UK Entry Refusal

"well it would be my ass if anyone found out about this, so I can't take a chance." 

Well, that's one way of putting it. Another way of putting it would be that a conscientious and thorough IO applies their work instructions in a painstaking and consistent fashion, in line with their operating instructions and with the intention of the legislation under which they operate.

Well, that's one way of putting it. Another way of putting it would be that a conscientious and thorough IO applies their work instructions in a painstaking and consistent fashion, in line with their operating instructions and with the intention of the legislation under which they operate.

I was referring to the ECO, not the IO in this theoretical situation, looking at a visitor's visa application of someone who babysat twice for a tenner and is no longer allowed as a visitor in the UK.  If any reasonable ECO took a look at that and shook their head and maybe felt a bit of emotion, I wouldn't be surprised.  I am sure you, contrex, execute your duties with the precision of a dispassionate computer, so I apologise for insinuating otherwise.

My point was to say that any "wiggle room" there might be in intrepeting the breach is unlikely to be applied to this situation.

The UKBA webpages are impossible!  They mention on the FOI page that you *can* make an SAR, but there's zilch about actually doing it.

Thankfully, the ILPA has a wonderful sheet that gives all the information for making an SAR....

http://www.ilpa.org.uk/infoservice/Info%20sheet%20Subject%20Access%20Request1.pdf [nofollow]

I did an SAR back in March.  I received a letter in April asking for the £10 fee (fine, whatever) and they also said the following interesting things which aren't (yet?) addressed in the info sheet:

- 'We would be grateful if you could also send us your proof of your address such as a utility bill.  This would assist us with processing the subject access request but is not a requisite under the Data Protection Act 1998.'

I presume sending the £10 and a utility bill means you can bypass the need for them to send you a letter about it.

But also note:

- 'Please note that time spent validating your request does not count towards the statutory 40-day deadline.'

I'm assuming that's a sneaky way to get around the deadline, because how is anyone going to know how much time they take 'validating your request'?

The OIC website has a template letter:

http://www.ico.gov.uk/Home/what_we_cover/data_protection/your_rights/how_to_access_information.aspx [nofollow]

They sent me photocopies of my previous applications, and full copies of entry cards.  I haven't verified that every entry card is there (I went in and out a lot in the 1990s), but they certainly have plenty.

PtC - Thanks so much for this.

J

You can go for the SAR, but again, and all due respect for Garry, what will it do?  In my opinion it would be false hope. 

You guys make a very broad assumption that the SAR is fully accurate and proportionate.  Without having seen it even!  Cheeeeesh!

If the SAR commented that she appeared to be under the influence of narcotics, would it be useful to know?   Perhaps challenge?  If it said that her diary contained entries connecting her to Islamic fundamentalists, would it be useful to know?  Or in a simple case, if it said that she admitted to being an occupational child-minder in the UK, would it make a difference?  Yes, I rather think it would make a difference.

What makes you people so trusting that everything was recorded accurately and without bias?   

ETA:  thanks to PtC for the links.  I can never find them.

What makes you people so trusting that everything was recorded accurately and without bias?   

All fair points garry, I guess the question is, so what if they did?  You know better then I.  Let's say they thought she was an islamic terrorist, but along with the information they make it clear that she was an islamic terrorist who baby sit for money and therefore breached the terms of prior visitors visa.  Does that turn the whole thing on its head?  I honestly don't know.  I would assume that they would potentially discipline the IO, but are they suddenly going to let her in as a visitor again?

My assumption is that the SAR might be useful IF she ran into issues with a family based visa.  Then she has a right to appeal and presenting evidence that the IO was hostile and innacurate in her first refusal might be ground to undermine whatever they used as grounds for refusing her a family visa.  But most likely, from what I have seen for US citizens, is that if she pursues a family visa, most things are forgiven if she is totally honest when applying for that visa.

I guess the question is Garry, and I ask this in an honest learning mode, would inaccurate statements recorded by the IO override the accurate statements and overturn the refusal?

You and Persephone are missing the point.  Her days as a visitor are OVER.  Done.  Gone with the wind.  It's a dead issue and has nothing to do with why an SAR is called for, so why keep bringing it up?  Why not move on to what the other possibilities are?

The only remote possibility she has to get into the UK is under the family formation programme, and for that she basically gets one shot.  If it's refused, she gets an appeal, and it would sense to have has much ammo as possible for that eventuality.

