Heartless Home Office strikes again!

I think they should scrap the fiance visa and allow people to apply for the spouse visa in country as well.

Oh, I agree.  But I also think that if there must be stupid rules then those rules should be applied to everyone.  Ideally, there would be no stupid rules, but since there are it's not fair for some people to get out of having to follow them while others are having to make major sacrifices.  It's not the idea of eliminating the fiance visa that I find absurd, it's the idea that people who decide on the spur of the moment to get married should have an easier time than people who plan ahead.  That's all.   

Oh, and I'm not in the "I had to do it so why shouldn't everyone else?" school of thought, either.  I didn't have a fiance visa, though I suppose I could have avoided several months away from my husband if we'd been allowed to marry in the UK with a CoA then switch in-country.     

I'm not in the "I had to do it so why shouldn't everyone else?" school of thought. 

Thank you!!  It's really disheartening to hear that people actually feel this way!  Just because you had it rough, everyone else should too?  Kind of shocks me.

Thank you!!  It's really disheartening to hear that people actually feel this way!  Just because you had it rough, everyone else should too?  Kind of shocks me.

Who "feels this way," exactly? 

Who "feels this way," exactly?  

I don't feel that way.  But I DO feel like if someone else has it easy, then I should be entitled to have it easy too.  

Yes everyone should have it easy. But if the change to make things easier comes too late for you, you wouldn't begrudge the people who benefit from that change right?

Who "feels this way," exactly? 

Plenty of people do!  Haven't you seen that expressed on UKY before?

They have to "spend 18 months apart" before she can come over on a spousal because of her age, but what would prevent her from applying for a visitor visa in the meantime and going in for several months at a time, then going back to Canada, and repeating until the 18 months was up, as long as she didn't stay longer than 6 out of 12? Couldn't he then visit her in Canada in the in between months if they really can't handle being apart for a few months at a time?  I don't see why it's such a big deal that they'll be unable to live together for 18 months.  It's not like they won't be allowed to visit.

They have to "spend 18 months apart" before she can come over on a spousal because of her age, but what would prevent her from applying for a visitor visa in the meantime and going in for several months at a time, then going back to Canada, and repeating until the 18 months was up, as long as she didn't stay longer than 6 out of 12? Couldn't he then visit her in Canada in the in between months if they really can't handle being apart for a few months at a time?  I don't see why it's such a big deal that they'll be unable to live together for 18 months.  It's not like they won't be allowed to visit.

Maybe they can't afford multiple visits, maybe they have to work and can't take off months at a time to visit, she won't be able to work in the UK if she's there as a visitor (technically, she's not even supposed to 'live' there). I think 18 months is a long time to not live with your spouse - you can't really start your life together.

Prior to 2003, the standard procedure was: the American (Aussie, Canadian, what-have-you) woman comes to the UK to see the sights and experience the culture.  Two weeks later she falls in love with a guy she never met.  Two weeks after that they get married and she applies for FLR. 

The layman's term for this procedure is called "lying". 

They got angry about it and closed the loophole.  What would you expect them to do?  Light candles in the hopes that everyone would start telling the truth?  Almost all the spouses in UKY who got FLR prior to 2002 did it that way.  Not all, but almost all. 

Editorial hat:  I have always found it ironic that some of those who used the loophole have been the most trenchant in hard-assing the newbies to follow the rules.  I suppose it's a part of the human condition to do that.  In all events it was our countrymen (and women) who brought the no switching rule into existence.  We *insisted* upon it.  It will not change and there's little point in debating it.

Yes everyone should have it easy. But if the change to make things easier comes too late for you, you wouldn't begrudge the people who benefit from that change right?

I wouldn't.  If the rules changed tomorrow, I would be glad of it, though probably cross with fate for not changing them until after I'd arrived.  But I wouldn't blame the people who benefitted from the change. 

That isn't the issue here, though.  The issue is a couple who seem to think that they shouldn't have to follow the rules that everyone else is bound by.  As garry said, the no-switching rule isn't going to change, and this couple clearly didn't do the proper research if they thought that getting a CoA was the best path for them to take.  It's too bad that things turned out the way they did, but the couple does bear some responsibility for this outcome.  Not only was their research inadequate, but their time frame wasn't very realistic. 

Perhaps the Home Office should have some discretion with the under-21 rule in cases where there is clearly no forced marriage.  But this couple doesn't make a very good test case for that since what they tried to do was outside the rules even if the under-21 thing wasn't a factor. 

I wouldn't.  If the rules changed tomorrow, I would be glad of it, though probably cross with fate for not changing them until after I'd arrived.  But I wouldn't blame the people who benefitted from the change. 

Ditto. Although, it's fairly rare that the rules change in order to make the process *easier*.  It's usually the other way around.

I don't particularly have patience for people who don't do their research, though, like this couple.  Immigration is too important to mess around with and after checking and rechecking everything to make sure I was doing the best thing for my situation so that I could be with my husband, I honestly don't understand why some people don't do the same and end up in a mess like this.  I probably never will.

The under 21 thing wasn't the cause of the situation, but it has made it worse by imposing an enforced separation after all the mistakes that were made.  I'm not in favour of that and I wish the law was still 18 and up so that these people could get a spousal visa the right way and move on with their lives.  It was just really unfortunate timing for them.

I can only imagine the response if their research had included asking on UK Yankee how to get a spouse visa  without her returning to Canda. 

I can only imagine the response if their research had included asking on UK Yankee how to get a spouse visa  without her returning to Canda. 

I expect we would just have told them it can't be done.  There was a similar situation not long ago when someone was in the process of applying for a CoA, not knowing that his wife would have to return to the US to get her spousal visa regardless of whether it was granted. 

If they had asked here on UKY, they would have been told that she would need to go back to Canada.  They could have then done that and applied in plenty of time to be eligible even if it were just for a Fiance visa. She would have had time to apply BEFORE the 21 year limit was in place. They would have been given correct advice and she could be here with him now. 

As a Canadian couldn't she come over under Tier 5?  Or would they not grant it?