UK visit visa refusals for staying longer than requested

[Tony M]

From time to time we see mention of someone who has stayed longer in the UK than they originally asked for in their application, and the general feeling, and comments, is that there is no harm in this as long as the visa holder doesn't overstay. You might therefore find this very recent visa refusal notice interesting :

[PeeJay1959]

Ouch

[theoldgit]

I have to say that I've never been in the camp that says it doesn't matter if you fully utilise the time granted in a visa having applied for a visa for a short holiday, my view has always been that if you stay longer than you advise in the initial application then, whilst the change of plan could all be above board, it could cause your reasons to return into question in a future application.

I did note than in the refusal the ECO has acknowledged that no Immigration Law has been breached.

I would always advise that if you make a further application following an "overstay", especially if the visit has been extended by a considerable time, then you fully explain the reasons in a subsequent application.

[bobrussell]

Someone who stays for 5 months can only rarely be considered a true visitor so I have some sympathy with the ECO. 4 weeks becoming 5 months really does require an explanation as it does bring into doubt the original purpose of the visa application and does raise doubt regarding the honesty of the applicant.

If there was a major change in the visa holders situation that justified the difference then it should be explained!

What is missing from the visa armoury is a type that allows these 'in between a visit and settlement' that UKVI and the NHS could charge handsomely for!

[theoldgit]

Tony, do you know if the ECO's are using the stamps in the passports to ascertain how long the applicant stayed in the UK, or are they becoming more joined up and accessing the information carriers are now collecting on embarkation?

An applicant could have left the UK on time but stopped off on the way back home, and of course if they used the automatic gates the passport wouldn't have a stamp.

It could of course be that the applicant was open and honest in their subsequent application, which would mean my earlier post may not hold water.

[7by7]

I think the pertinent point in the refusal is "it is not clear why you stayed for this extended period when you stated your intentions to travel 'for 4 weeks only.' This leads me to be dissatisfied .......that you intend to stay for your proposed visit of 2 months on this occasion."

The applicant apparently did not explain in this application why they stated in their previous application that they would only be visiting for 4 weeks but then stayed in the UK for 5 months. Thus, understandably, damaging their credibility in this application; and it appears future ones as well.

We all know that the applicant did not break any rule by staying longer than intended, as the ECO acknowledges, but saying one intends to visit for 4 weeks and then staying for 5 months takes some explaining!

Especially if in the original application the applicant said they had to return after 4 weeks for work or similar.

Over the years I have been involved in forums such as this I have seen many posts from people asking if their visitor should say in the application that they only want to stay for a few weeks, even though they actually intend staying much longer, even for the full 6 months. This refusal shows the danger of doing this. Always tell the truth; if the intention is to stay for 6 months, say so in the application.

Circumstances do change, and a visitor may be able to extend their stay, or even have to; which could be the case here. But the extended stay, especially one of 5 times the period originally stated, does need to be satisfactorily explained in subsequent applications.

But at the end of the day, tell the truth in the application; if the intention is to visit for 6 months, say so!

I am making general comments and, of course, do not know the reasons why this applicant stayed so much longer than originally stated; I am certainly not implying that they lied in their original application.

[Tony M]

Tony, do you know if the ECO's are using the stamps in the passports to ascertain how long the applicant stayed in the UK, or are they becoming more joined up and accessing the information carriers are now collecting on embarkation?

An applicant could have left the UK on time but stopped off on the way back home, and of course if they used the automatic gates the passport wouldn't have a stamp.

It could of course be that the applicant was open and honest in their subsequent application, which would mean my earlier post may not hold water.

I don't know anything about the application. I was only made aware of the refusal. However, the ECO could have used stamps in the passport and there aren't that many countries where you won't get a stamp to show you have entered or left. Also, the question on the application form, asking which countries the applicant has visited in the previous 10 years, would hopefully be answered honestly.

The most recent guidance to ECO's does give the ECO the "right" to to question previous visits to the UK by an applicant. It says :

Assessing an applicant’s personal circumstances

In addition to meeting the requirements of the Immigration Rules, the following factors will help you assess if an applicant is a genuine visitor:

 Their previous immigration history, including visits to the UK and other countries.

 The duration of previous visits and whether this was significantly longer than they originally stated on their visa application. If this is the case, you should not automatically presume that the visitor is non-compliant, but this may be a reason to question the applicant’s overall intentions.

 Their financial circumstances as well as their family, social and economic background.

 Their personal and economic ties to their country of residence.

 The cumulative period of time the applicant has visited the UK and their pattern of travel over the last 12 month period, and assess whether this amounts to ‘de-facto’ residence in the UK.

 Whether, in your judgment, the information and the reasons for the visit provided by the applicant are credible and correspond to their personal, family, social and economic background.

[bobrussell]

"Question the applicant's overall intentions."

