Heartless Home Office strikes again!

Don't you need to be a graduate or a student for Tier 5?  If she's 19 and just spent 6 months away from Canada, she's likely not either.

I thought Canada still had something like the Working Holiday visa thing, or did they change it completely.  I guess I was only paying attention when they got rid of Bunac for Americans.

Has anything said that the couple didn't intend to return initially to get her spousal visa?  We never get the full story from a news article.  Isn't it entirely conceivable that they planned on returning and would have done so and legally got her proper visa, but for the goof-up from the Home Office which slowed down their COA.  The age-change rules only came into measure a matter of weeks after.  Now they could be terrified knowing that once they leave, she cannot return like she could have if they'd married a few weeks earlier as they intended.

I realize this may not have been the case, but is it fair to jump to conclusions about a couple based on so little information?  I agree, they may have been foolhardy, but it's also possible we don't know the full story.

If they intended to return to Canada anyway, then why bother with the CoA?  Why not just get a fiancee visa or get married in Canada and get a spousal visa? 

If they intended to return to Canada anyway, then why bother with the CoA?  Why not just get a fiancee visa or get married in Canada and get a spousal visa? 

who knows? maybe they received bad advice from somewhere? , maybe they are just young and foolish. Does it matter? Regardless of the reason they've been rather unfortunate and I don't think they should be condemned out of hand when there may be a whole lot going on we haven't heard about.

 

who knows? maybe they received bad advice from somewhere? , maybe they are just young and foolish. Does it matter? Regardless of the reason they've been rather unfortunate and I don't think they should be condemned out of hand when there may be a whole lot going on we haven't heard about.

Yes, I guess it does matter.  At least to the HO it does.  A lot of people have misfortunes but that doesn't entitle them to special rules or consideration.  As been stated many times, the HO doesn't give a toss about emotion or sob stories.  Whatever the reasons or motivations, unless they did things the correct way in the correct time, they got just what anyone else in that situation would have got.  If I myself had followed the bad advice I was given, no amount of crying would have entitled me to special considerations.

Well the Home Office has done their bit ... and  after all it is their job to judge ... but as far as I'm awarre no-one posting on this thread works for the Home Office ... . By the way, this couple haven't had any special treatment as yet and maybe they won't get any, even if the Minister does take a look at it.

who knows? maybe they received bad advice from somewhere? , maybe they are just young and foolish. Does it matter? Regardless of the reason they've been rather unfortunate and I don't think they should be condemned out of hand when there may be a whole lot going on we haven't heard about.

Thanks Britwife, that's just what I was trying to say.  I just don't think this forum is the place to judge and condemn them when we clearly don't know the whole story.  I don't see this couple receiving any special treatment, like you said, and don't think it's our place to judge exactly what their plan and motivation was based solely on a newspaper clipping.  Newspapers leave out details all the time!

Thanks Britwife, that's just what I was trying to say.  I just don't think this forum is the place to judge and condemn them when we clearly don't know the whole story.  I don't see this couple receiving any special treatment, like you said, and don't think it's our place to judge exactly what their plan and motivation was based solely on a newspaper clipping.  Newspapers leave out details all the time!

But that goes both ways, no? We don't know the whole story, so you can't really that people who, knowing what they know, decide to side with the HO, are "condemning" anyone. After all, feeling that the couple deserve the benefit of the doubt based on this limited information is as valid as feeling that the HO does.

The Home Office screwed up, and so did the couple. I guess people on this thread are falling on different sides as to who screwed up the worst. Nothing wrong with that. To tell the truth, now bringing up words like "condemnation" and phrases like "you had it hard so you don't want others to have it easy" is a bit of a strawman. But then again so are arguments like "what's a big deal, they already used to an LDR anyway."

Personally, I think the HO is crap in this situation. They should have gotten the CoA to them in time. The couple might have still not have gotten the spousal visa before the new rule came into effect, but they would have had enough time theoretically. Honestly, making the assumption that because they overstayed due to a HO screw up that they'd get some consideration at application time doesn't strike me as all that outrageous.

Honestly, making the assumption that because they overstayed due to a HO screw up that they'd get some consideration at application time doesn't strike me as all that outrageous.

But there's no consideration to be given.  One of the problems with this debate is that there are two issues involved.  One is the HO's mistake resulting in their not getting the CoA in time causing her to become an overstayer.  The other is them complaining that she has to leave even though they're married.  However, the fact is that she would ALWAYS have had to leave, even though they're married and even if the HO had been completely on the ball.  Switching from a visitor visa to a spousal visa is not permitted.  If they'd gotten their CoA on time, then the title of this thread would just be "Heartless Croydon PEO strikes again" and would feature the couple's heartbroken shock when their FLR(M) application was refused. 

I do agree that there are mitigating circumstances surrounding the overstay, however it should be noted that they didn't even send their application for a CoA until a month before her visa ran out.  That doesn't leave much of a margin for error of any description.  What if the registry office had lost or misbooked their appointment?  Would they, then, be "heartless?" 

And as to judging others, I would agree that none of us is competent to judge this couple's characters or their intelligence or their morals.  However, we are perfectly able to judge their actions, or if not to "judge" per se, at least to "have an opinion on."  And as Mort pointed out, in the absence of abundant facts, we are all speculating, and speculating one way is no better or worse than speculating another.  If people have opinions that you disagree with, that doesn't mean that they are "judging" and you are not.         

historyenne,

I think I am willing to cut them a bit of slack because as the matter stood, even if they were aware completely that they'd need to leave to change status, there was no chance for them to do it because four days after, the Over-21 limiter went into effect.

However, I do agree that in all likelyhood they'd have still screwed up somewhere and we'd probably be hearing how unfair everything was. But I can't say that with 100% certainty so even though it does look like they were unaware of the leave-to-switch requirement and unlikely to have learned of it even if the HO had coughed up the CoA on time, I don't know for sure and that's why I think the couple deserves at least to have their case re-examined.

While their drama was unfolding, the immigration rules were in general flux (more than usual, I mean) and even in the best of times it's no easy feat to get everything just right. So, though I completely sympathise with your PoV, (and if it were me in this situation, I'd be blaming myself entirely) there's still a fair bit of "There but for the grace of God..." to the whole thing.

That's what I've been thinking.  I wasn't trying to defend them and do suspect they would have goofed up regardless of the HO keeping the COA for too long, but if they had intended to return as they should have and weren't able to get there in time b/c of the HO screwup, that really sucked for them and should deserve some consideration. 

I'm really not all that bothered about this one.  I had been following the case in a few articles I read, but I didn't like the tone I felt starting to develop towards them and some others in other threads, especially regarding some who end up breaking rules.  I'm all for discussing the facts as we know them, and discussing how the immigration rules apply to what information we know.  I'm also a firm believer in sticking to the rules, but sometimes people get harsh without always knowing all of the circumstances, which is a shame.

Now before people get upset.  I'm not talking about specific people.  I'm just commenting on a general tone I've noticed in some threads which has disturbed me.