that you entered the UK on 4^th Nov 2012. You have therefore lived in the UK for 2 years 9 months and it is not accepted that you have lived continuously in the UK for at least 20 years, therefore……………………………”

“When considering the requirement outlined in paragraph 276ADE (1) it is noted that you are a national of Thailand and that you entered the UK on 4^th Nov 2012. You have therefore lived in the UK for 2 years 9 months and it is not accepted that you have spent at least half your life living continuously in the UK, therefore……………………………”

Firstly she entered the UK on 14th Nov 2012, which is clearly shown on her flight ticket and the entry stamp in her passport.

Both were submitted as evidence with the FLR application.

Secondly, she has never entered the UK before November 14th 2012, and has certainly not lived continuously in the UK for 20 years, nor for almost half her life.

The only conclusion I can draw is that they have confused her records with that of someone else by the same name.

How is that possible? They are totally confused and shocked.

He has just completed the online Appeals form, but can submit very little evidence given the circumstances, other than flight tickets and passport stamps confirming her date of entry to the UK as 14th, not 4th and stating they feel the UKBA are talking about a different person with the same name.

They now have to wait for a date for a Tribunal hearing.

[Stanaris]

I think it would be useful to the experts on here if the full refusal letter was scanned, with names removed.

[7by7]

Indeed.

As for the parts which do not seem relevant to her application, I believe it is standard wording as UKVI have to consider all the possible reasons why an applicant may qualify for FLR and say why those reasons have been rejected.

You say they have appealed; presumably they have a suitably qualified OISC registered advisor or immigration solicitor advising them?

[bobrussell]

The Home Office are unfit for purpose and sometimes I wonder what non-prescription medication some are on! Appeal, yes but take this one straight to your MP. It is likely it will be resolved long before an appeal is held!

My sister in law is still waiting for her naturalisation fee to be taken (three months on) but they have taken her 13 year old daughters fee! So far no acknowledgement of the email or letter requesting this be checked!

I suspect there will be many more nonsensical FLR decisions in the next few months. Very odd that in person applications seem to be dealt with much more professionally. Perhaps the unemployable are processing the postal applications behind the scenes!

[Liquorice]

Indeed.

As for the parts which do not seem relevant to her application, I believe it is standard wording as UKVI have to consider all the possible reasons why an applicant may qualify for FLR and say why those reasons have been rejected.

You say they have appealed; presumably they have a suitably qualified OISC registered advisor or immigration solicitor advising them?

Unfortunately it's not mine to scan on TV, but you can take my word for it, I have a scanned copy.

Other than the first half of the first page concerning refusal on grounds of failing to meet the financial requirement, which he does.

(Incidentally ever document was returned, except the financial proof)

The rest of it headed 'Family Life on the 10 Year Route' refers to parts of the Act just not applicable to her application.

Appendix FM 1.0 and sections under that rule.

Paragraph 276ADE.

Immigration rule 7 Paragraphs 246 - 248F. Requirements for leave to enter the United Kingdom as a person exercising rights of access to a child resident in the United Kingdom.

Even the UKBA statements of their refusal have the wrong facts.

These rules quoted just do not apply to her application for FLR on the 5 year route as the spouse of a UK citizen present and settled in the UK.

Not to mention they have her date of entry wrong and the total time she has been in the UK.

I also learned this morning that although the refusal notice has his wife's name correctly spelt, he just noticed that the accompanying letter has an entirely different Thai name on it!

7by7, they rang every Immigration lawyer within 100 miles and not one had the time to look at it due to such short notice.

The UKBA posted the refusal 2nd class last Tuesday, arriving Saturday morning, of the Bank holiday weekend.

That left 7 days to file the appeal.

Having spent hours reading references they make to the Immigration rules and the fact they have the wrong dates, I am convinced they have mixed up her application with that of someone else. It's absolutely outrageous.

Edited September 8, 2015 by Faz

[bobrussell]

There seem to be very few immigration lawyers out there!