The key part of the refusal IMO. How many people can go for a month's visit then decide to stay for five times that length? Without more information specific to this case, it is difficult to be absolutely confident that the ECO was right or not. On the face of it, this may well be the appropriate result.

[VBF]

I have to say that I've never been in the camp that says it doesn't matter if you fully utilise the time granted in a visa having applied for a visa for a short holiday, my view has always been that if you stay longer than you advise in the initial application then, whilst the change of plan could all be above board, it could cause your reasons to return into question in a future application.

I did note than in the refusal the ECO has acknowledged that no Immigration Law has been breached.

I would always advise that if you make a further application following an "overstay", especially if the visit has been extended by a considerable time, then you fully explain the reasons in a subsequent application.

But if no Immigration Law has been breached, and the person was granted a stay of up to 6 months, surely it's REASONABLE to allow them to stay for that time, therefore it should have no impact on future applications?

And, surely, it wasn't an overstay if the visa allows one to stay for 6 months, then 6 months it should be and once again should have no impact on future applications.

Imagine if you were living in UK and got a Tourist Visa for Thailand, having said on the application form that you intended to stay for 35 days - too long to be "visa exempt"

As we know a TV is good for 60 days which is what's usually given on arrival, so if you decided to extend your trip to (say) 8 weeks but still left before the due date, wouldn't you be rather upset if that was held against you?

We object when the Thais are unclear in their Visa requirements or "interpret" them in different ways...... Do we have a double standard here, perchance?

Edited October 28, 2015 by VBF

[bobrussell]

The issues revolve around people trying to bypass settlement rules and staying in the UK for as long as they can. A four week visit that becomes five months suggests that (without a good explanation) this is more than a visit.

No, the applicant has not broken the rules but the more this happens the more likely it is that the system will be changed to stop it. How long will it be before a visa for a four week stay is valid for four weeks only?

Most people would struggle to justify a five month visit actually being a true visit!

[Trevor1809]

_{So what if somebody wants to legitimately extend their stay. What is the process. Having originally planned to stay 4 weeks but finished up staying 5 months, all legally, then surely the fault lies with the process. They should have given a 4 week visa. They can't give a 6 month then complain when somebody uses it.}

[Trevor1809]

Most people would struggle to justify a five month visit actually being a true visit!

So why issue a 6 month visa.

[VBF]

The issues revolve around people trying to bypass settlement rules and staying in the UK for as long as they can. A four week visit that becomes five months suggests that (without a good explanation) this is more than a visit.

No, the applicant has not broken the rules but the more this happens the more likely it is that the system will be changed to stop it. How long will it be before a visa for a four week stay is valid for four weeks only?

Most people would struggle to justify a five month visit actually being a true visit!

Why?

They originally planned to stay 4 weeks but discovered that they liked it enough to stay for (most of) the full 6 months that they have been granted

So should they have requested a 5 month stay in the first place then?

Would they have been granted it? If not why was a 6 month visa issued when 4 weeks was applied for?

It's not logical to grant something and then penalise someone for using it!

Edited October 28, 2015 by VBF

[oncearugge]

The issues revolve around people trying to bypass settlement rules and staying in the UK for as long as they can. A four week visit that becomes five months suggests that (without a good explanation) this is more than a visit.

No, the applicant has not broken the rules but the more this happens the more likely it is that the system will be changed to stop it. How long will it be before a visa for a four week stay is valid for four weeks only?

Most people would struggle to justify a five month visit actually being a true visit!

Why?

They originally planned to stay 4 weeks but discovered that they liked it enough to stay for (most of) the full 6 months that they have been granted

So should they have requested a 5 month stay in the first place then?

Would they have been granted it? If not why was a 6 month visa issued when 4 weeks was applied for?

It's not logical to grant something and then penalise someone for using it!

Failure to explain the reason(s) associated with the extended stay are the basis for refusal.

[VBF]

The issues revolve around people trying to bypass settlement rules and staying in the UK for as long as they can. A four week visit that becomes five months suggests that (without a good explanation) this is more than a visit.

No, the applicant has not broken the rules but the more this happens the more likely it is that the system will be changed to stop it. How long will it be before a visa for a four week stay is valid for four weeks only?

Most people would struggle to justify a five month visit actually being a true visit!

Why?

They originally planned to stay 4 weeks but discovered that they liked it enough to stay for (most of) the full 6 months that they have been granted

So should they have requested a 5 month stay in the first place then?

Would they have been granted it? If not why was a 6 month visa issued when 4 weeks was applied for?

It's not logical to grant something and then penalise someone for using it!

Failure to explain the reason(s) associated with the extended stay are the basis for refusal.

I realise that...but........ I still maintain its illogical because if something is granted then logic should dictate that it may be used without further explanation!

As I said above, imagine the outcry if the Thais granted someone a stay of 6 months and then penalised them for using it at the next application.

