Mother in law uk visit visa refused. Thoughts please

[manarak]

Indeed, as Manarak would know had he correctly read all of the post of mine which he quoted!

As I said there: visiting family and whilst here occasionally looking after the grandchildren is one thing; coming to do paid work as a nanny/child minder, as was the main reason for the OP's mother in law's visit, is completely different.

Manarak, would you be as sympathetic to the OP and as critical of the visit visa rules had his mother in law been from Pakistan or some other Islamic state?

From various comments you have made elsewhere; I doubt it.

1- the reason for visa refusal based on country of origin vs. looking after the children is totally different. and I'm not opposed to people from Pakistan or other islamic states visiting, as long as they have been thoroughly screened.

2- no, I do not consider family members that are direct ascendants or descendants looking after the children without monetary compensation to be working as a nanny. providing money to cover daily bills (and not more) is not compensation in my book.

And I say if the government considers it to be a paid work, then the government is wrong.

3- the comment made above about "unqualified" people is laughable. the granny is more competent than a disinterested 23 years old student that will look part time after the children, occasionally looking up from her smartphone.

4- helping out in the family, that's what families are for. forcing labor rules into the family is so orwellian and STUPID.

I guess when you send your children to spend a weekend with the grandparents, you also declare the food, care, laundry and 2x 24 hours childcare for taxation ????

What about the labor laws, are the grandparents allowed to be available 24h during that weekend to look after any problem the children could have??? That requires a proper salary !

It's simply ridiculous and odious.

Keep labor laws out of the close family as far as childcare and homecare are concerned.

Edited June 8, 2016 by manarak

[steady]

I don't know why the comment about "is unqualified" is laughable. It was written in relation to someone being employed to take care of children. Where did the "disinterested 23 year old student that will look part time after the children, occasionally looking up from her smartphone" come from. As for giving the impression that every granny is good at taking care of children, my experience doesn't relate to that. There are many good young mothers and poor old grandmothers......but as soon as it becomes a job for them then there are visa rules that they must satisfy.

As for the rest on Manarak's message, it's a personal view but has very little to do with the subject of the thread which is about a visa refusal because the application gave the impression that someone was coming to the UK to work.

[English Engineer]

I am struggling to undetstand why anyone would trust their MIL to look after their children. I would not trust my MIL to look after our cst.

[manarak]

I don't know why the comment about "is unqualified" is laughable. It was written in relation to someone being employed to take care of children. Where did the "disinterested 23 year old student that will look part time after the children, occasionally looking up from her smartphone" come from. As for giving the impression that every granny is good at taking care of children, my experience doesn't relate to that. There are many good young mothers and poor old grandmothers......but as soon as it becomes a job for them then there are visa rules that they must satisfy.

As for the rest on Manarak's message, it's a personal view but has very little to do with the subject of the thread which is about a visa refusal because the application gave the impression that someone was coming to the UK to work.

How one judges his own MIL and her ability to look after her grandchildren shall be left to anyone's own appreciation.

The rest of my message is related to this part " the application gave the impression that someone was coming to the UK to work" - I say a grandmother looking after the children or the household for no monetary compensation should not be considered to be working, it's morally wrong.

[arunsakda]

It doesn't matter what is right or wrong. They have boxes to check in the Home Office and you admitted that according to their standards, you are a human trafficker. Meanwhile others who have nothing and no connection to the UK, who are economic migrants and never intend to integrate, will be welcomed, mollycoddled and handed state resources. Some of these will actually be terrorists.

Morality being what it is these days.

Edited June 8, 2016 by arunsakda

[bobrussell]

There is nothing wrong with paying a mother in law to help care for children. It was the phrasing that was apparently used in the original application that left little option than for an ECO to consider this work.

"so we pay her to supplement her income as she has to take time off from her work (farm work)"

Supplement income to cover her time off work. Not sure it gave the ECO much choice in the matter. Covering costs and expenses may well have been accepted by the person processing the application.

