Unmarried Partner Visa denied

I have been waiting patiently for nearly 2 months now for my Unmarried Partner visa and just got my Refusal of Entry Clearance along with my passport in the mail today. Frustration and anger aside, I need some questions answered soon so I can submit my appeal as soon as possible.
My girlfriend (unmarried partner) is currently living and working in the UK on an Ancestry Visa. We met at college in the states 3 years ago and started living together 2 years ago. The reason that my entry clearance was denied is two fold (quoted from the ECO):
1. "You have included a copy of SP's UK Ancestry Visa, valid for 4 years from 2005-2009. This does not demonstrate to me that Ms. P is settled in the UK, or has the Right of Abode in the UK or Indefinite Leave to Enter or Remain. I am therefore not satisfied that your application meets the requirements of Paragraph 296A(i)(a) or (b)(i) as she is not considered settled."
Now, Paragraph 296(i)(a) says "the applicant is the unmarried or same-sex partner of a person present and settled in the United Kingdom or who is on the same occasion being admitted for settlement and the parties have been living together in a relationship akin to marriage or civil partnership which has subsisted for two years or more."
and (b)(i) says "the applicant is the unmarried or same-sex partner of a person who has a right of abode in the UK or indefinite leave to enter or remain in the UK and is on the same occasion seeking admission to the UK for the purposes of settlement and the parties have been living together outside the UK in a relationship akin to marriage or civil partnership which has subsisted for 4 years or more"

I believe I qualify under 296(i)(a) because my partner is present and settled in the UK. I am unsure why the ECO thought that a copy of her lease agreement, contract of employment, and copy of Ancestry Visa is not evidence that she is "settled" there. My first question in all this, what is settled? How do I show the ECO in my appeal that she is settled there? Or have we been mistaken all along and an Ancestry Visa can not sponsor another's entry clearance?

The second reason given to deny my entry clearance is that the evidence I provided was not enough to show we have a relationship akin to marriage. I did not provide any evidence of joint commitments. Well besides a letter from my father that was included stating we were living together at my parents house, I have nothing. It was easier for me at the time to not include her name in the things that we split, including a cell phone, cable, and internet services, not realizing that this would haunt us. We were full time college students being supported mostly by our parents, not financially supporting ourselves. How can I prove that the cell phone, cable, and internet were "joint commitments" if my name is the only one on the paperwork?

There are other things they want, like proof that we were both attending the same college at the same time and copies of EVERY page of her passports (not just the ones including entry clearance stamps like I had included).

If anyone has any suggestions for me or answer to my questions above, please let me know. I do not want to be away from my loved one for any longer than possible. I want to hopefully send out my appeal early next week if I can get the paperwork needed in time.

Thanks much

I believe I qualify under 296(i)(a) because my partner is present and settled in the UK. I am unsure why the ECO thought that a copy of her lease agreement, contract of employment, and copy of Ancestry Visa is not evidence that she is "settled" there. My first question in all this, what is settled? How do I show the ECO in my appeal that she is settled there? Or have we been mistaken all along and an Ancestry Visa can not sponsor another's entry clearance?

I'm not an expert by any means, but I am pretty sure that the immigration definition of 'present and settled' means either a UK citizen or someone with ILR. Your girlfriend is neither a UK citizen, nor does she have ILR, therefore she is not considered to be 'present and settled in the UK' and is not allowed to sponsor you.

From the 'Husbands, Wives and Partners' visa guidelines on the UK visa website (http://www.ukvisas.gov.uk/en/howtoapply/infs/inf4husbandswivespartners):

What does 'present and settled' mean?

‘Settled’ means being allowed to live in the UK lawfully, with no time limit on your stay. 'Present and settled' means that the person concerned is settled in the UK and, at the time we are considering your application under the Immigration Rules, is in the UK or is coming here with you, or to join you and plans to live with you in the UK if your application is successful.

Sorry to hear it. Did you write a letter explaining why you couldn't include jointly-addressed documents?

ksand24 nailed it.  Nice work.

The OP's application was misconceived, and based upon what's written above, the refusal sounds right.

ksand24 nailed it.  Nice work.

The OP's application was misconceived, and based upon what's written above, the refusal sounds right.