Edited October 28, 2015 by VBF

[bobrussell]

It comes down to lack of explaining the difference. Say the ECO issues a further 6 month visa and the applicant stays a further 5 months. Then again and again.

A visit visa is for a visit. If there is a good explanation then put it in the next application and it is quite possible that a new visa will be issued!

The danger is that the six month flexible, multi entry visa will be replaced with a visa for a single entry, for a fixed time. Schengen visas have gone this way already. Applicants should be honest about their stay or be willing to explain what changed.

Better to have a flexible visa and not abuse it than be faced with more draconian controls.

[oncearugge]

The issues revolve around people trying to bypass settlement rules and staying in the UK for as long as they can. A four week visit that becomes five months suggests that (without a good explanation) this is more than a visit.

No, the applicant has not broken the rules but the more this happens the more likely it is that the system will be changed to stop it. How long will it be before a visa for a four week stay is valid for four weeks only?

Most people would struggle to justify a five month visit actually being a true visit!

Why?

They originally planned to stay 4 weeks but discovered that they liked it enough to stay for (most of) the full 6 months that they have been granted

So should they have requested a 5 month stay in the first place then?

Would they have been granted it? If not why was a 6 month visa issued when 4 weeks was applied for?

It's not logical to grant something and then penalise someone for using it!

Failure to explain the reason(s) associated with the extended stay are the basis for refusal.

I realise that...but........ I still maintain its illogical because if something is granted then logic should dictate that it may be used without further explanation!

As I said above, imagine the outcry if the Thais granted someone a stay of 6 months and then penalised them for using it at the next application.

Thailand does not require a person to state how long they intend to stay as part of a visa application.

The person stated she wanted to stay for four weeks!

She then subsequently failed to explain a five month stay and was refused.

The lady now needs to make a fresh application explaining her extended stay and hope to regain some credibility by learning it is best to be true to your word or have a damn good explanation for not doing so.

[VBF]

oncearugge

Thailand DOES require a person to state how long they intend to stay as part of a visa application

Go and look at the application form from the Thai Embassy in London (attached) look at part 2, where it asks for "Duration of Proposed stay"

Then please read my example above (#9) and ask yourself again if it's logical!

And, by the way, I have no personal interest in this, as i'm never likely to want to sponsor a Thai person to visit UK; I'm also against uncontrolled or disguised migration - even so i still consider it totally illogical and unfair!

visaapplication2015.pdf

Edited October 28, 2015 by VBF

[oncearugge]

oncearugge

Thailand DOES require a person to state how long they intend to stay as part of a visa application

Go and look at the application form from the Thai Embassy in London (attached) look at part 2, where it asks for "Duration of Proposed stay"

So read my example above (#9) and ask yourself again if it's logical!

And, by the way, I have no personal interest in this, as i'm never likely to want to sponsor a Thai person to visit UK; I'm also against uncontrolled or disguised migration - even so i still consider it totally illogical and unfair!

Thanks.

You should consider setting up a .GOV petition deploring the "illogical " stance and demanding that the UK open its borders to all comers!

Whoops

Forgot your favorite ex prime minister did that !

[VBF]

oncearugge

Thailand DOES require a person to state how long they intend to stay as part of a visa application

Go and look at the application form from the Thai Embassy in London (attached) look at part 2, where it asks for "Duration of Proposed stay"

So read my example above (#9) and ask yourself again if it's logical!

And, by the way, I have no personal interest in this, as i'm never likely to want to sponsor a Thai person to visit UK; I'm also against uncontrolled or disguised migration - even so i still consider it totally illogical and unfair!

Thanks.

You should consider setting up a .GOV petition deploring the "illogical " stance and demanding that the UK open its borders to all comers!

Whoops

Forgot your favorite ex prime minister did that !

Before this goes totally READ my post please....... I'm also against uncontrolled or disguised migration

[Basil B]

Significant changes in circumstances...

A bit ambiguous... what are the looking for? got promoted at work, bought their house, higher income, won the lottery???

Unfortunately it is the visitor who is being punished when probably been advised by others...

[oncearugge]

Significant changes in circumstances...

A bit ambiguous... what are the looking for? got promoted at work, bought their house, higher income, won the lottery???

Unfortunately it is the visitor who is being punished when probably been advised by others...

I can agree with that.

She was most likely "advised" or "persuaded" to stay by someone who failed to understand the potential consequences

However, as an Adult the lady must accept the outcome of her decision.

[bobrussell]

People have stayed much longer than originally intended, explained why and been given further visas. It all comes down to credibility of the applicant. ECO's work on the balance of probabilities so someone stating they are going to do one thing then doing something different is likely to lose credibility. An ECO has to believe an applicant!!

It is possible (but we don't know details) that this is the case here.

[wooloomooloo]

… when you had stated your intentions to travel for ‘4 weeks only’.

