Uk citizen with Thai with FLR wife wanting to move to Europe

[7by7]

i thought you had to be a british citizen and have ILR before you can settle elswhere.and to get it you had to be in the uk.for 3yrs.with no breaks.

You thought wrongly.

There is no reason why someone living in the UK who neither has ILR nor is a British citizen cannot move to another country. Provided they satisfy the entry requirements of that county, of course.

Plus, if one is not a British citizen then they may need the appropriate visa to return to the UK. Also, ILR will lapse if the holder spends a continuous period of two or more years out of the UK. In which case the appropriate visa will, of course, be required to enter the UK again.

When my wife and step daughter came to live in England the residential qualifying period for ILR was 12 months. This was changed, sometime in 2003 if memory serves, to 2 years and changed again in July 2012 to 5 years.

There is no maximum time which one is allowed out of the UK during this period, provided you can show that you have remained a UK resident for the entire period; which may be difficult to do if more time has been spent out of the UK than in.

The residential qualifying period for naturalisation if the spouse or partner of a British citizen is three years; 5 years for all others. There is a limit on the amount of time spent out of the UK during this period. A maximum of 270 days during the last 3 years if the spouse or partner of a British citizen, 540 days during the last 5 years for all others; with no more than 90 days in the final year.

One must also haver no time limit on one's stay in the UK; e.g. ILR.

[meatboy]

i thought you had to be a british citizen and have ILR before you can settle elswhere.and to get it you had to be in the uk.for 3yrs.with no breaks.

You thought wrongly.

There is no reason why someone living in the UK who neither has ILR nor is a British citizen cannot move to another country. Provided they satisfy the entry requirements of that county, of course.

Plus, if one is not a British citizen then they may need the appropriate visa to return to the UK. Also, ILR will lapse if the holder spends a continuous period of two or more years out of the UK. In which case the appropriate visa will, of course, be required to enter the UK again.

When my wife and step daughter came to live in England the residential qualifying period for ILR was 12 months. This was changed, sometime in 2003 if memory serves, to 2 years and changed again in July 2012 to 5 years.

There is no maximum time which one is allowed out of the UK during this period, provided you can show that you have remained a UK resident for the entire period; which may be difficult to do if more time has been spent out of the UK than in.

The residential qualifying period for naturalisation if the spouse or partner of a British citizen is three years; 5 years for all others. There is a limit on the amount of time spent out of the UK during this period. A maximum of 270 days during the last 3 years if the spouse or partner of a British citizen, 540 days during the last 5 years for all others; with no more than 90 days in the final year.

One must also haver no time limit on one's stay in the UK; e.g. ILR.

how times have changed,best if you apply for political asylum.seems like a nightmare.NO not if your an immigrant.

[beano2274]

This is what I got for information from the BBC Website about the Freedom of Movement changes that have been agreed

Some limits on free movement - Denying automatic free movement rights to nationals of a country outside the EU who marry an EU national, as part of measures to tackle sham marriages. There are also new powers to exclude people believed to be a security risk - even if they have no previous convictions.

Does not really state what some people were suggesting in this thread.

[Richard W]

This is what I got for information from the BBC Website about the Freedom of Movement changes that have been agreed

Some limits on free movement - Denying automatic free movement rights to nationals of a country outside the EU who marry an EU national, as part of measures to tackle sham marriages. There are also new powers to exclude people believed to be a security risk - even if they have no previous convictions.

Does not really state what some people were suggesting in this thread.

For the best analysis I can find - though the logic is not the best - see Professor Steve Peers' EU law blog. The actual text is at European Council conclusions - there's also an introductory web page. The relevant text is in Annex VII. As regards our wives, "denying automatic free movement rights to nationals of a country outside the EU who marry an EU national" is a fair summary, though it's not quite as bad as that in general. The key point to note is that it isn't just sham marriages that will be penalised. Rather, the scope is cast wide enough to catch sham marriages. Note also that Surinder Singhing couples are rarely in sham marriages, even if there are cases where the arrangement is effectively a sex for visa deal (as opposed to the more normal sex for security deal).

[tebee]

The most relevant bit is on page 36 of the final communique http://docs.dpaq.de/10395-0216-euco-conclusions.pdf

The Commission intends to adopt a proposal to complement Directive 2004/38 on free movement

of Union citizens in order to exclude, from the scope of free movement rights, third country

nationals who had no prior lawful residence in a Member State before marrying a Union citizen or

who marry a Union citizen only after the Union citizen has established residence in the host

Member State. Accordingly, in such cases, the host Member State's immigration law will apply to

the third country national. This proposal will be submitted after the above Decision has taken effect.

[beano2274]

The most relevant bit is on page 36 of the final communique http://docs.dpaq.de/10395-0216-euco-conclusions.pdf

The Commission intends to adopt a proposal to complement Directive 2004/38 on free movement

of Union citizens in order to exclude, from the scope of free movement rights, third country

nationals who had no prior lawful residence in a Member State before marrying a Union citizen or

who marry a Union citizen only after the Union citizen has established residence in the host

Member State. Accordingly, in such cases, the host Member State's immigration law will apply to

the third country national. This proposal will be submitted after the above Decision has taken effect.

Which actually means those people who have sham marriages, but there is nothing about those people who married maybe in the third country nationals home country, lived there for years then decided to return to Europe, when an offer of a decent job arose.

I wonder how many people who get hit by this will look at using the Human Rights process.

[Richard W]

Which actually means those people who have sham marriages, but there is nothing about those people who married maybe in the third country nationals home country, lived there for years then decided to return to Europe, when an offer of a decent job arose.

I wonder how many people who get hit by this will look at using the Human Rights process.

First port of call will be the EU treaties. Next will be anchor babies - any EU citizen children of the family, and then pure Article 8. As the last resort, you'd have to explain that your going to Thailand would face an insuperable obstacle. I'm not sure if one's allowed to cite the illegality of overstaying or working without a work permit as evidence of an insuperable obstacle.

I presume the 'which' refers to your previous post. That wasn't at all obvious to me - I was struggling to work out how it referred to the quotation from Tebee's post or the communiqué.