The only hope I see for the second application is the ECO may accept the realities of the situation and be understanding! Not the best thing to rely on perhaps.

[bobrussell]

It doesn't matter what is right or wrong. They have boxes to check in the Home Office and you admitted that according to their standards, you are a human trafficker. Meanwhile others who have nothing and no connection to the UK, who are economic migrants and never intend to integrate, will be welcomed, mollycoddled and handed state resources. Some of these will actually be terrorists.

Morality being what it is these days.

Tosh!

Mother in law being given the opportunity to travel and even be paid for it! Hardly trafficking!

There are some strange people out there.

[7by7]

Manarak, you are, of course, entitled to your opinion; but have resorted to absurdities to justify it! Absurdities such as suggesting that when grandchildren are looked after by their grandparents someone should "declare the food, care, laundry and 2x 24 hours childcare for taxation."

As previously stated; coming to the UK look after children is coming to work; not coming to visit. Especially in the circumstances described by the OP which I suggest you read as your comments are obviously not based on the information given by him.

The UK immigration rules specifically bar any standard visitor from doing any sort of work; paid or unpaid.

Obviously, though, grandparents coming to the UK to visit or travel with their grandchildren and their parents will from time to time look after those grandchildren.

Obviously ECOs are aware of this.

But as said; that is totally different to being paid to provide full time childcare whilst in the UK; which was the stated intention of the OP's mother in law.

1- the reason for visa refusal based on country of origin vs. looking after the children is totally different. and I'm not opposed to people from Pakistan or other islamic states visiting, as long as they have been thoroughly screened.

Country of origin has no bearing on a UK visa application; the immigration rules are the same for all regardless of race, religion or nationality.

Even those, for example Americans, who do not always need a visa in advance to visit the UK are still subject to those rules and can be refused entry if UK immigration believe they do not qualify as a visitor. Plus, of course, they need the appropriate visa to enter the UK for any purpose other than a standard visit.

EEA nationals and their qualifying family members are, at present, not subject to the immigration rules but the EEA regulations.

What thorough screening do you demand for non British Muslims before they are granted a visa to the UK to visit, and possibly spend some time caring for, their grandchildren?

The same screening that anyone in the UK who wishes to work with or around children is subject to?

Or something else?

Do you also demand that the OP's mother in law, and all other's in her position, be subject to such screening before being allowed entry to the UK to look after her grandchildren?

If not, why not?

[manarak]

It doesn't matter what is right or wrong. They have boxes to check in the Home Office and you admitted that according to their standards, you are a human trafficker. Meanwhile others who have nothing and no connection to the UK, who are economic migrants and never intend to integrate, will be welcomed, mollycoddled and handed state resources. Some of these will actually be terrorists.

Morality being what it is these days.

Tosh!

Mother in law being given the opportunity to travel and even be paid for it! Hardly trafficking!

There are some strange people out there.

you would be surprised, as well as 7by7 who liked your post.

facilitatating the entry of an illegal worker in the country translates to a human trafficking charge in most countries.

[manarak]

Manarak, you are, of course, entitled to your opinion; but have resorted to absurdities to justify it! Absurdities such as suggesting that when grandchildren are looked after by their grandparents someone should "declare the food, care, laundry and 2x 24 hours childcare for taxation."

As previously stated; coming to the UK look after children is coming to work; not coming to visit. Especially in the circumstances described by the OP which I suggest you read as your comments are obviously not based on the information given by him.

The UK immigration rules specifically bar any standard visitor from doing any sort of work; paid or unpaid.

Obviously, though, grandparents coming to the UK to visit or travel with their grandchildren and their parents will from time to time look after those grandchildren.

Obviously ECOs are aware of this.

But as said; that is totally different to being paid to provide full time childcare whilst in the UK; which was the stated intention of the OP's mother in law.

