Can you advise? Missed deadline, plus errors!

Aeonix,

Oh my goodness is right! I will keep fingers and toes crossed for you; I am probably going to have to start over and pay the fee again, but hope you won't!

We also will be renting for the first 8 months or so while we look for a home to buy in Cambridge. Although thanks to my stupid mistake with the visa, and all the expenses involved in preparing a home for sale and selling it, we my have to rent for longer.

Will look forward to your updates.

My husband has already rented a place over there, it's a one year lease. We're actually hoping they will allow 2, because we don't want to move the kids around all the time. The landlords want to renovate though and sell up for a huge profit, so I'm not counting on it. 

I am probably a bit abnormal in that I want to take a few years before we buy. Our experience owning here in the US has been so traumatizing I actually told my husband if I could find somewhere that we'd buy but it's for rent and we could stay there for good, I'd do that instead. 

I'm curious how Article 8 comes into their reasoning, if at all.

I also wonder with the UK set to leave the EU how that will change. Is the UK so xenophobic they will make sure there's nothing to say you have a right to family life?

Actually, Theresa May wants to repeal the Human Rights Act here in the UK so... we'll all just have to see how that works out.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/theresa-may-speech-that-laid-out-plans-for-the-future-deleted-from-the-internet-a7137496.html

I am probably a bit abnormal in that I want to take a few years before we buy.

Not so abnormal - you may actually find you need to hold ILR before you can apply for a mortgage in your name, so that's potentially 5 years to wait before buying.

However, it does depend on the mortgage lender, as a few people here on the forum have managed to get a mortgage before they have received ILR, though I think they've been in the UK for a couple of years or so before buying.

I'm curious how Article 8 comes into their reasoning, if at all.

Article 8 doesn't allow people to choose the country they want to live in.

Actually, Theresa May wants to repeal the Human Rights Act here in the UK so... we'll all just have to see how that works out.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/theresa-may-speech-that-laid-out-plans-for-the-future-deleted-from-the-internet-a7137496.html

Her speech was in 2013. Since then the UK now have the Immigration Act 2014 which stared it's way through Parliament in 2012 and her speech in 2013 would have been about that. That Act reduced the number of things someone can ask to stay in the UK using Human Rights, from something like, from 24 to 3. I'll let someone else look that up.

Now there is also the Immigration Act 2016 which was the Immigration Bill 2015 until it became law in May. Part of the Immigration Act 2016 is already law. Part of this law makes immigration crime now criminal, and brings in jail time.

Both bills aimed at cutting down the abuse of those who try to stay in the UK and making it very tough for them if they don't leave. The Good Character changes that came in in Decemebr 2014 and the new 'looking back over their 10 year history', also backs up these Acts.

What this now means for those trying to use Human Rights to stay in the UK, is that many can't apply to stay under Human Rights, well they can apply, but they have cut down the on the abuse of Article 8 under the Immigration Act 2014. There are really only a few reason when someone should use Human Rights and that law made sure that only those reasons could be used.

For the others who have no legal basis for a Human Rights claim but try anyway, a refusal for their Human Rights claim means they now need to appeal that refusal from outside the UK, unless they can prove their life is in danger if they leave the UK.

Deport first, appeal later, was also part of those new laws.


LINKS
Immigration Act 2014
The Immigration Act will change the removals and appeals system, end the abuse of Article 8 and prevent illegal immigrants accessing public services.

https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/immigration-bill


Immigration Act 2016
The Immigration Act will introduce new sanctions on illegal working, prevent illegal migrants accessing services and introduce new measures to enforce immigration laws.
https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/immigration-bill-2015-16

The idea was that by introducing a higher financial threshold, higher fees and increasing the time to get to ILR, they would prevent about 45% of people who would have previously qualified for a visa from being able to qualify now.

All three of those were to reduce the burden on the UK taxpayers.

The financial requirement was set on the poverty level for a couple for the welfare payment called Tax Credits. That poverty rate for a couple caps at about 18k.

The higher fees is due to those who use the service, having to pay to run it instead of the taxpayers funding it. It's been done with other sevices too i.e. the CSA, the courts. Unfortunatley, the EU said that EU citizens can't be charged even though they too use UKVI and their costs are being paid for by those on UK visas. That might change with Brexit.

The 5 years to ILR was changed to stop those who have a marriage that doesn't last very long, from being able to remain in the UK and have access to UK benefits after 3 year. ILE was stopped as too many were claiming benefits when they arrived, even though they had never paid into the UK.

Her speech was in 2013. Since then the UK now have the Immigration Act 2014 which stared it's way through Parliament in 2012 and her speech in 2013 would have been about that. That Act reduced the number of things someone can ask to stay in the UK using Human Rights, from something like, from 24 to 3. I'll let someone else look that up.

Then why does this 2016 article discuss a more recent speech where she discusses the same thing at a speech she gave regarding the EU referendum this year?

"Britain should withdraw from the European convention on human rights regardless of the EU referendum result, Theresa May has said, in comments that contradict ministers within her own government."

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/apr/25/uk-must-leave-european-convention-on-human-rights-theresa-may-eu-referendum

Edited to swap a '.' For a '?'. And add in Sirius' quote.

Article 8 doesn't allow people to choose the country they want to live in.

No, it gives the right to a family life. If one half of the partnership is British, shouldn't that mean they have just as mich a right to live in Britain as in the other half's country?

No, it gives the right to a family life. If one half of the partnership is British, shouldn't that mean they have just as mich a right to live in Britain as in the other half's country?

If they have a sponsor and meet the reguirements, then of course they can live in that country. If they think they don't have to do that as they have a Human Right to live in that country, then that is not what Article 8 is about.

