UK visit visa refusals for staying longer than requested

[bobrussell]

If someone applies for a visa stating a stay of 4 weeks but intends all along to stay for 5 months then this has to be deception. Clearly proving it and the degree of punishment is problematic!

The ECO has clearly considered this and decided that in the absence of an explanation, the situation justifies a refusal!

It really brings it home that honesty is the best policy although it is perfectly possible that a five month visit would have been rejected first time around.

[7by7]

I know of at least one visa agent in Thailand (not the forum sponsors, of course) who regularly advise the gullible their clients to lie about the intended length of stay in the application!

They say this means the application will result in an easy visa.

Which is totally untrue, of course, and will cause problems in future applications.

Unfortunately the draconian Thai defamation laws, and therefore the forum rules, prevent me from naming them.

I am not, of course, suggesting that is the case with the applicant in the OP.

[uptheos]

Sometimes you go somewhere for a short trip and stay longer because you like it.

How many people have come to Thailand and done the same thing.

Her visa was for 6 months, what's the big deal?

Bloody idiots shouldn't have issued a 6 month visa if you can't stay that long.

[VBF]

Sometimes you go somewhere for a short trip and stay longer because you like it.

How many people have come to Thailand and done the same thing.

Her visa was for 6 months, what's the big deal?

Bloody idiots shouldn't have issued a 6 month visa if you can't stay that long.

Which is pretty much the point I keep making (posts 9, 13, 26)

[7by7]

Like the wife of an earlier poster, when my step son applied for his first visit visa (14 years ago) he had to sign a declaration that he would only stay in the UK for the period stated by him on the application form.

My understanding is that these declarations were abolished as they were not enforceable in UK law, and so legally meant nothing.

As said many times, UK standard visit visas are valid for 6 months; and only Parliament, via an Act or Statutory Instrument, can change that.

This, I believe, is a good thing as it does allow flexibility. Many people have, for various reasons, extended their stay without any problems.

The refusal notice in the OP makes it clear that the applicant was not refused merely because they stayed longer than originally stated, but because they did not explain why they did so!

My sister in law stayed longer than originally stated on her first visit. in her next application she gave a simple explanation of why she did this.

That second application was accepted without question.

IMHO, the idiot here is not UKVI, who don't make the rules anyway, nor the government, who do make the rules, but the applicant and/or their sponsor (if they had one) for not explaining why they stayed 5 times longer than originally stated.

Edited October 30, 2015 by 7by7

[VBF]

Like the wife of an earlier poster, when my step son applied for his first visit visa (14 years ago) he had to sign a declaration that he would only stay in the UK for the period stated by him on the application form.

My understanding is that these declarations were abolished as they were not enforceable in UK law, and so legally meant nothing.

As said many times, UK standard visit visas are valid for 6 months; and only Parliament, via an Act or Statutory Instrument, can change that.

This, I believe, is a good thing as it does allow flexibility. Many people have, for various reasons, extended their stay without any problems.

The refusal notice in the OP makes it clear that the applicant was not refused merely because they stayed longer than originally stated, but because they did not explain why they did so!

My sister in law stayed longer than originally stated on her first visit. in her next application she gave a simple explanation of why she did this.

That second application was accepted without question.

IMHO, the idiot here is not UKVI, who don't make the rules anyway, nor the government, who do make the rules, but the applicant and/or their sponsor (if they had one) for not explaining why they stayed 5 times longer than originally stated.

7by7

I realise you’re professionally involved in this and that you're explaining the law as it stands but IF the declarations to which you refer were still in place, or IF it's made clear that what you say on the application form is totally binding, I’d have to agree with you. I’d also agree with The Old Git’s earlier comments.

As it is, and at the risk of “banging on” about “logicality” I must reiterate that it’s both illogical and unfair to issue a 6 month visa to someone and then penalise them for using it!

