UK visit visa refusals for staying longer than requested

[theoldgit]

Yes, but whilst I don't know the actual words in the original application, in the refusal notice the ECO quotes that the applicant applied for a visa to visit the UK for "4 weeks only" and in granting that visa the decision maker would have taken into consideration the reason the applicant stated they wanted to visit the UK and the evidence they supplied as their reason to return.

They extended their intended stay by some four months without subsequent explanation, thus causing the ECO to doubt the credibility of the application.

IMHO it's nothing to do with the length of time of the standard visa, it's that the applicant stated they wanted to stay for one month and then stayed for five.

I do agree with other posters that the problem lays in the fact that visas are issued for a standard six months, maybe HMG will address this and go down the route of Schengen countries and issue visas that are only valid for the proposed length of stay, then many of us will suffer.

[overherebc]

Yes, but whilst I don't know the actual words in the original application, in the refusal notice the ECO quotes that the applicant applied for a visa to visit the UK for "4 weeks only" and in granting that visa the decision maker would have taken into consideration the reason the applicant stated they wanted to visit the UK and the evidence they supplied as their reason to return.

They extended their intended stay by some four months without subsequent explanation, thus causing the ECO to doubt the credibility of the application.

IMHO it's nothing to do with the length of time of the standard visa, it's that the applicant stated they wanted to stay for one month and then stayed for five.

I do agree with other posters that the problem lays in the fact that visas are issued for a standard six months, maybe HMG will address this and go down the route of Schengen countries and issue visas that are only valid for the proposed length of stay, then many of us will suffer.

Sympathy for the OP's circumstances and easy to say, hindsight is 20/20, he/she/they should have contacted Imm' in UK and explained that the visit would be extended by x number weeks due to, 'make up a reason', and keep a record, e-mail etc.

I don't know if that would be taken into consideration at the time of the next visa application but it should be I think. We have a holiday planned soon in UK and while I don't see it being extended past the planned two weeks, that's as long as I can handle the cold weather, I will have it mind just in case.

[sirwilly]

The answer is simple stay within the limits or expect to be refused.

[theoldgit]

The answer is simple stay within the limits or expect to be refused.

If only life were that simple, the applicant was issued with a six month visa and stayed for five.

[theoldgit]

hindsight is 20/20, he/she/they should have contacted Imm' in UK and explained that the visit would be extended by x number weeks due to, 'make up a reason', and keep a record, e-mail etc.

I don't know if that would be taken into consideration at the time of the next visa application but it should be I think. We have a holiday planned soon in UK and while I don't see it being extended past the planned two weeks, that's as long as I can handle the cold weather, I will have it mind just in case.

Probably not contact the UKVI/Border Force whilst in the UK, they're not that joined up and they haven't broken any rules, but certainly they should have included a reason with the second application.

[emilymat]

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

So why issue a 6 month visa.

Trev. Presumably to give flexibility to the applicant.

The reason I say this is that I seem to remember that a person should not book flights etc until the visa application has been granted.

Some years ago I had a friend who went back to the UK on a 2 week visit (he was a UK citizen) and, whilst he was there he was diagnosed with lung cancer.

In order to help him I helped his Thai girlfiend apply for a visa to look after him. (Obviously this involved a lot of documentation from the hospital etc confirming his condiition and the usual financial information to support her).

Anyway, the visa was granted and she stayed nearly the full 6 months (During which time I returned to the UK for a visit). I helped apply for an 'extension' of stay for her and this came back as a letter saying the extension was being considered and, in the meantime, the letter itself from UK immigration was sufficient to enable her to stay over the 6 month period.

Unfortunately he died soon afterwards and she returned to Thailand.

So, I think the posters who say be completely honest about intentions are correct.

Stranglely enough though, when I renew my retirement visa I always obtain a 're-entry' stamp in case of an emergency return to the UK.

In this case I put down any old dates and I have never used those dates. i.e. I might put down November 10-20 as my visit to the UK but might not use the re-entry visa until the following summer. (My retirement visa runs Oct/Oct).

[mr jim]

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

So why issue a 6 month visa.

I totally agree with Bob's view on this. The word that keeps cropping up on this topic is; "Logical" I don't really know, but just who is the actual person that has come to this decision? Maybe Thai???

[Krataiboy]

The first time my Thai wife applied for a visa to accompany me to the UK (I'm a British national), the interviewing officer approved the application, but stressed that my wife should be out of the UK within the month - which is how long we were planning to holiday.