They can have their family life anywhere. Then can even have their "family life" in a third country, that neither of them is a citizen of.

Article 8 doesn't give them the right to choose the country they want to have their family life in, and never has.

Some post that they have a Human Right to visit the UK, after they have been refused entry. It gets pointed out to them that that is not what Article 8 is about. Others post and say they have a Human Right to remain in the UK when their visa ends as they prefer the UK to their own country, and they get told the same thing, Article 8 does not allow you to choose the country you want to live in.

Then why does this 2016 article discuss a more recent speech where she discusses the same thing at a speech she gave regarding the EU referendum this year?

Your article that I replied to, was about a Theresa May 2013 speech that was re-surfacing on the internet, as the tiltle of that article stated.

I should imagine this above is about the European Courts returning dangererous criminals to the UK after she has deported them home - or those that use the EC to delay (for years) their return home, and are a danger to the UK public.

For most that are deported, unless they are a criminal, they can come back on a spouse visa.

If they have a sponsor and meet the reguirements, then of course they can live in that country. If they think they don't have to do that as they have a Human Right to live in that country, then that is not what Article 8 is about.

They can have their family life anywhere. Then can even have their "family life" in a third country, that neither of them is a citizen of.

Article 8 doesn't give them the right to choose the country they want to have their family life in, and never has.

Some post that they have a Human Right to visit the UK, after they have been refused entry. It gets pointed out to them that that is not what Article 8 is about. Others post and say they have a Human Right to remain in the UK when their visa ends as they prefer the UK to their own country, and they get told the same thing, Article 8 does not allow you to choose the country you want to live in.

I'm curious, because I've never seen you post much about yourself.

Have you actually experienced living in another country and having to apply for a visa? I know you are a UK citizen, I'm pretty sure you were born here...

I'm only writing in regards to a UK citizen marrying a citizen from another country and wanting to have their family life in the UK.

Most people can only afford the option of UK or other partner's home country.
The whole 'moving to a third country' thing isn't going to be a viable option for most people as soon as the UK is out of the EU because then you have TWO visas to apply for instead of just one and all the associated costs. Not to mention the moving costs with moving two people to a third country. It makes my head spin...

Everyone else coming in on Tier 2 or Tier 4 visas, that have a strict time frame and don't lead to citizenship, is a whole OTHER story. Yes, it sucks to not be able to live where you want to live, but the truth is, tough. Times have changed, there is less flexibility in regards to international moves. Without legally binding ties to a country, just wanting to live there because you like it, doesn't give you the right to do so.

And why do people think they can just move to another country because they want to? Hollywood. No movie shows the actual process involved in an international move because that would be boring.

I'm only writing in regards to a UK citizen marrying a citizen from another country and wanting to have their family life in the UK.

That still doesn't change under Article 8, because this does not allow people to choose the country that they are wanting to have their family life in.

That still doesn't change under Article 8, because this does not allow people to choose the country that they are wanting to have their family life in.

You're right, it doesn't explicitly say that a citizen of their own country has the right to a family life in their own country. But you'd have to agree it is implied.

Neither does it say that in order to have a 'right to a family life' in your own country you must marry someone from your own country or within the EU in order to stay in your current home.

When 47% of Britons do not earn enough to fall in love and marry a non-EU citizen, something is wrong.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jul/09/couples-protest-18600-minimum-income-rule-foreign-spouse-uk

I'm curious, because I've never seen you post much about yourself.

Have you actually experienced living in another country and having to apply for a visa? I know you are a UK citizen, I'm pretty sure you were born here...

I'm only writing in regards to a UK citizen marrying a citizen from another country and wanting to have their family life in the UK.

Most people can only afford the option of UK or other partner's home country.
The whole 'moving to a third country' thing isn't going to be a viable option for most people as soon as the UK is out of the EU because then you have TWO visas to apply for instead of just one and all the associated costs. Not to mention the moving costs with moving two people to a third country. It makes my head spin...

Everyone else coming in on Tier 2 or Tier 4 visas, that have a strict time frame and don't lead to citizenship, is a whole OTHER story. Yes, it sucks to not be able to live where you want to live, but the truth is, tough. Times have changed, there is less flexibility in regards to international moves. Without legally binding ties to a country, just wanting to live there because you like it, doesn't give you the right to do so.

And why do people think they can just move to another country because they want to? Hollywood. No movie shows the actual process involved in an international move because that would be boring.

I find it interesting that so many people suggest living in a 3rd country. It's simply not that easy, and not really feasible for most couples. My husband and I looked into moving to Canada. As far as I could tell, neither of us were eligible.

I agree a right to a family life in ones own country is implied, as what else could it mean? What would be the point in having such a law if you then tell your own citizens they can have their family life, but not in their own country?

I find it interesting that so many people suggest living in a 3rd country. It's simply not that easy, and not really feasible for most couples. My husband and I looked into moving to Canada. As far as I could tell, neither of us were eligible.

I agree a right to a family life in ones own country is implied, as what else could it mean? What would be the point in having such a law if you then tell your own citizens they can have their family life, but not in their own country?

Those of us here suggest moving to the 3rd country only to people who can't meet the salary requirement as a way for them to be able to be together until they CAN meet the requirement or are able to go the Surrender Singh route as a way to circumvent the UK immigration requirements by becoming an EU citizen in the eyes of the law.

I would like to believe that we all tacitly think the current requirements are asinine and to put in the American fashion, 'unconstitutional', but I have been wrong.

I still can't figure out how you would say 'unconstitutional' in UK parlance.