Once again, I respectfully refer you to my earlier posts (9, 13, 26)

Edited October 30, 2015 by VBF

[bobrussell]

They are not being granted a six month visa. They are granted a visa that can be used over a period of six months. They were issued a visa based on the intention to stay for four weeks. The visa holder did not do this nor did he or she explain why the stay was different.

Many use the six months as permission to stay for that long. It is, if the applicant indicates that is the length of stay that is requested in the application.

There has been no technical breach of the visa but the applicant has not done what they said they would and the ECO appears to have decided the applicant did not intend to stay for the requested period. Obviously we cannot see the length of stay requested this time but as there is no reference to any attempt to by pass settlement rules, it might be that another short stay was stated.

There seems to be a lot of misunderstanding regarding the six months validity. It allows flexibility and change of plans but the holder does have to behave in line with original intentions or explain why not.

We seriously do not want a crack down that results in less flexible visit visas but I would almost guarantee this is round the corner. Ask for four weeks, get four weeks - exactly!

Edited October 30, 2015 by bobrussell

[scclarke]

Prior to receiving her spouse settlement visa recently, my wife successfully applied for 2 visit visas. The first one, she stated in the application that she would be visiting for 23 days, which she did. The second one, her trip was for 12 days, which it was. However, after this 12 day trip, and during the validity of this second 6 month visit visa, her work took her to Dubai so at very little cost to us ( works for Emirates, so standby flights), we decided that she should fit in another 10 day trip to the UK - the visa was still valid, and is a multi entry visa.

This extra visit didn't affect the spouse visa application: we didn't specifically mention the reason for the extra trip on the application, but included it in the list of visits to the UK, of course. Perhaps we were lucky, then, to successfully receive the spouse visa? Just glad we did.

[VBF]

They are not being granted a six month visa. They are granted a visa that can be used over a period of six months. They were issued a visa based on the intention to stay for four weeks. The visa holder did not do this nor did he or she explain why the stay was different.

Many use the six months as permission to stay for that long. It is, if the applicant indicates that is the length of stay that is requested in the application.

There has been no technical breach of the visa but the applicant has not done what they said they would and the ECO appears to have decided the applicant did not intend to stay for the requested period. Obviously we cannot see the length of stay requested this time but as there is no reference to any attempt to by pass settlement rules, it might be that another short stay was stated.

There seems to be a lot of misunderstanding regarding the six months validity. It allows flexibility and change of plans but the holder does have to behave in line with original intentions or explain why not.

We seriously do not want a crack down that results in less flexible visit visas but I would almost guarantee this is round the corner. Ask for four weeks, get four weeks - exactly!

Bob... Once again, i'm willing to accept that, but is it made clear that the 6 months that appears to have been granted is not all available? As 7by7 said in #66 above, apparently, it USED to be made clear. If it's not now, then there's room for misinterpretation and, as you say, misunderstanding. But I agree... a crackdown such as you describe would be most unhelpful!

Edited October 30, 2015 by VBF

[bobrussell]

The extra visit would not have affected a spouse visa anyway. There was no breach of the visa terms. If the visa holder in the OP had returned to Thailand after four weeks then come back for a second visit of a similar time, it would probably have strengthened future applications rather than being detrimental. This is clearly a visitor, coming for a visit then returning home. Explanation? Lucky enough to be able to have a second holiday, would probably do!

[bobrussell]

They are not being granted a six month visa. They are granted a visa that can be used over a period of six months. They were issued a visa based on the intention to stay for four weeks. The visa holder did not do this nor did he or she explain why the stay was different.

Many use the six months as permission to stay for that long. It is, if the applicant indicates that is the length of stay that is requested in the application.

There has been no technical breach of the visa but the applicant has not done what they said they would and the ECO appears to have decided the applicant did not intend to stay for the requested period. Obviously we cannot see the length of stay requested this time but as there is no reference to any attempt to by pass settlement rules, it might be that another short stay was stated.