1- the reason for visa refusal based on country of origin vs. looking after the children is totally different. and I'm not opposed to people from Pakistan or other islamic states visiting, as long as they have been thoroughly screened.

Country of origin has no bearing on a UK visa application; the immigration rules are the same for all regardless of race, religion or nationality.

Even those, for example Americans, who do not always need a visa in advance to visit the UK are still subject to those rules and can be refused entry if UK immigration believe they do not qualify as a visitor. Plus, of course, they need the appropriate visa to enter the UK for any purpose other than a standard visit.

EEA nationals and their qualifying family members are, at present, not subject to the immigration rules but the EEA regulations.

What thorough screening do you demand for non British Muslims before they are granted a visa to the UK to visit, and possibly spend some time caring for, their grandchildren?

The same screening that anyone in the UK who wishes to work with or around children is subject to?

Or something else?

Do you also demand that the OP's mother in law, and all other's in her position, be subject to such screening before being allowed entry to the UK to look after her grandchildren?

If not, why not?

regarding the screening of tourists or immigrants, I think it is a bit off topic for this thread - I simply clarified that I had no objection of anyone coming based simply on his race, religion or country of origin as a reply to your thinly veiled accusation of me being a racist, "based on my other posts".

second, I wish to repeat that under no circumstances I would consider a very close family member (i.e. brother, sister, father, mother, grandfather, grandmother, aunt, uncle) to be working if living in the same household and looking after children or the household, this applies to family members living in the same country or living abroad.

Therefore, no childcare-qualification screening required.

third, I really think it is none of the government's business to decide who I entrust my children to, it's not only my parental responsibility but also my prerogative.

I think only people who have a job of looking after children should be screened by the government for qualification.

[7by7]

So please explain exactly what you meant by "and I'm not opposed to people from Pakistan or other islamic (sic) states visiting, as long as they have been thoroughly screened."

[manarak]

So please explain exactly what you meant by "and I'm not opposed to people from Pakistan or other islamic (sic) states visiting, as long as they have been thoroughly screened."

I consider your question as off-topic for this thread, but I will answer anyway.

If you wish to pursue, please contact me by PM or open another thread.

I would refuse people if they are criminals, pose a threat to peace or if they are openly hostile to my country or likely to spread an ideology hostile to my country.

I would let poor persons in if they have a sponsor who paid a bond guaranteeing that they leave the country before their visa expires.

I would let pregnant women in if my country does not automatically give children born in my country my nationality or a permission to stay.

Of course, everyone needs proper health and accident insurance taken out at a national insurance company.

Does this answer your question?

[7by7]

It doesn't matter what is right or wrong. They have boxes to check in the Home Office and you admitted that according to their standards, you are a human trafficker. Meanwhile others who have nothing and no connection to the UK, who are economic migrants and never intend to integrate, will be welcomed, mollycoddled and handed state resources. Some of these will actually be terrorists.

Morality being what it is these days.

Tosh!

Mother in law being given the opportunity to travel and even be paid for it! Hardly trafficking!

There are some strange people out there.

you would be surprised, as well as 7by7 who liked your post.

facilitatating the entry of an illegal worker in the country translates to a human trafficking charge in most countries.

Up to now you have argued that there is noting wrong in obtaining a visit visa for a grandmother, or other close relative, so they can come to the UK to undertake paid childcare work for their family.

Now you are calling it human trafficking!

Make your mind up!

arunsakda,

Your comments show a complete and utter ignorance of the UK's immigration rules as well as what public funds and other state aid immigrants are entitled to; including asylum seekers.

I suggest that you do some relevant research before commenting on these matters again.

Whilst you're at it; do some research on terrorist atrocities in the UK as well.

All the Islamic terrorist atrocities carried out in the UK were perpetrated by British citizens who were all, apart from one of the 7/7 bombers who was born in Jamaica, born in the UK.