She emphasised that this was irrespective of the fact that all tourist visas are for six months and went on to warn my wife: "If you come back later than you said you would, this will be noted and it might affect any future application you make,"

Fair enough. We made sure that we came back when we said we would.

I don't know whether this verbal warning is given routinely to all successful applicants for UK tourist visas, but it certainly should be. Alternatively, a written warning, in red, should be included on the visa application form - assuming it isn't already.

[theoldgit]

That must have been many years ago Krataiboy, they haven't interviewed visa applicants for many years, at least ten and probably a lot more, you don't get to see the decision maker as it's all done remotely, mores the pity.

[pattaya1234was]

On the first occasion I took my partner to the UK He was grilled for quite a time at Heathrow as to why he was only staying 2 weeks when he had been given a 6 month visa. He was also asked why he was visiting in February and not the 'summer'.

It was clearly stated on his application that he had a 2-week holiday from his work. I had also explained that I was busy in the summer and would not be able to escort him around at that time of year. The UK want it all ways.

[Shadychris]

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?

Somewhere in the mountain of forms\guidance pages of a UK visa application it does say something along the lines of the visa is valid from the date of issue for 6 months and your dates of travel must fall within that period. (AFAIR the application form asks for approx dates of travel and duration\purpose of visit along with an itinerary). As already stated this is to allow a stay in the UK 'during' that 6 month period. Often a visa will be applied for a month or two before travel can even be booked - and lets face it who in their right mind is going to pay for flights until they know the visa is going to be approved. Saying that of course having the return ticket to Thailand already in place is helpful in obtaining a UK visa...

I have been through the process of sponsoring a Thai for a UK visa several times - twice successfully and once unsuccessfully. In the OP's case here it is simply not possible to make a judgement on the ECO's decision without having a lot more information about the circumstances of both the previous visit, and the proposed visa application. We do not know the applicants employment or family situation in Thailand, nor do we know the applicants financial resources. We also do not know if anyone is sponsoring this application, or any details about any potential sponsor. If the applicant is a person of considerable means then I guess extending a 4 week holiday into 5 months could be conceivable. Similarly if the applicant had a sponsor providing accommodation, food and expenses, once again a 4 month extension may be more understandable. However if none of those circumstances applied, or if they did but were not clearly explained in the latest application, then it is understandable that the ECO would likely refuse the application in the belief that the applicant may well have worked illegally in the UK during the previous visit, and likely has intention of doing so again.

It is the case that there is thriving industry in 'assisting' Asian sex workers to gain entry into the UK, I have knowledge of three 'agencies' doing this, and know several Thai ladies and ladyboys currently earning fantastic money in the UK - fair to say that UK immigration are also aware of this so any applications from solo travelling Asian ladies (or ladyboys) are likely to come under very close scrutiny indeed.

The irony of the whole situation is that due to the UK being part of the EU and thus 'open borders', Eastern European sex workers are pretty much free to come and go as they please...

Edited October 29, 2015 by Shadychris

[VBF]

Shadychris

Given that information, it becomes slightly more logical (!) and I suppose that my comparing the way UK visas are issued and regulated with the way Thai visas are issued and regulated was itself illogical!

After all, what do Government departments and logic have in common? Answers on the back of a postage stamp please!

[bkk_mike]

I was in a similar situation with the mother-in-law. She came over on holiday when the baby (now 15) was born, but my wife had a difficult labour and ended up having an emergency caesarean. The mother-in-law extended her trip by a few months to help out as my wife couldn't carry anything heavier than the baby...

The next time she applied for a visa, we had to explain why she'd stayed longer than she said she would, but this was back when you applied at the embassy, so it was a question at the interview stage, where now, as you never actually talk to immigration, you must have to guess what they would want an explanation for...

(We did go through a spell where we would apply for 10 year visas for her, and she'd get issued 2 year ones, but she currently has a 5 year one. She doesn't visit that often - last time in 2013 - but it's good to know she can come without going through all the visa hassle every time as she's in her 70s and doesn't live in Bangkok.)

[durhamboy]

I agree with krataiboy - there should be some sort of warning on the visa application form or guidelines.

If we reverse the situation and it was a farang staying the full length of their visa in Thailand after stating that they intended a much shorter visit the Thais would be delighted and welcome the visitor back with open arms.

If any of us Brits here were granted a 6 month visit visa for another country and used it to its fullest and complied with all the rules then who here would think it reasonable that a futher visit visa would not be granted.