Start the appeal process (can be done on-line). Write a letter of complaint to UKVI/Home Office and get your MP involved without delay. You will only get a result by making a lot of noise and even this may not the right result.

The refusal notice makes no sense whatsoever so I believe there is a fighting chance the MP will push the Home Office into correcting the problem (eventually!).

[Stanaris]

Might sound like a silly question but did they apply using the correct documentation and/or used the Settlement Checking Service?

[Liquorice]

Thanks Bob.

He's already completed the online appeal form.

I looked up the contact and complaints procedure for the UKVI and will pass this onto him tomorrow.

[Liquorice]

Might sound like a silly question but did they apply using the correct documentation and/or used the Settlement Checking Service?

Form FLR(M).

He's double checked he completed the correct sections and ticked the correct boxes.

He sent over 56 documents in evidence.

He's well educated and intelligent. He received some guidance from a UK forum from other members who have just successfully gone through the process of FLR and ILR. He didn't use the Settlement Checking Service.

Looking at the facts:

His wife had never entered the UK before 14th Nov 2012. In fact she'd never flown before that date.

She has 1 daughter 26 living in Thailand.

The Immigration rules they quote in the refusal just don't fit her application criteria, but the real nonsense is in their statements of refusal as posted in #1, because the date of entry is incorrect and she has only been in the UK 2years 9 months, whereas they suggest she has spent almost all her life, at least 20 years in the UK.

If she had previously been a refugee in the UK and had a child there, then it would make some sense, but that's not the case.

Where did they get these facts from? Something seriously wrong.

Then there's the question of 2 different names on the refusal notice and the accompanying letter.

The letter is address to Mrs Ling?

[7by7]

Unfortunately it's not mine to scan on TV, but you can take my word for it, I have a scanned copy.

I'm sure that you do; but it is impossible to offer any meaningful advice without seeing the refusal notice and so knowing exactly what it says!

You say he's already submitted the appeal; hopefully he has also sought professional advice.

BTW, the settlement checking service is only available for ILR applications, not FLR ones.

[Richard W]

When was the application submitted? Do we know when it was received? It's just possible that the wife's leave to remain had already expired. The 2 years 9 months does not normally start on the day of arrival; the clock usually starts earlier.

The financial grounds for refusal do look like simple error, though.

[Liquorice]

As an example, attached a couple of pages of the refusal notice for the experts observations.

[7by7]

From page 5, it seems that although they provided letters from the sponsor's pension companies, they did not provide the specified bank statements showing the monies being paid into the sponsor's account.

Which on it's own is reason for refusal.

The first 4 pages of the notice may tell us more; but I suggest your friend seeks professional advice.

[7by7]

When was the application submitted? Do we know when it was received? It's just possible that the wife's leave to remain had already expired. The 2 years 9 months does not normally start on the day of arrival; the clock usually starts earlier.

Good point, Richard, which I must admit had not occurred to me before.

As it seems that her FLR application was considered under the new rules, I assume that she applied for her initial visa on or after 9th July 2012.

If she travelled directly to the UK as soon as her visa was issued it would still be within it's 33 month (2 years, 9 months) validity when she applied for FLR after 2 years 9 months in the UK, just; although she could, of course, have applied after 30 months in the UK.

Of course, without seeing the full refusal notice we don't know if late submission was a factor or not.

[Liquorice]

From page 5, it seems that although they provided letters from the sponsor's pension companies, they did not provide the specified bank statements showing the monies being paid into the sponsor's account.

Which on it's own is reason for refusal.

The first 4 pages of the notice may tell us more; but I suggest your friend seeks professional advice.

And what about page 6 and the refusal based under EX1.

We have carefully considered your application, however your application falls for refusal as the requirements set out at EX1 have not been met.

From the information provided you have not demonstrated

(a) (i) that your are enjoying a genuine and subsisting parental relationship with a child.

Just what child are they talking about?

And the refusal statements already posted in #1 above, ref the time she has already spent in the UK......over 20 years.........almost half her life?

They even quote the wrong entry dates to the UK!

