Long story, need advice on visitor visa and more

There's an interesting issue on this about bigamy.

I'm familiar with some of the middle east complications about bigamy vis a vis UK immigration.  And there's some 'very foreign' marriage/divorce practices in the south pacific that crop up from time to time.  The overall philosophy is that the UK doesn't particularly like it and generally a bigamist can expect difficulties in the immigration process.

But the stuff I'm familiar with deals with it as a UK thing only.  It means for men they will allow the immigration of one wife at a time and the other wives can't get in until the first one leaves.  In theory, it works in reverse for women too, but I've never seen a live case of it for a woman like I have for men.

So unless her other husband takes up residence in the UK, I'm not sure her bigamy would be a total show-stopper.  The only thing preventing it would be that Robert and her would have to get married in a jurisdiction where bigamy is legal, and she would qualify as an immigrant.  But she couldn't come to the UK as a fiance, because it's against the Marriage Act in the UK.  So long story short, if they were already legally married some place else, the bigamy issue becomes moot.

But like I say, I'm very light-weight on the bigamy side of things and would need a reading from somebody heavier before saying anything with confidence.  What do people here think? 

The other thing I spotted in this thread is that nobody has mentioned the Dublin loophole.  Now for sure if she were caught out using that, their fate would be sealed over for a long time.  She would face jail time in the UK and then get deported (not bounced, not removed not told to leave but *DEPORTED IN CUSTODY*).  And then have to pay for the process to boot.  Not a savoury prospect but I'm surprised nobody mentioned it. 

The other thing I spotted in this thread is that nobody has mentioned the Dublin loophole.  Now for sure if she were caught out using that, their fate would be sealed over for a long time.  She would face jail time in the UK and then get deported (not bounced, not removed not told to leave but *DEPORTED IN CUSTODY*).  And then have to pay for the process to boot.  Not a savoury prospect but I'm surprised nobody mentioned it.  

You mean because there's no stamp? Or am I missing something here? (ATTN: OP, bad idea!!!)

Off topic comments have been removed.

Clearly we don't read the UKBA site the same way - it specifically says "rehabilitation periods are based on actual sentences received" 

This is a document with the actual RA detailed

http://www.nacro.org.uk/data/files/nacro-2007021302-65.pdf
Again the first line under Rehabilitation Periods states:  The length of the rehabilitation period depends on the sentence given – not the offence committed


And here are 3 other sites that say the same thing.  The only sentences that never become spent are those where someone was sentenced to 2.5 years in prision.

http://www.yourrights.org.uk/yourrights/privacy/spent-convictions-and-the-rehabilitation-of-offenders/how-a-conviction-becomes-spent.html

The way in which a conviction can become ‘spent’ under the ROA will depend upon the sentence received for the offence, and the rehabilitation period that applies to that offence sentence

http://www.crb.homeoffice.gov.uk/about_crb/what_is_the_roa.aspx

The length of this period depends on the sentence given for the original offence and runs from the date of the conviction.


http://www.lawontheweb.co.uk/Road_Traffic_Law/Rehabiliation_of_Offenders_Act

The length of the rehabilitation period depends on the sentence given - not the offence committed

So am I nuts for thinking mine will be spent?

It's a moot point, surely?  Even if the conviction will be spent, you yourself concede that that wouldn't be for another 1.5 years, and by that time you hope to be living in the US.  You won't get back in the UK for a while no matter what. 

When presenting herself at the border she is essentially asking for leave to enter the UK (making a visa application) in person to the immigration offficer present. Keep that in mind when reading the following:
Base upon this she would need to verbally declare her conviction to the Immigration Officer when presenting herself at the border for entry or it could be used as grounds to refuse future applications.

From reading the following, it says at the very top:

"This is internal guidance for use by entry clearance staff on the handling of refusals for visa applications made outside the United Kingdom (UK). It is a live document under constant review and is for information only."

That doesn't sound like it would apply to getting off the plane and getting the stamp in the passport, it sounds like when you apply for a visa from your home country, not a simple tourist stamp. Especially from countries where you don't need a visa / entry-clearance to enter to the U.K.

Yikes another thing to be nervous about. I'm still curious about to the nature of what happens when an agency accuses you of benefits fraud by slapping a fine on you, but you are never summoned, arrested, citated, tried, or convicted...just winds up as a civil judgment. I have high hopes this will get resolved in my favor, but I don't like the fact I was accused of it when I did nothing wrong.

Any ideas? No matter what this judgment will get set aside (wasn't notified) / satisfied, but it was never criminal---can they in anyway refuse a spousal visa on something civil?

Thanks again.