If this is truly a big problem for the UK (and I am sure there are many abuses going on) then it is up to HMG to have proper systems in place. Therefore the solution is granting a 6 month visa which can only be used for the period of intended stay in the original application form.

At the moment subsequent visas are being denied and HMG are collecting visa fees with no right of appeal for denials.

[bobrussell]

Most of the views regarding the refusal notice are general not specific to this application. A six month validity visa just means it can be used for up to six months. It is not automatically permission for someone to stay for six months.

Others have given examples where unexpectedly longer stays occurred without penalising the applicant later. My wife was going back and forth for several years on visit visas, sometimes staying for several months at a time. We were always honest about the length of stay but made it clear that her life was centred in Thailand as we had a house and child there!

Major deviations from the original plan must be explained in further applications to maintain credibility. Just saying we wanted the stay to be longer might be enough but an ECO has to decide if the next 4 week stay will become 5 months and where do long visits become de facto settlement?

[7by7]

It is fairly obvious that some members have not read the relevant part of the refusal notice in full.

This applicant was not refused simply because they originally stated they would stay for 4 weeks and then stayed for 5 months.

They were refused because they stayed 5 times longer than originally stated, but did not provide a satisfactory explanation of why they did so and how they were able to do so.

As has been said, we do not know the full circumstances surrounding each application, but:-

Supposing the applicant had provided in the first application a letter from their employer stating that they only had 4 weeks holiday and had to be back at work at the end of that 4 weeks.

Then in the second they provided a letter from the same employer saying they had two months holiday this time; with no explanation of how they had kept their job despite being absent without leave for 4 months!

Were you an ECO, would you believe them?

As has been stated; UK visit visas are flexible; the only hard and fast rule being that a visitor cannot, normally, stay in the UK for more than 6 months per visit.

I think this is a good thing as it allows for changes in plans etc.; and we have seen above some examples of how this flexibility has been of benefit.

But the key is explaining.

Staying a few days more than originally stated is not going to be a problem; but 5 times as long?

Surely obvious that this will need explaining in any futire application?

[Tony M]

I haven’t got involved in this as I’m enjoying seeing the different points of view. Now, to add some fuel for possible further discussion. Prior to the current rules for visitors, paragraph 41 stated that the ECO must be satisfied that the visitor ( my emphasis ) :

“intends to leave the United Kingdom at the end of the period of the visit as stated by him;”

So, the refusal we are discussing at the moment would have been be easily justifiable, based on the applicant’s previous history. The current rules, that is Appendix V, state that the ECO must be satisfied that the visitor:

“will leave the UK at the end of their visit;”

A subtle difference, and not so easy for the ECO to justify now ?

[nuakmuaynina]

Interesting, as my husbands passport does not have an exit stamps, so how do they know?

Honest is always the best policy, but I do feel its strange as others have mentioned, why not just issue visas for the time frame applied for?

Perhaps its one way they are trying to crack down on visas now.. Ms May has her immigration targets to whittle down..

This last visit my other half has stayed much longer than intended, but the next application is for settlement, and I explained in the letter I was planning on relocating to Thailand, but that my Mother is now terminally ill, so we changed our plans and he stayed to look after her so I'd hope it wouldn't be an issue.

[theoldgit]

Interesting, as my husbands passport does not have an exit stamps, so how do they know?

Carriers are now collating embarkation information on behalf of The Border Force, and passing it on.

[VBF]

Interesting, as my husbands passport does not have an exit stamps, so how do they know?

Carriers are now collating embarkation information on behalf of The Border Force, and passing it on.

Oldgit - does that apply to all means of transport ie Eurostar, Cross-channel ferries etc?

After all if someone has a Schengen visa as well as a UK one, there's nothing to stop them flying in to UK and leaving to Europe...is there?

Edited October 29, 2015 by VBF

[oncearugge]

I haven’t got involved in this as I’m enjoying seeing the different points of view. Now, to add some fuel for possible further discussion. Prior to the current rules for visitors, paragraph 41 stated that the ECO must be satisfied that the visitor ( my emphasis ) :

“intends to leave the United Kingdom at the end of the period of the visit as stated by him;”

So, the refusal we are discussing at the moment would have been be easily justifiable, based on the applicant’s previous history. The current rules, that is Appendix V, state that the ECO must be satisfied that the visitor:

“will leave the UK at the end of their visit;”

A subtle difference, and not so easy for the ECO to justify now ?

Agreed .

A subtle difference.

If I were an ICO I would still be checking if a person did leave at the end of their stated "visit" and would expect an explanation to be provided if the stated "visit" was exceeded.