Gents this is the refusal notice pertaining to another person, but certainly not my friends wife, nor their situation.

I've seen my fare share of refusal notices in my time, but I've never witnessed one like this.

I truly believe the UKBA have mixed up two different applications.

He did send Pension letters and bank statements re proof of finances, although these documents weren't returned.

I'll get him to contact the UKVI and follow the complaints procedure.

I agree he should seek some professional legal advice. He has tried.

7by7 they applied her initial Settlement Visa in Sept 2012 and requested it posted dated for Nov 10th, which it was. She entered the UK 4 days later on 14th Nov 2012.

They made the FLR application on 6th July 2015.

[Richard W]

An entry date of 14th November 2012 has been misrecorded as 4th November 2012. Easily done, but conceivably helpful.

It's clear what has happened. At some stage the bank statements have gone missing. The human right to a family life is probably subordinate to the government's right to have an inhumane immigration policy. Faz's friend's best hope is that they have been sent to the other Thai woman named on the refusal, and that she returns them to the Home Office. If this doesn't happen, I fear Faz's friend wife will have to reapply from Thailand, for their only hope will be that a judicial review finds that the Home Office was unreasonably incompetent. I further fear that proving that the bank statements were included would be irrelevant for anything but an administrative review.

Most of the rest of the reply is explanation that other conceivable grounds for granting leave to remain do not apply. The IO doesn't know that there is no child involved; he merely states that their is no relevant evidence pertaining to one. As there is no such child, he is perfectly correct.

[Liquorice]

Very interest conclusion Richard and I agree with your first paragraph.

I cannot agree with your last paragraph though.

Why include other conceivable grounds for refusal that are non applicable to the applicant and then refuse on the grounds that no evidence was submitted. The IO could include every section of the Immigration rules and then refuse on the basis that no evidence was submitted to suggest otherwise.

There was absolutely no mention of a childs involvement in the application. The only names submitted were the applicants and her sponsor, the husband. They submitted her passport and copies clearing showing date of entry and she has never entered the UK before, so why would an IO also include refusal on the grounds that she has previously spent over 20 years, almost half her life in the UK, when she hasn't made any other entries into the UK, nor provided proof to that effect.

I believe this is a case of an administrative error and the reason and facts of the application have been confused with those of someone else who entered the UK around the same period. I'm hoping they will do a full review of the application after receiving a formal complaint and a judicial review won't be necessary.

[bobrussell]

An administrative error would explain the irrelevant and confusing sections plus the wrong name etc. The possibility that sensitive information may have been revealed to a third party is a serious problem in itself. It smacks of carelessness at least!

The issue could be with the bank statements. If inadequate evidence was submitted that would, in itself, lead to refusal then I suspect any correction would be to the paperwork and not the decision. UKVI really don't appreciate the suggestion that they might have got things wrong!

Of course missing bank statements should be corrected with a phone call demanding them but UKVI don't seem overly keen on doing that either!

[Liquorice]

Update:

After an Administrative review my friend received an apologetic reply from the UKBA.

They admitted to an error of entry date and name, but assure him the application wasn't mixed up with anyone else.

They blame that error on overlapping stamps in her passport.

They stand by their decision of refusal based on financial requirements.

Apparently the IO who handles the case after refusing on Financial grounds, then gave reasons of refusal for the 10 year route, in case they considered that as an option. The UKBA admit that was wrong and misleading.

He actually submitted current letters from his Pension providers, government and company, showing a combined annual income of £24,600 per annum.

3 current saving account statement, showing over £50,000 in savings.

10 bank statements (joint account) taken from across the 33 month period. (The UKBA helpline advised he only need to send a few from across the period).

Although he resent the above documents with his complaint and request for an Administrative review, and 31 bank statements detailing his monthly income of over £2,000 per month, they state he will now have to submit them to his appeal at the Tribunal hearing.

The date of the hearing is May 2016.

[bobrussell]

A delay that makes a new application the way forward if affordable! If the helpline advised something that contributed to the refusal it is important that you demand a transcript of the call or a copy of it!