It is an appalling shame that the rampant, ignorant Islamaphobia prevalent in other parts of Thai Visa is spreading to this sub forum.

[manarak]

It doesn't matter what is right or wrong. They have boxes to check in the Home Office and you admitted that according to their standards, you are a human trafficker. Meanwhile others who have nothing and no connection to the UK, who are economic migrants and never intend to integrate, will be welcomed, mollycoddled and handed state resources. Some of these will actually be terrorists.

Morality being what it is these days.

Tosh!

Mother in law being given the opportunity to travel and even be paid for it! Hardly trafficking!

There are some strange people out there.

you would be surprised, as well as 7by7 who liked your post.

facilitatating the entry of an illegal worker in the country translates to a human trafficking charge in most countries.

Up to now you have argued that there is noting wrong in obtaining a visit visa for a grandmother, or other close relative, so they can come to the UK to undertake paid childcare work for their family.

Now you are calling it human trafficking!

Make your mind up!

arunsakda,

Your comments show a complete and utter ignorance of the UK's immigration rules as well as what public funds and other state aid immigrants are entitled to; including asylum seekers.

I suggest that you do some relevant research before commenting on these matters again.

Whilst you're at it; do some research on terrorist atrocities in the UK as well.

All the Islamic terrorist atrocities carried out in the UK were perpetrated by British citizens who were all, apart from one of the 7/7 bombers who was born in Jamaica, born in the UK.

It is an appalling shame that the rampant, ignorant Islamaphobia prevalent in other parts of Thai Visa is spreading to this sub forum.

I don't consider it human trafficking, but abusive laws and abusive prosecutors do.

I personally consider it a shame.

[7by7]

So please explain exactly what you meant by "and I'm not opposed to people from Pakistan or other islamic (sic) states visiting, as long as they have been thoroughly screened."

I consider your question as off-topic for this thread, but I will answer anyway.

If you wish to pursue, please contact me by PM or open another thread.

I would refuse people if they are criminals, pose a threat to peace or if they are openly hostile to my country or likely to spread an ideology hostile to my country.

I would let poor persons in if they have a sponsor who paid a bond guaranteeing that they leave the country before their visa expires.

I would let pregnant women in if my country does not automatically give children born in my country my nationality or a permission to stay.

Of course, everyone needs proper health and accident insurance taken out at a national insurance company.

Does this answer your question?

Only if you would apply those criteria, most of which in one form or another are already in the rules anyway, to all applicants regardless of their race, nationality, religion or political beliefs.

Would you?

BTW, children born in the UK only automatically acquire British nationality if at least one of their parents is a British citizen or has no time restriction on their stay in the UK; e.g. ILR.

A pregnant visitor who gives birth in a NHS hospital will be charged for all treatment, except emergency treatment in an A&E department, at a rate of 150% of the cost and if she doesn't pay before leaving the UK any future UK visa application by her, in all capacities, will be refused until she does pay.

The same rules apply to all visitors who receive NHS treatment whilst in the UK.

[manarak]

So please explain exactly what you meant by "and I'm not opposed to people from Pakistan or other islamic (sic) states visiting, as long as they have been thoroughly screened."

I consider your question as off-topic for this thread, but I will answer anyway.

If you wish to pursue, please contact me by PM or open another thread.

I would refuse people if they are criminals, pose a threat to peace or if they are openly hostile to my country or likely to spread an ideology hostile to my country.

I would let poor persons in if they have a sponsor who paid a bond guaranteeing that they leave the country before their visa expires.

I would let pregnant women in if my country does not automatically give children born in my country my nationality or a permission to stay.

Of course, everyone needs proper health and accident insurance taken out at a national insurance company.

Does this answer your question?

Only if you would apply those criteria, most of which in one form or another are already in the rules anyway, to all applicants regardless of their race, nationality, religion or political beliefs.

Would you?

BTW, children born in the UK only automatically acquire British nationality if at least one of their parents is a British citizen or has no time restriction on their stay in the UK; e.g. ILR.