I would also be checking if the "reasons to return" given were capable of being substantiated.

[theoldgit]

Oldgit - does that apply to all means of transport ie Eurostar, Cross-channel ferries etc?

After all if someone has a Schengen visa as well as a UK one, there's nothing to stop them flying in to UK and leaving to Europe...is there?

Certainly Eurostar do, we went through the embarkation check at St Pancras a couple of months ago, I assume the ferries but I don't know.

[VBF]

Oldgit - does that apply to all means of transport ie Eurostar, Cross-channel ferries etc?

After all if someone has a Schengen visa as well as a UK one, there's nothing to stop them flying in to UK and leaving to Europe...is there?

Certainly Eurostar do, we went through the embarkation check at St Pancras a couple of months ago, I assume the ferries but I don't know.

Thanks - so it is an even playing field then. I was just wondering if by any chance someone COULD leave UK undocumented which was the case for many years but apparently not.

Good!

[VBF]

Oldgit - does that apply to all means of transport ie Eurostar, Cross-channel ferries etc?

After all if someone has a Schengen visa as well as a UK one, there's nothing to stop them flying in to UK and leaving to Europe...is there?

Certainly Eurostar do, we went through the embarkation check at St Pancras a couple of months ago, I assume the ferries but I don't know.

*** SORRY - posted in error - edited to remove incorrect text ***

Edited October 29, 2015 by VBF

[bobrussell]

Nobody is doubting that the applicant left within the terms of the wording of the visa. Not sure anyone is claiming on the limited information available that the applicant has done anything particularly wrong but they have damaged their credibility by not explaining why the stay was extended. If this refused application was for a short stay then the ECO can be 'forgiven' for not accepting this new application was a genuine visit.

Clearly we are discussing a situation with only part of the information. If the latest application included solid reasons to return then refusal may be unjustified without further explanation. The ECO does not appear to believe the applicant and is attempting to by pass the settlement route.

The real question should be: Is the applicant going to cause any problems for the UK if granted a visa? Will they use local resources, do they have suitable medical insurance (not easy for long stays in the UK)?

My wife did pretty much this for some years and was never refused a visa but ECO's are living in a much changed visa world!

Not sure the loss of the wording 'as stated by him/her' changes things that much. The visit was expected to be X weeks and therefore the expectation still should be that the visa holder will follow the original timetable or risk issues with future visa's. Failure to provide an explanation being the deciding factor.

All fairly academic without the details but it is interesting that the general trend seems to be in cautious support of the decision!

Edited October 29, 2015 by bobrussell

[onionluke]

Applications are no small beer . 5 weeks , 5 months , toe the line now and survive until you join the ranks of undesirables , and feel the injustice, welcome to the New Capitalism, ya <deleted> slave

[misterphil]

On the UK visa application it specifically asks length of stay.

If someone says they will stay for 1 month then stay for 5 its classed as lying on the application.

Simple as.

[durhamboy]

On the UK visa application it specifically asks length of stay.

If someone says they will stay for 1 month then stay for 5 its classed as lying on the application.

Simple as.

Total rubbish!

[durhamboy]

Oldgit - does that apply to all means of transport ie Eurostar, Cross-channel ferries etc?

After all if someone has a Schengen visa as well as a UK one, there's nothing to stop them flying in to UK and leaving to Europe...is there?

Certainly Eurostar do, we went through the embarkation check at St Pancras a couple of months ago, I assume the ferries but I don't know.

Thanks - so it is an even playing field then. I was just wondering if by any chance someone COULD leave UK undocumented which was the case for many years but apparently not.

Good!

I think someone can leave the UK "undocumented". My wife used her new passport to exit the UK for a holiday. All her UK visa info was in her old passport. There were no exit checks at Heathrow then.

As for the collation of info by the airlines etc. Yes apparently there are over 20 pieces of info they need to pass on for each passenger. Maybe they do this but can anyone imagine that there are people/systems at UKBA processing all that info about hundreds of millions (perhaps billions) of international journeys in/out of the UK p.a.?

[misterphil]

On the UK visa application it specifically asks length of stay.

If someone says they will stay for 1 month then stay for 5 its classed as lying on the application.

Simple as.

Total rubbish!

Really?

On the declaration at the end the applicant has to sign to say that its been completed to the best of their knowledge. They have just signed to say that they will visit the UK for 1 month. They didn't stay for 1 month they stayed for 5. Hence the reason this application was rejected.

Not total rubbish now is it?

Its there in black and white. "DECLINED"