… I am not satisfied that you are a genuine visitor, and that you intend to depart the UK at the conclusion of your proposed travel.

'4 weeks only' is a quote from the original visit visa application.

The ECO doesn't even consider the applicant a potential overstayer, just that - on current form - the applicant is expected to extend their stay once again. That'll be a six month stay then.

Can't fault the ECO's decision.

[RabC]

_{So what if somebody wants to legitimately extend their stay. What is the process. Having originally planned to stay 4 weeks but finished up staying 5 months, all legally, then surely the fault lies with the process. They should have given a 4 week visa. They can't give a 6 month then complain when somebody uses it.}

"They" aren't complaining at all.The tourist said 4 weeks and stayed 5 months, so the UK decides they are persona non grata at the moment, problem followed by solution. Cant see any complaining by the UK

[VBF]

_{So what if somebody wants to legitimately extend their stay. What is the process. Having originally planned to stay 4 weeks but finished up staying 5 months, all legally, then surely the fault lies with the process. They should have given a 4 week visa. They can't give a 6 month then complain when somebody uses it.}

"They" aren't complaining at all.The tourist said 4 weeks and stayed 5 months, so the UK decides they are persona non grata at the moment, problem followed by solution. Cant see any complaining by the UK

But when the UK issued a 6 month visa, the tourist can reasonably assume that they are allowed to stay for 6 months whatever they originally applied for. What looks generous initially turns out to be just the opposite!

[theoldgit]

VBF, on 29 Oct 2015 - 07:38, said:

But when the UK issued a 6 month visa, the tourist can reasonably assume that they are allowed to stay for 6 months whatever they originally applied for. What looks generous initially turns out to be just the opposite!

Yes, they could reasonably assume that could utilise the visa for the full six months, but an applicant would also be fully aware than in applying for the initial visa they would have given the details of the proposed visit, including the length of stay, and, probably more importantly, the ties to their own country, employment, education, business and the like. By considerably extending their stay in the UK, without explaining the reason in the subsequent application, they seem to have caused the ECO to doubt the credibility of their application, and I say that not knowing what was contained in the original application.

When my partner has applied for her UK Visas, and indeed Schengen, she has added that it's likely that she would travel again during the validity of the visa, she has done so and subsequent visas have been issued.

[VBF]

I think that the key phrase here is "not knowing what was contained in the original application."

Without that, this is all conjecture but I do stand by my comments of earlier (post #9)

And as I said in #13 "It's not logical to grant something and then penalise someone for using it!"

It's just the sort of "logic" over which people on here castigate the Thais, and here we are with our own beloved (???) government doing something similar.

Perhaps it shows that the Immigration (ECO) mindset is the same the world over......... what a horrendous thought!

Edited October 29, 2015 by VBF

[overherebc]

VBF, on 29 Oct 2015 - 07:38, said:

But when the UK issued a 6 month visa, the tourist can reasonably assume that they are allowed to stay for 6 months whatever they originally applied for. What looks generous initially turns out to be just the opposite!

Yes, they could reasonably assume that could utilise the visa for the full six months, but an applicant would also be fully aware than in applying for the initial visa they would have given the details of the proposed visit, including the length of stay, and, probably more importantly, the ties to their own country, employment, education, business and the like. By considerably extending their stay in the UK, without explaining the reason in the subsequent application, they seem to have caused the ECO to doubt the credibility of their application, and I say that not knowing what was contained in the original application.

When my partner has applied for her UK Visas, and indeed Schengen, she has added that it's likely that she would travel again during the validity of the visa, she has done so and subsequent visas have been issued.

Not arguing with your reply but look at a 6 month validity as being a way to change the timing of your 4 week visit if circumstances dictate.

[VBF]

VBF, on 29 Oct 2015 - 07:38, said:

But when the UK issued a 6 month visa, the tourist can reasonably assume that they are allowed to stay for 6 months whatever they originally applied for. What looks generous initially turns out to be just the opposite!

Yes, they could reasonably assume that could utilise the visa for the full six months, but an applicant would also be fully aware than in applying for the initial visa they would have given the details of the proposed visit, including the length of stay, and, probably more importantly, the ties to their own country, employment, education, business and the like. By considerably extending their stay in the UK, without explaining the reason in the subsequent application, they seem to have caused the ECO to doubt the credibility of their application, and I say that not knowing what was contained in the original application.

When my partner has applied for her UK Visas, and indeed Schengen, she has added that it's likely that she would travel again during the validity of the visa, she has done so and subsequent visas have been issued.

Not arguing with your reply but look at a 6 month validity as being a way to change the timing of your 4 week visit if circumstances dictate.

Hadn't thought of it that way...so you're saying that the visa is good for a 4 week visit, WITHIN the 6 months? Still rather ambiguous unless documentation is issued making that clear, don't you think?