After much exchanging of letters, and involving our MP, we ended up threatening to take Beverly Hughes personally to court for contravening three articles of the European convention on human rights. This resulted in her grudgingly allowing us three years FLR, to be followed by another three years FLR, after which an ILR could be granted. Whilst at the time we were glad not to have deportation threatened at any time it now has started posing problems. We can't get a mortgage etc. because of wife's "temporary" status. Money being tight we can't afford to return to the US to apply in the country of origin, and I must admit to feeling resentment at our shoddy treatment at the hands of this governmental office. Des Brown will not revise La Hughes's decision, which he has stated in a letter to us.
Thanks for bringing this out publically. These situations come up via PM's a lot more than we think, about 4 - 5 times this year from different people in the same situation, but they don't get out into general awareness because of reluctance. After all, it's a difficult thing to write about.
Yes, Article 8 is the proverbial double-edged sword that cuts two ways. I tend to think of it as the route of last resort, and even then VERY carefully. Your option in April 2003, upon learning the law had changed was to high-tail it back to the USA and get a spousal visa. And for whatever reason, either the cost involved or not wanting to be apart or not wanting to take the risk, you stayed on. Naturally we can call it a mistake in hindsight, but that's what these forums are for. So if you are thinking about going Article 8, think your way through it all the way; and be sure it's the last available option.
From their point of view, you have a right to family life, and you've got your family life and that's that. ILR is something entirely different.
Yes, Des Brown would not overturn a decision made in Hugh's administration because it was lawfully arrived at and the British public can't be doing with ministers overturning each other's decisions on individual cases. I try to urge people not to fire off angry letters to ministers, not because I'm an advisor; but because I've never seen anything good come of it in the long run. It just goes into your file and gets their backs up.
My rationale is that you cannot shame the Home Office into doing something because they have no shame to begin with
So it's better to keep your powder dry and look for an option that's less confrontational. Of course we hear sometimes that someone has received compassionate leave - but it's really and really rare, isn't it? And in most cases, those people have got broad support from the community or their particular ethnic enclave, and they were able to get some momentum to sway public sentiment.
So if you're thinking about giving a minister a piece of your mind, think your way through it all the way to the consequences. And if you absolutely must send a nasty letter because it's the only way you can live with yourself, then for goodness sakes, DO IT THROUGH AN ADVOCACY GROUP.
Last summer, I got called in to help give a Level 0 signposting to a failed asylum seeker - even though I don't do asylum in the first instance - it was for some friends and it was only a signposting anyway. It seems the fellow claimed asylum and while they were processing his case, he got run over by a car and permanently disabled. So they came back saying that since he was disabled, that he was unable to support himself. Now go figure that out. But there was so much fiery and enflamed ministerial correspondence from him, his gf, his English teacher, plus anybody else they could find, that it was clear the whole imbroglio would NEVER be sorted out. So be careful!
Another thing to take note of. The fast-track for spousal ILR after 2 years. If you go back and read the rules very carefully, what you can see right there in black and white is that it's worded as a concession. It means they don't have to do it if they don't want to; and if they decide that they are not going to do it, that's just hard cheese. It's not a right that you can demand. So be nice.
Now all that doesn't help your situation because in yours it's water over the dam. But it helps clarify some points that come up from time-to-time in PM's. For your case, we'll need to put some thought into it.