Yep, she did, didn't she. Reading the OP's post I grew sadder for him with every sentence, as I could see why the denial was made and how sound it was. It's not you, sockerhawk. It was a matter of your girlfriend not yet having ILR (Indefinite Leave to Remain); along with there being no substantially credible and independently varifiable proof that the two of you lived as a couple similar to marriage. I wish it were better news, sorry.  :\\\'(

Minor minor minor nitpick.  LadyA, you're far enough along in awareness to start using the correct terminology.  The UK never denies an application.  Never.  They *refuse*.  Subtle, but big difference.  Debated in Parliament in 1970.

The Rules allow for persons who are not married or in a civil partnership to join a partner who is settled there provided certain conditions are met. The Rules also apply to partners of sponsors in the UK who have limited leave to enter or remain in the following categories:

Work Permit holders, overseas media representatives, sole representatives, private servants in diplomatic households, overseas government employees, Ministers of Religion, airport-based operational ground staff, UK Ancestry (Rules Paragraphs 128-193), businessmen/businesswomen, self-employed, investors, writers, composers, artists (Rules Paragraphs 200-239), retired persons of independent means (Rules Paragraphs 263-270) and EEA nationals.

The sponsor need not be present and settled (295K).

See... this is why everyone, or nearly everyone is confused. The more you read and look into things the more they seem to contradict themselves.

I am no expert to say the least, but from reading the thread of this post, it seems they have contradicted themselves.

What about THEM apples? 

This is horrible news for sure.

The way I understand her ancestry visa is that she is all but a citizen for 5 years, and at that point, can apply for citizenship or ILR. I see the argument now that when her 5 years of ancestry visa time is up, she no longer can stay there under that visa, but she would qualify for a permanent stay at that point. According to their legal code, she can stay forever.

I find it hard to believe that I can not be sponsored by someone on an ancestry visa because the ECO did not tell me this. He went out of the way to show there was a lack of evidence to show she was settled and that we weren't in a relationship akin to marriage for two years (not four).

I think I'm too pissed to think straight right now. I agree with the contradictions, they are all over the place during the process.

I find it hard to believe that I can not be sponsored by someone on an ancestry visa because the ECO did not tell me this. He went out of the way to show there was a lack of evidence to show she was settled and that we weren't in a relationship akin to marriage for two years (not four).

You can be sponsored by an ancestry visa holder! However, you also need to provide evidence of living together in a relationship akin to marriage/civil partnership which has subsisted for two years or more.

Minor minor minor nitpick.  LadyA, you're far enough along in awareness to start using the correct terminology.  The UK never denies an application.  Never.  They *refuse*.  Subtle, but big difference.  Debated in Parliament in 1970.

Gotcha...refuse. Ok!

Sounds to me like a simple case of filling out the wrong form / applying on the wrong category.

You applied as the dependent of someone present and settled.  You should have applied as the dependent of someone in the Uk as the holder of an ancestry visa.


Vicky

I think I'm too pissed to think straight right now. I agree with the contradictions, they are all over the place during the process.

It may seem like there's contradictions, but in this case your app was misconceived and there's no cure for it except a fresh app.�  The refusal fits.

There was a big push from the Independent Monitor in 2005-2006 to have such applications returned under the 'minded to refuse' category.�  I thought it was great she had finally come up with something useful.�  But then the dizzy cow dropped it cold and it was never heard from again.�  I truly think somebody told her to shut up.�  Sorry to be indecorous about such an august office, but I never trusted her anyway.� 

And she completely ignored us when she visited the NYC consulate.�  Totally ignored our concerns.�  So to hell with her.

Now the Independent Monitor post has been removed forever, it's replaced by the Chief Inspector of Borders, and the last thing he's going to do is introduce 'minded to refuse'.�  What it means in a nutshell is that the whole subject is academic.�  And yes, if you didn't guess, I have a hot button about it.� 

Anyway.�  It's not the end of the world.�  Just identify the correct premise for your application the next time, understand what you're applying for, and you'll be fine.

Though mightn't he still run into difficulties providing proof of relationship when he essentially just has a letter from his father?

He said that was the only joint letter.  He hasn't gone into detail about what other evidence was supplied.

Vicky