The SAR takes 40 days to fulfill, an appeal needs to be lodged in 28 days.  That means you couldn't use any of its contents for the appeal, right?   

So you're proposing that she goes into an appeal short-handed, but that's ok because she saves a whopping 10 pounds   

To jamcyrix:  if you want to arrange a consultation with an ILPA qualified solicitor, you can pm me.  I don't think this thread has been particularly helpful.

You and Persephone are missing the point.  Her days as a visitor are OVER.  Done.  Gone with the wind.  It's a dead issue and has nothing to do with why an SAR is called for, so why keep bringing it up?  Why not move on to what the other possibilities are?

The only remote possibility she has to get into the UK is under the family formation programme, and for that she basically gets one shot.  If it's refused, she gets an appeal, and it would sense to have has much ammo as possible for that eventuality.

The SAR takes 40 days to fulfill, an appeal needs to be lodged in 28 days.  That means you couldn't use any of its contents for the appeal, right?   

So you're proposing that she goes into an appeal short-handed, but that's ok because she saves a whopping 10 pounds   

I mis understood what you were suggesting and did not understand the timeline for the SAR, which is why I asked for the clarification, which you provided.  I thought you were suggesting something else.  Although, we haven't established that the OP wants or is able to pursue a family based visa.  The OP made it clear on several occasions that they were looking for a way she could visit again, ergo my advice on that being a mute point, but without understanding the timeline for a SAR.

Actually, I think that's sort of what I said Garry.  And if not, it's definitely what I meant.  She's not going to get any visitor status, so short term visiting options, US or third country.  The SAR is what she needs (I implied might, because I have not dealt with the appeals process) for appealing if she tries for the family formation visa.  So, sorry if I caused confusion, because I knew visit visas were just not going to happen in this case.  Anyway, apologies.  Hopefully there aren't too many hard feelings.  

Super!

Can we all please focus on getting some bounce narratives?  I have only 3 and need more.

The part in this thread about an unsupervised interview is worrying.  Can we try to encourage her to send it in?

To jamcyrix:  if you want to arrange a consultation with an ILPA qualified solicitor, you can pm me.  I don't think this thread has been particularly helpful.

Thanks Garry. This thread has been very helpful and, albeit very distressing reading, both yourself and others have answered my original question: "Will this affect her chances of obtaining a Visitors Visa, and would it be advisable to apply for one immediately, and attempt a return to the UK within the next month or so?"

I just find it absolutely unbelievable that a misunderstanding over the term friend/boyfriend, and a couple of nights watching a friend's kid could effectively criminalize an individual, and prevent them from visiting the UK within the foreseeable future.

Is this final? ..or does anyone have any experience of any similar positive outcomes?

Thanks for your help.

J

Welcome to the world of UK immigration.

While she isn't a criminal, the UK is insanely pedantic on immigration rules, to the point where common sense and subjective discretion don't always play the part they should. One could even argue that IOs and ECOs go against their common sense to keep as many people from entering the UK as possible. That is, of course they know that her babysitting was entirely innocent and not done with the intention of 'illegal working', but seeing an opportunity to apply the term 'breach' to her case and bounce her, they took it.

Think about it. These people take the position of IO or ECO to keep people out, not to be forgiving and indulgent to immigrants.

Some people think this is fair, we all have to play by the same rules, the rules must be enforced consistently and without subjective variation, blah blah blah.

Personally, I think entry refusals like yours are absolutely ridiculous and unfair, lacking so much humanity and common sense as they do. As are the majority of refusals, whereby the IO or ECO ignores the whole 'balance of probabilities' and just constructs a wholly negative and wholly false picture of the applicant's character and situation in order to keep in line with the expected quota for denials.

Rant over.

To answer your question, I think the visit visa option is closed now, as 1) they have too much rope to hang you with and 2) she won't be able to demonstrate intention to return to the US. Even though technically all she has to show is intent to return to the US at the end of her visit, even projected intent to settle eventually is enough to disqualify someone as a visitor in the mind of an ECO.

So your best option, IMO, would be the fiance visa. Which means deciding whether you're both able to make that commitment now, or not.