Sadly applications have become a minefield for the unwary and the UKVI helpline, in my experience is a worthless waste of premium rate calls!

The appeals delay just contributes to the belief that UKVI are untouchable!

Part of the inspection report for Amman (I know it is not Bangkok!) states:

"The inspection found that the Entry Clearance Manager (ECM) review process had not picked up errors in cases that had been reviewed. UKVI has recently addressed ECM capacity, but there is also a need to ensure that all ECMs are properly trained and monitored so that ECM reviews are effective. "

Not impressive when you consider they found 11% of the sampled cases, results were considered unreasonable! Not sure when Bangkok is going to be inspected but it is likely to be unannounced!

[Liquorice]

Can he just make a new application for FLR, even though he has appealed?

Is there a time frame involved?

I told him to send all his bank statements, but he said the UKBA helpline told him he only had to send a few from across the period.

That's hearsay, he may be making an excuse for his own incompetence.

At 73, he sometimes forgets who, what, where and when!

[bobrussell]

I find it very bizarre that the ECO did not take the savings into account. By my reckoning the applicant's sponsor only needed to show an income of £5000 with these savings. It appalls me that the ECO did not make any effort to make a quick phone call to request the missing documents. It strikes me that this was almost indefensible especially considering the stress and pressure it puts a 73 year old through. The ECM review also appears to have been poor but this seems to be a real problem!

The ECO has guidance to follow including:

"Under Appendix FM-SE there is discretion for decision-makers to defer an application pending submission of missing evidence or the correct version of it, within a reasonable deadline set for this. Decision-makers will not have to defer where they do not think that correcting the error or omission will lead to a grant."

"Decision-makers have general discretion to request additional information or evidence before making a decision."

I dread to think how much an appeal will cost the tax payer even if the Home Office don't bother turning up!

The application form is not that simple so not all are going to be perfect. Is this just a mean way of raising extra fee money?

[7by7]

I believe that he, or rather his wife, can make a new FLR application and then withdraw either that or the appeal, depending upon which is decided first.

But, he will not get a refund of fees paid if the application is withdrawn.

As his wife is in the UK and her current LTR should have been extended until the appeal is heard, I see no point in making another FLR application at this stage.

With regard to the bank statements, the specified evidence appendix says:

Evidence of Financial Requirements under Appendix FM

10. In respect of non-employment income all the following evidence, in relation to the form of income relied upon, must be provided:

(e) To evidence a pension:

(i) Official documentation from:

• The Department for Work and Pensions (in respect of the Basic State Pension and the Additional or Second State Pension) or other government department or agency, including the Veterans Agency;
• An overseas pension authority; or
• A pension company,

confirming pension entitlement and amount (and, where applicable, reflecting any funds withdrawn from the pension account or fund).

(ii) At least one personal bank statement in the 12-month period prior to the date of application showing payment of the pension into the person’s account.

(iii) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (i), War Disablement Pension, War Widow’s/Widower’s Pension and any other pension or equivalent payment for life made under the War Pensions Scheme, the Armed Forces Compensation Scheme or the Armed Forces Attributable Benefits Scheme may be treated as a pension, unless excluded under paragraph 21 of this Appendix.
(7by7 emphasis)

Bob, as this is a FLR application, it will have been made and decided in the UK, not Amman nor Bangkok! Are in UK decision makers likewise inspected?

Edit in response to above:

Form FLR(M) asks how the financial requirement is being met. If the applicant makes no mention here of meeting it, in whole or part, by savings then why would, or even should, the decision make go searching through the bank statements provided to see what savings the applicant and/or sponsor has?

Why would, or should, they contact the applicant to say that it appears the requirement may not be met through income and ask if they have any savings?

Especially if, as appears to be the case here, the applicant has not provided the required evidence (see para 11 of the appendix)?

Decision makers, whether they be in the UK or in post, only have a limited amount of time to assess each and every application.