A pregnant visitor who gives birth in a NHS hospital will be charged for all treatment, except emergency treatment in an A&E department, at a rate of 150% of the cost and if she doesn't pay before leaving the UK any future UK visa application by her, in all capacities, will be refused until she does pay.

The same rules apply to all visitors who receive NHS treatment whilst in the UK.

Yes, I would apply these criteria to any foreigner who is invited by a private person or comes as a tourist. For tourists, tour operators can act as a sponsor.

For residents of some chosen countries, conditions on the bond, sponsor and insurances might be relaxed if their status in the foreign country gives enough guarantees, for example if they have proper health insurance there and a proper job.

There are lots of special cases and exceptions of course, as well as the clear possibility for consular services to overrule some regulations in granting visas.

Regarding what you described about British nationality, I would feel more comfortable if nationality can only be inherited from a British parent. Of course children of foreigners who have no time restriction on their stay would also inherit the permission to stay (and could apply for nationality later).

Regarding what you said about patients being charged by the NHS I would like to note that being charged and being able to pay are two different things. I consider it paramount to verify that people are able to pay before letting them in.

And finally, although I would apply the same rules to all, I have the feeling that we would have different opinions on the details, for example "regardless of their ... religion or political beliefs".

I would like to make it clear that I would refuse people known to belong to a "white power" movement in the US, or German neo-nazis, or islamists of all kinds, or people known to support the Muslim Brotherhood, or people attending an extremist Coranic school, close relatives of known terrorists, etc.

Edited June 8, 2016 by manarak

[7by7]

Nested quotes removed to comply with forum software.

I don't consider it human trafficking, but abusive laws and abusive prosecutors do.

I personally consider it a shame.

The UK does not consider the situation described by the OP to be human trafficking. I doubt that many, if any, other countries would either. Maybe you can provide evidence of someone somewhere being prosecuted for human trafficking in such circumstances?

Had his mother in law been granted her visit visa and subsequently broken the terms of that visa by working all she would have been guilty of is breaking the terms of her visa.

Maximum punishment if caught; possible 10 year ban from entering the UK as a visitor.

Punishment for the OP?

None, as he would not be guilty under UK law of any crime.

That is why comments about human trafficking are, as Bob rightly said, utter tosh.

[manarak]

Nested quotes removed to comply with forum software.

I don't consider it human trafficking, but abusive laws and abusive prosecutors do.

I personally consider it a shame.

The UK does not consider the situation described by the OP to be human trafficking. I doubt that many, if any, other countries would either. Maybe you can provide evidence of someone somewhere being prosecuted for human trafficking in such circumstances?

Had his mother in law been granted her visit visa and subsequently broken the terms of that visa by working all she would have been guilty of is breaking the terms of her visa.

Maximum punishment if caught; possible 10 year ban from entering the UK as a visitor.

Punishment for the OP?

None, as he would not be guilty under UK law of any crime.

That is why comments about human trafficking are, as Bob rightly said, utter tosh.

Nothing to do with a mother in law, but I know a the case of a French man who was charged with human trafficking after he paid a prostitute's plane ticket to visit him from another country for one night in Paris.

The man is a simple businessman and occasional customer, not a pimp etc.

I remember my jaw dropped when I read this in a newspaper!

I briefly tried to search, but I couldn't find the link.

[bobrussell]

The thread has veered wildly off course and the OP seems to be trying to blame everyone but himself.

All standard visit visas are granted on the condition that the holder does not work, paid or unpaid. This holds for all standard visit visas. To get a work visa requires a completely different tack. Most people would not consider a mother in law travelling with family, to be work but unfortunately the application suggested this was work and the decision to refuse was made on that basis.

All visa applicants worldwide have to meet the same requirements and an American applicant, for example, would also have been refused! A Muslim, Jew, Christian or atheist would also have been rejected.

