UK Entry Refusal

Had the OP's girlfriend agreed to babysit on the condition that she would be paid, then I would consider the harsh reaction warranted.

While I am sympathetic to the OP, I don't find it shocking.  Babysitting, for even no money, is technically work, work that another EU citizen would have probably performed.  While I can understand ignorance, I can't disagree with the rule.  How much work is too little work?  Also, we are not talking about a ban here, UKBA is just saying she can't be a visitor because she abused the privilege, albeit unknowingly.

Again, dealing with the US is 10x worse.  My partner got bounced twice and they don't even let you cross the border for a day or two, they simply put you in a holding cell if they don't have a plane ready for you.  And then when he went to try to get a proper visitor visa, they denied it to him because "he didn't have strong enough ties in the UK".  Why did he get bounced?  Did they come up with any proof?  No, they just thought because he was coming in regularly that he must be working.  We had no recourse in the US to pursue a family visa route (being same gendered) so we had to re-plan everything and I moved to the UK.

I am all for shouting and screaming about something that is unjust, or UKBA not playing by the rules, but in this one, the best thing to do is chalk it up to a bad experience, get over the hangup about "marriage commitment" (Britney did) and pursue a more safe and permanent route.  If there was something that was stopping her from coming in a legal way, then I think we all should be hopping up and down, but that isn't the case here.

I will now end my rant. 

I'm not disagreeing that it was an innocent mistake. But it was a mistake. I just think the general attitude of "how could they do this to us?" to be self-defeating is all.

They didn't do their research. Lots of people don't do their research. Lots of people get caught up in this very thing. That's why there are posts in this board, and I am sure many others that address them.

If the regulations that snagged them are unfair is not really for me to judge. There are people on this board who are much more qualified to make this call, such as garry and persephone and Vicky and kitsonk and everyone else who advocates on behalf of people like us. (insert stirring musical strain here. )

And I think the OP did right by coming here after the refusal to get advice on what their next step should be and if there's a chance to reverse the decision and to get a handle on where to go from here. But the more he focuses on how the UK Immigration done him wrong, the less he'll focus on how to make sure the next time his gf is standing in front of an ECO or the next time her case is in front of the consular staff, they'd done their utmost to make sure that the mistakes they made this time around are not repeated. Meaning, research the rules, know the rules and to the best of your ability follow the rules! Assume border agents never give an inch on interpretation, and go from there.

I do wish the OP and his gf lots of luck in rectifying this. And if it is possible to get the decision reversed, I hope for their sake that it's reversed (though from reading this thread, it does not seem likely.) The best way to go forward is to make sure to follow policy, no matter how asinine, and at the same time help people like garry, et al, in their work of making policy a tiny bit less asinine.

On that note, I do hope that OP's gf gives garry a writeup of her experiences while detained. It's a problem that should absolutely be handled and garry needs all the help he can get in handling it.

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.

 

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.  

I suppose it depends on what the immigration rules class as 'work' too - remember, as a visitor, you cannot take part in any form of work, be it paid or unpaid, employed or voluntary. Therefore, if babysitting is considered to be 'work' under immigration laws, then she would have breached the visa terms anyway, whether she accepted the £20 or not.

I seem to remember a discussion here a while ago about whether helping an old lady buy and then carry her shopping home was considered 'work'... talk about a fine line!

To the OP:  Re your question about if it's final... 

Yes, visitor-wise it's done.  Let go and move on. 

I suppose it depends on what the immigration rules class as 'work' too - remember, as a visitor, you cannot take part in any form of work, be it paid or unpaid, employed or voluntary.

That's a point, and I wasn't aware before this thread that volunteer work was also illegal . . . it seems counterintuitive, really, if the main reason for preventing visitors (or illegals in general) from working is to assure that they don't take jobs that would otherwise go to EU nationals, well, surely there can never be too many volunteers, and visitors doing favors could only help EU nationals . . . but I'll stop looking for logic in immigration laws now 

I seem to remember a discussion here a while ago about whether helping an old lady buy and then carry her shopping home was considered 'work'... talk about a fine line!

Ouch!  Glad I'm legal now so I never have to face the censure of a little old lady when I refuse her my aid for immigration reasons!

Ouch!  Glad I'm legal now so I never have to face the censure of a little old lady when I refuse her my aid for immigration reasons!

I think if you see a little old lady in the street with a heavy bag and you carry it to her door for her, that isn't "work", but registering with a volunteer agency and taking part in a programme is.

That's a point, and I wasn't aware before this thread that volunteer work was also illegal . . . it seems counterintuitive, really, if the main reason for preventing visitors (or illegals in general) from working is to assure that they don't take jobs that would otherwise go to EU nationals, well, surely there can never be too many volunteers, and visitors doing favors could only help EU nationals . . . but I'll stop looking for logic in immigration laws now 

The reasons behind the rule are a whole lot more complex than taking jobs from EU nationals.  It's a good starting point and one that everybody understands, but we shouldn't fall into the trap of thinking it's the sole intent of the rule. 

Think it from the perspective of if a large amount of people showed up as "volunteers" in the UK?  If people can get people to work for free, why pay them?

Also, think about what they agreed to come into the country as, visitors.  Visitors visit for a short period of time and leave.  They don't live here, don't take up residence, don't do things that people who are residing in the UK do.  There are visas that are applicable to volunteers to formalise their immigration process and they have some of the same requirements for entry as those who work, including requiring sponsorship.