There seems to be a lot of misunderstanding regarding the six months validity. It allows flexibility and change of plans but the holder does have to behave in line with original intentions or explain why not.

We seriously do not want a crack down that results in less flexible visit visas but I would almost guarantee this is round the corner. Ask for four weeks, get four weeks - exactly!

Bob... Once again, i'm willing to accept that, but is it made clear that the 6 months that appears to have been granted is not all available? As 7by7 said in #66 above, apparently, it USED to be made clear. If it's not now, then there's room for misinterpretation and, as you say, misunderstanding.

Very little the UKVI or Home Office do is clear nor is misinterpretation or misunderstanding a rarity!

If this applicant has a good reason for staying for five months then they can reapply with an explanation. Not ideal or perfect (not always acceptable either) but that is the system. In the old days it was possible to appeal visit visas but this became restricted then removed. It is cheaper and quicker to re-apply.

Edited October 30, 2015 by bobrussell

[Richard W]

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.?

The system is computerised, but I don't know how well.

At one stage, there were boasts that the system tracked people, not passports. How did your wife re-enter the UK? She is likely to either have presented both old and new passports, or to have used a biometric residence permit (BRP). Either way, a connection between her old and new passports will have been made on her return if it wasn't made sooner. I can certainly imagine a connection being made on departure if she had the same name in both passports, although it might have been flagged as unconfirmed.

[durhamboy]

Richard, I don't think any connection was made. At that time she did not have a BRP (she only got that very recently). She left the UK on her new (married name) passport which was just given a cursory look by EVA staff at check in (they were a lot more interested in checking my credit card details to match it with the name on my ticket!). There were no passport checks when she left Heathrow.

When she returned she showed her old passport (with the visa in it) plus her new one (which immigration stamped). They asked us how long we had been away.

Therefore anyone going back to Thailand at that time who had been on a visit visa would not have had there details recorded. The only way is if the airline had done so but I really can't see that such a system would have been feasible. If so, why have they now reintroduced passport checks on exit from the UK?

Edited October 31, 2015 by durhamboy

[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!

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"

Yes really! The OP was given a 6 month visa which he/she was legally entitled to stay in the UK for 6 months. His/her original plan may have been for a stay of 4 weeks and they then changed their plan. Have you or anyone else here never changed your plans and extended a visit? For you to just say that they simply lied on their application demonstrates a total lack understanding of the possibilities of the situation and is therefore total rubbish.

[7by7]

1) VBF

I am not a professional, and never have been; as I have said before; any advice I offer is given with the caveat that it is based upon my own experiences and my reading and interpretation of the immigration rules and guidance issued by UKVI.

2) scclarke

As bobrussell says, staying longer than originally stated on a previous visit, whether explained or not, would have no effect on a settlement application. The obvious intention in a settlement application is to remain in the UK indefinitely, therefore returnability and the possibility of an overstay is not a factor.

3) durhamboy and VBF,

The applicant signs a declaration that all the information given in the application is true and complete; which obviously includes the proposed length of the visit. Therefore if they have said they will stay for 4 weeks but then stay for 5 months some explanation of this is surely and obviously required in their next application.

As I have said before; the wording of this refusal notice ("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.") makes it clear that this applicant was not refused this time because last time they originally said they would stay for 4 weeks but stayed for 5 months. It was refused because they offered no explanation of why they did so.

Without such an explanation, their credibility this time round, especially regarding their length of stay, is obviously in doubt.

Yes, circumstances can and do change; sometimes a visitor has to cut their visit short, sometimes they are able to extend it.

Most people, like my sister in law, who do stay longer than originally stated have a reasonable reason for so doing. I know several people who have stayed longer than originally stated, and in their next application provided a simple, brief explanation of why they did so, and if necessary how they were able to do so. All have had that subsequent application accepted.

I do not know of anyone who has provided such an explanation in a subsequent application and had that application refused.

Does anyone?