Diana 

I don't have any similar experiences to share, but for what it's worth, I agree with you that the official reaction to your girlfriend's babysitting is unbelievable, and IMO shocking.  I can't imagine that there are many people who, when asked to do a favor for a friend, would think "But wait . . . could this conceivably be construed as 'work' and thereby violate the conditions of my visitor's visa?"  I doubt that I would.  It makes it very easy for people unwittingly to fall into illegal behavior, when (I would hope at least) the spirit of the law against visitors working is intended to prevent people from undertaking real employment without permission; making it harder for illegal immigrants to settle, and easier to keep them out of the country if they're caught.  It shouldn't, again in my opinion, be used against people who were just trying to be nice.   That said, --and no judgment here-- I do think you're being a bit disingenuous about the friend/boyfriend distinction.  There is clearly a difference between the two concepts, and calling a boyfriend a friend is deceptive.     

Best of luck to you if you decide to apply for a settlement visa, and I send all my sympathy for your situation and hope you two will be reunited soon!   

Think about it. These people take the position of IO or ECO to keep people out, not to be forgiving and indulgent to immigrants.

Fair summary IMHO

Some people think this is fair, we all have to play by the same rules, the rules must be enforced consistently and without subjective variation, blah blah blah.

Ditto, minus the pejorative "blah blah blah"

I don't have any similar experiences to share, but for what it's worth, I agree with you that the official reaction to your girlfriend's babysitting is unbelievable, and IMO shocking. 

I appreciate the fact that being bounced is never fun and it is unfortunate, but to say that being punished for breaking the rules is "shocking" is pushing it, in my opinion.

Please understand what this looks like from the ECO's point of view. You lied about being bf/gf. And it wasn't an accidental lie, it was clearly planned because when your girlfriend said she was a friend, you backed her up. Furthermore, she accepted compensation for doing work, not a trivial violation by any means. They stamp your passport with a warning about working for a reason. Ignorance is never an excuse for breaking the law, especially one that is fairly straight-forward.

Now, you might wonder why I am even saying this to you and partially, because it is annoying to people who do their research and follow the rules and make an effort not to lie to ECOs to read about you complaining about how unfair this whole system is while in reality is happens to be one of the less strict ones out there.

But partially because now that you've pretty much hosed your chances at a visitor visa, for your gf to come to the UK, you'll need to resort to the family formation scheme or possible the Tier 1/2 visas if you qualify and to get those you need to put aside your thoughts on the unfairness or lack thereof of UK immigration, and follow the procedures to the letter!

You could have avoided the problem you're now facing by having done your research. There is advice without number out there about NOT engaging in the gf/bf or only a friend word games and also there are specific warnings about NOT bringing diaries as they cause nothing but grief at the border. Not to mention, both of you would have known about the hassles American women now routinely get on arrival here.

Take the above not as a scold but as a sign that whichever path you'll decide to go in the future, do very thorough research and follow the rules, putting aside their fairness or lack thereof and hopefully this will be just a hiccup in your past.

And take garry's advice and get the SAR. Assuming you'll decide to apply for any visa at all, the person deciding your case will be looking at that. You might as well know upfront what he/she will be looking at. 

And good luck!

ETA: to avoid confusion, I'm addressing this post to the OP, not historienne. I simply wanted to specifically respond to the phrase calling the application of the rules "shocking."

I appreciate the fact that being bounced is never fun and it is unfortunate, but to say that being punished for breaking the rules is "shocking" is pushing it, in my opinion.

What I find shocking is the harshness of the reaction to something that seems innocuous to me.  Had the OP's girlfriend agreed to babysit on the condition that she would be paid, then I would consider the harsh reaction warranted.  However, if she did it as a favor, then accepted the £20 as a gift, as the OP has stated she did, then treating her the same as someone who intentionally broke the rules seems unwarranted.  My experience has been that the average British person doesn't know very much about the specifics of immigration laws (I did some training here earlier this year while on a visitor visa *it was legal, and I told the IO all about it when I entered* after which, my trainer suggested that I take some "unofficial" paid work with a friend of his.  He knew that my boyfriend was British and that I wanted to be as close to him as possible, and was completely unaware of the severe consequences I and his friend would face if I had accepted the offer.)  and I can't help thinking that the OP's girlfriend might just have accepted the £20 because refusing a generous gift would be rude and of course the friend offering it would have no clue of the dilemma her offer put the girlfriend in.  I'm trying to imagine how I would have handled the situation, and I empathize with the trickiness of it.  In those circumstances, I'm not sure it would occur to many people, even informed ones, that what they were doing would be considered work.   So while I agree that the friend/boyfriend bit was deceptive and deserves consequences, the babysitting I feel was a simple mistake that many people would have made in her place.