She was actually given a bit of leniency.  She was allowed to stay in the country for what... almost a week?  Or at least a few days.  Many who are bounced are bounced the same day.  Okay, it's not a grand gesture, but it is kind compared to other stories we have heard on here.  And yes, sadly they may have bounced her for doing voluntary work even if she hadn't been paid the £20.  I think the lesson that this has taught is that the IOs are taking everything pretty seriously right now. 

To the OP:  Good luck with your tough decisions, and if you would like for advocates to work on bouncing procedures please pass Garry the narrative about her bounce.  Her story will be very useful. 

Think it from the perspective of if a large amount of people showed up as "volunteers" in the UK?  If people can get people to work for free, why pay them?

I was thinking more along the lines of people volunteering to do charity work or similar, not "volunteering" to do jobs for which people would otherwise be paid.  I can see the sense in outlawing that.

Also, think about what they agreed to come into the country as, visitors.  Visitors visit for a short period of time and leave.  They don't live here, don't take up residence, don't do things that people who are residing in the UK do.  There are visas that are applicable to volunteers to formalise their immigration process and they have some of the same requirements for entry as those who work, including requiring sponsorship.

I see your point, but if that is the case, then six months seems like a long time to allow people to stay in the capacity of a visitor as you define the term.  If you stay someplace for six months, that really has the appearance of "taking up residence," even if it's just in a hotel, and you'd almost have to engage with the community in ways that people who stay for a weekend wouldn't do, grocery shopping and meeting neighbors, for example.  Perhaps that's why the UK has such stringent requirements for establishing proof of residence?  I really don't want to get into an argument about the fine points of the thing, I understand that working permission for foreigners is a complex issue about which many people on this forum know a lot more than I, but I maintain my belief that if someone on month five of a six-month visitor visa gives a few hours at a soup kitchen one afternoon, it shouldn't be held against them.   

historyenne,

I seem to recall reading somewhere that they are actually thinking of shortening it to 3 months.

historyenne,

I seem to recall reading somewhere that they are actually thinking of shortening it to 3 months.

That's right.  VSD wanted to change it to 3 months.  But UKBA didn't go along with it, and ultimately the proposal died. 

It wasn't because UKBA were the 'good guys'.  It boiled down to UKBA not having the infrastructure to handle all the bureaucracy and what-not that was involved. 

I was thinking more along the lines of people volunteering to do charity work or similar, not "volunteering" to do jobs for which people would otherwise be paid. 
...but I maintain my belief that if someone on month five of a six-month visitor visa gives a few hours at a soup kitchen one afternoon, it shouldn't be held against them.   

That would be fine except that it's against the law on a visitor visa. A 'visitor' is someone who is technically a tourist, seeing things...not someone who is intergrating into their neighbourhood. Because, in all belief put forth by them to the IO when they arrived is that they were there as a tourist and going to resume their life in their home country once there 'visit' is over.

I was here in late '07 early '08 on a 'visitor visa' and I was just that. I was specifically warned NO WORK, PAID OR UNPAID, NOR ANY VOLUNTEER WORK. And I adhered to it. My now MIL invited me to go with her when she did her blood donors volunteer work and I explained to her that I would love to go and keep her company but I couldn't help her and why I couldn't. She completely understood. I'm sure the OP's friend would have understood as well.

So the ignorance plea doesn't hold water as I believe the OP's GF had the same stamp in her passport as I did, and had to have proof that she had the funds necessary to cover her visit. I just find it 'shocking' that yeah, once would have been just a nice gesture to watch for a friend, but still illegal for a person in her situation. But the fact that she did it multiple times AND accepted money just shows her complete disregard for the terms and conditions of her visa. The fact that she and the OP then lied to the IO about their relationship and only fessed up regarding it when her diary was found and then only admitted the working when she was confronted with it, is just insulting to the IO and to the law that she was trying to circumvent.

I find it insulting that this person is contributing to the stereotype that I am subject to. I played by the rules, didn't lie and followed the terms & conditions of my visa. She didn't. As far as I'm concerned she shouldn't be allowed back in under any sort of visa.

The fact that she was allowed to stay for a few days to 'visit' was generous.

And not only work is not allowed on a visitor visa. If I remember correctly, some time ago there was a girl who was a ballerina, and a long thread about whether attending classes at a gym was allowed or not... even on a casual basis. You wouldn't go to the gym, if you were only and truly a visitor.
As we were not sure of anything, my poor now-fiance stayed for 5 months (business visitor visa) more or less locked into our house, did exercise in our room, and didn't even busked with my friends or took photos (he is a semi professional musician AND a semi professional photographer) *just in case*... I was just TERRIFIED he would do something wrong and didn't allow him to do ANYTHING!!! 

May,

This is exactly why I don't think that people who stay someplace for up to 6 months CAN be true visitors, if a visitors can basically do nothing that local people do, or that they would normally do at home.  This definition is perfectly fine for the majority of people who stay for a week or two, travel within the country, stay in hotels, sightsee, etc, but for someone who stays with a friend/SO for several months, that sort of thing is next to impossible--or at least really difficult-- to achieve, as your fiance can attest!

It isn't that I don't understand the laws, it's that I don't think that it's right to have such rigid ones that apply equally to people who come for a weekend and those who stay for six months.