[VBF]

1) VBF

I am not a professional, and never have been; as I have said before; any advice I offer is given with the caveat that it is based upon my own experiences and my reading and interpretation of the immigration rules and guidance issued by UKVI.

2) scclarke

As bobrussell says, staying longer than originally stated on a previous visit, whether explained or not, would have no effect on a settlement application. The obvious intention in a settlement application is to remain in the UK indefinitely, therefore returnability and the possibility of an overstay is not a factor.

3) durhamboy and VBF,

The applicant signs a declaration that all the information given in the application is true and complete; which obviously includes the proposed length of the visit. Therefore if they have said they will stay for 4 weeks but then stay for 5 months some explanation of this is surely and obviously required in their next application.

As I have said before; the wording of this refusal notice ("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.") makes it clear that this applicant was not refused this time because last time they originally said they would stay for 4 weeks but stayed for 5 months. It was refused because they offered no explanation of why they did so.

Without such an explanation, their credibility this time round, especially regarding their length of stay, is obviously in doubt.

Yes, circumstances can and do change; sometimes a visitor has to cut their visit short, sometimes they are able to extend it.

Most people, like my sister in law, who do stay longer than originally stated have a reasonable reason for so doing. I know several people who have stayed longer than originally stated, and in their next application provided a simple, brief explanation of why they did so, and if necessary how they were able to do so. All have had that subsequent application accepted.

I do not know of anyone who has provided such an explanation in a subsequent application and had that application refused.

Does anyone?

7by7

Item 1 - Sorry - for some reason I thought you were professionally involved with a visa agency or advisory service.

Not sure why i thought that, but my comment wasn't meant to be offensive, merely to indicate that I thought your knowledge was based on professional experience. Must be your "air of authority"

Item 3 - As i said before, not arguing with what are clearly facts,I still think that what i said is more logical and have to agree with durhamboy's post (#74) Once a 6 month visa is issued, I would reasonably think that it may be interpreted in the way i thought, rather than the way it actually is.

The fact that this debate is continuing surely says that the rules and documents and intentions are causing confusion, which is, after all, the point of a forum. I'm repeating myself here but post #71 shows what I think, and BobRussell's comment:

"Very little the UKVI or Home Office do is clear nor is misinterpretation or misunderstanding a rarity!" pretty much sums it up!

Edited October 31, 2015 by VBF

[7by7]

Sorry if you got the impression I had somehow taken offence because you thought me a professional; I hadn't. I was simply pointing out that I am not.

What is clear from this topic is that some people think a UK visit visa should be rigid and inflexible; the applicant is given the time they asked for, up to a maximum of 6 months, and that is it.

Whilst others prefer the current system of allowing the flexibility of a standard 6 month visa which allows a visitor to stay longer than originally intended if circumstances allow; and also make further visits if desired within the validity of the visa.

I think it is obvious which camp I am in; but that does have the condition that if one does vary from what was originally stated, an explanation is required next time if one wants to maintain any credibility.

I fail to see how it is the fault of either UKVI or the Home Office if someone says one thing and then does another without some form of explanation finds their credibility damaged!

[VBF]

Sorry if you got the impression I had somehow taken offence because you thought me a professional; I hadn't. I was simply pointing out that I am not.

What is clear from this topic is that some people think a UK visit visa should be rigid and inflexible; the applicant is given the time they asked for, up to a maximum of 6 months, and that is it.

Whilst others prefer the current system of allowing the flexibility of a standard 6 month visa which allows a visitor to stay longer than originally intended if circumstances allow; and also make further visits if desired within the validity of the visa.

I think it is obvious which camp I am in; but that does have the condition that if one does vary from what was originally stated, an explanation is required next time if one wants to maintain any credibility.

I fail to see how it is the fault of either UKVI or the Home Office if someone says one thing and then does another without some form of explanation finds their credibility damaged!

I certainly agree with you about the flexibility - long may it remain.