I agree it would be excellent if they did contact applicants in the way you often suggest they should; but they simply do not have the time.

Edited October 19, 2015 by 7by7

[bobrussell]

I have heading off on a tangent (and somewhat lost the settlement/FLR plot on the way!).

UK/Home Office departments within the UK are inspected by the Chief Inspector of Borders. There are reports (generally not that complementary) on various departments and it is these that have made the headlines when published.

http://icinspector.independent.gov.uk/inspections/inspection-reports/

The remit is detailed:

http://icinspector.independent.gov.uk/about/

As far as I can see there has not been a report on processing FLR for a spouse within the UK as this is very new! He has done one on Naturalisation applications and the interesting one to come is an inspection into how complaints are handled by UKVI/Home Office.

Having re-entered the real world of the OP there should be no need to do anything other than await the result of the appeal. Applicant status should remain unchanged until the Tribunal hear the case when I am sure the applicant will be granted FLR. Why on earth would UKVI fight a case where the applicant is entitled to FLR and a quick phone call should have resolved the matter? Do they seriously believe the wife of a 73yr old is a good candidate for refusal and deportation?

I tend to read the inspection reports as a whole to give an overall picture of how the visa system works (or often fails to work).

In the pipeline is an Inspection of Settlement Casework! That one might be fun!

Added: The Independent Chief Inspector is of the view that it is only fair to contact applicants where it may clarify the details of an application. I have to admit I agree with that principle!

Edited October 19, 2015 by bobrussell

[Liquorice]

Form FLR(M) asks how the financial requirement is being met. If the applicant makes no mention here of meeting it, in whole or part, by savings then why would, or even should, the decision make go searching through the bank statements provided to see what savings the applicant and/or sponsor has?

Why would, or should, they contact the applicant to say that it appears the requirement may not be met through income and ask if they have any savings?

Especially if, as appears to be the case here, the applicant has not provided the required evidence (see para 11 of the appendix)?

If he submitted the Financial proof we only have his word for, then I feel it wouldn't;t have been refused.

He also stated that non of the bank statements were returned, which leads me conclude two possibilities.

1. The statements somehow became detached from his file so weren't available for the ECO.

2. He thought he had included them, but forgot.

I guess he'll just have to wait for the Tribunal hearing now. I know he has the proof, but it's not until May 2016.

He has the resources to make a new application. They planned a couple of holidays but because her passport has been held, their grounded.

Surely he would have to make a new application, withdrawing the existing one at the same time.

Withdrawing the current application first would surely put her in an over stay position.

His wife should have started her ESOL Entry 3 course in September.

Because they couldn't provide her passport, the College were reluctant to allow her to start the course.

They are now requesting a letter from the Home Office that her conditions are unchanged.

After missing 18 lessons already, I doubt a letter would be of any help now anyway.

Your correct Bob that this is still a new procedure, and it obviously brings other problems to bare that the UKBA haven't considered, like being able to continue College studies as it's also part of her English Language requirement for ILR.

Perhaps a standard letter in these situations for Employers or Colleges to inform them of the applicants Immigration status once an appeal is lodged.

Edited October 19, 2015 by Faz

[Trevor1809]

If he submitted the Financial proof we only have his word for, then I feel it wouldn't;t have been refused.

He also stated that non of the bank statements were returned, which leads me conclude two possibilities.

1. The statements somehow became detached from his file so weren't available for the ECO.

2. He thought he had included them, but forgot.

You right Government departments never ever make mistakes. Like the time I had a tax investigation, sent off my bank statements and building society pass book, back came the statements but not the passbook.

Now in the letter I and I stated what I had included so the onus was on HMRC to verify what I said I has sent had in fact been sent. HMRC swore blind that they hadn't got it.

Would you trust an organization that stuffs thousands of asylum applications down the back of filing cabinets in obscure offices rather than admit they had s*****d up.

When their backs are against the wall Government Departments lie just like the rest of us.

All my documentation goes in a bound folder so short of unpicking the bindings they must have got what I sent them.