The visa application also has a large section where criminal records, terrorist sympathies and war crimes have to be disclosed. Not sure how many terrorists are likely to fill this bit in honestly but being caught lying will render the visa invalid and risk a long ban.

[theoldgit]

As interesting as this discussion might be to some people, can we now please stick to posting comments that specifically address the OP's initial concerns.

This is a forum where people seek advice on immigration issues concerning them, not for discussing the rights and wrongs of UK Immigration policy.

Any further off topic posts will be removed without warning or explanation.

Thank you.

[Heng]

Point you are missing John is day to day with 3 kids is fine. 2 months (60 days) 24 hours a day with 3 young children would be very hard for anyone, so grandma comes for support. I am sure any parent would agree.

Anyway let's see the result of the second try, thanks for the best wishes.

FYI my Father died when I was a young child.

My Mother cared for 3 young children 24/7/365 until we reached an age of independence and then she continued to care.

Not taking away from your mum , and sorry your father passed away when you were young. fair play to her her but not really same situation.

Not taking away from your mum but did you not go to school, or have friends and family around? 2 months alone is a tough call and we are only talking about having grandma around to support the kids.

Seriously the way a few of you guys talk we are asking for some kind of diplomatic favor, gran comes to uk for 2 months to help / spend time with grand kids. Pretty small issue when you look at rest of UK immigration mess at the moment.

It's all relative. To some (and I dare say most), a nanny or any domestic employee is a luxury. You may have gotten an immigration officer that was rubbed the wrong way (and surely that happens quite a bit while they still stay 'within the rules') and decided to check FO instead of A. Like complaining to someone at a Thai police immigration office how you feel that business class on TG has been in a downward spiral for years now but still hoping they can relate to you.

[manarak]

If I was OP, I would try to re-submit the application, this time by making sure all information given is at the same time true and satisfying requirements for visa approval.

There is some hope that the MIL is not banned from going to the UK for life because of a few unfortunate words on a previous application, as this would certainly be unfair.

[bobrussell]

She cannot be banned for any length of time for telling the truth! The problem with the application was that it was a little more truthful than it had to be!

Someone coming to the UK on a visit visa intending to work is going to face sanction if caught!

If you mean you believe she might be prevented from visiting in future because of this application then I would tend to agree it would be unfair. I am not sure what assurances an ECO is going to accept that she will not be working!

Is this applicant any risk, financially or otherwise to the UK as a visitor? Very unlikely and will presumably spend or have money spent on her, helping the economy.

[Heng]

The VFS site says non-refundable travel arrangements should not be made prior to the visa application. But do you need a paid for ticket and hotel booking (refundable or otherwise)?

[theoldgit]

The VFS site says non-refundable travel arrangements should not be made prior to the visa application. But do you need a paid for ticket and hotel booking (refundable or otherwise)?

No, you don't.

[Heng]

Thanks.

[arunsakda]

It is only natural that Gran would provide a certain amount of child care part of normal family dynamics.

But are there no decent English girls/students left who may want to do some babysitting? Hardly. Sitters.uk is advertising from £7.20 hour.

There us no reason for the UK to issue a visitors visa for someone who will be undercutting legal workers opportunities so an expat can save a few quid.

[Briggsy]

My God, is this thread still running? No updates then?

[changnaam]

I decided to stay away from the thread while we made the second submission for the visa . Thanks to those who made positive suggestions , it is appreciated.

Happy to say the ECO saw sense that is was a genuine application and we got the visa second time.

Lessons which I learned from this.

1) Be as brief and to the point as you can.

2) don't make suggestions which would give them an easy excuse to reject.

3) Be persistent if you think you have a legitimate reason to reapply.

[bobrussell]

Nice to have the update - thanks!

You did dodge a bit of a bullet but thankfully the ECO has been sensible. Second guessing what will be helpful and what will not, is really for the experts!

Edited June 15, 2016 by bobrussell