In fact the only area where I think there's any room for debate is that, (IMO) it's confusing to be issued a 6 month visa and for it not to be good for the full 6 months whatever the application said.

What I think should happen is that applicants should be told that even though the visa is valid for 6 months, the actual time allowed in UK is determined by what was said on the application. We've discussed that in posts 65 and 66 - the declarations to which you refer could be reinstated as advisory notes to remove all doubt. Perhaps that was what BobRussell had in mind with his comment?

But then....you're telling it as it is, I'm discussing how it could (should?) be done.

Edited October 31, 2015 by VBF

[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"

Yes really! The OP was given a 6 month visa which he/she was legally entitled to stay in the UK for 6 months. His/her original plan may have been for a stay of 4 weeks and they then changed their plan. Have you or anyone else here never changed your plans and extended a visit? For you to just say that they simply lied on their application demonstrates a total lack understanding of the possibilities of the situation and is therefore total rubbish.

Nope. It doesnt work like that with a visit visa for the UK. Might be valid for 6 months but if the visitor doesnt visit on the dates that are specified there could be consequences as there has been here. I know this from personal experience with a visa application for an exwife. Since then Ive completed over 10 successful applications for current wife and friends.

Get you some of that. Wooooo

[Richard W]

Richard, I don't think any connection was made. At that time she did not have a BRP (she only got that very recently). She left the UK on her new (married name) passport which was just given a cursory look by EVA staff at check in (they were a lot more interested in checking my credit card details to match it with the name on my ticket!). There were no passport checks when she left Heathrow.

It isn't check-in staff who would make the connection. That's a Border Force job. Are you saying that EVA would have had no record of her passport number?

Therefore anyone going back to Thailand at that time who had been on a visit visa would not have had there details recorded. The only way is if the airline had done so but I really can't see that such a system would have been feasible.

Airlines have been so doing.

If so, why have they now reintroduced passport checks on exit from the UK?

Good question. Possible reasons I can think of are:

• Nab people with cancelled passports.
• Perhaps the system is so bad that they can't reliably associate a person's multiple passports. There are a lot of Mohammed Ali's and John Smiths around, and in some cases a person's legal name varies from country to country.

[durhamboy]

Richard - I think we basically agree that the system that was supposed to be in place was unworkable. I agree that it was not EVA making the connection but the Border Force and that would have been based upon EVA's collection of data. How many millions of international passenger trips are made from/to UK ports of entry/exit in a year. Impossible to keep accurate track of imo.

[durhamboy]

Yes really! The OP was given a 6 month visa which he/she was legally entitled to stay in the UK for 6 months. His/her original plan may have been for a stay of 4 weeks and they then changed their plan. Have you or anyone else here never changed your plans and extended a visit? For you to just say that they simply lied on their application demonstrates a total lack understanding of the possibilities of the situation and is therefore total rubbish.

Nope. It doesnt work like that with a visit visa for the UK. Might be valid for 6 months but if the visitor doesnt visit on the dates that are specified there could be consequences as there has been here. I know this from personal experience with a visa application for an exwife. Since then Ive completed over 10 successful applications for current wife and friends.

Get you some of that. Wooooo

If you've successfully completed over 10 applications then you should be eminently aware that people's plans change and therefore you should not dismiss them as liars when said plans change. I am not challenging your view on how the system is supposed to work - what I object to is your assumption that ALL people are lying when they legitimately stay longer than they had said they would originally. I also object to the condescending dismissal of such people with your "simple as" comment.

[JDGRUEN]

In such situations a Visa should not be issued for 6 months ... it is illogical then to issue for 6 months - then ask how long do you plan to stay - 4 weeks .. okay... Then get a penalty for staying 5 months... This makes any Thailand silliness look tame by comparison ...

Then legislate 4 week - 8 week visas and be done with it for Christ's sake ... Good Grief ... And we think that Thailand visa reasoning is wacky ?