They think they're special

So true! I am tired of our being expected to be perfect in our submissions and yet the powers that be are not!

All the rules that were in place to protect these, were openly abused and discussed how to do this on the internet forums.

Some of the old rules made it easier for the dishonest people than for the honest!
eg. arrive at the border with your British spouse, say you were just visiting, but then refuse to go home. After about a year, they got legal stay and immediate full access to UK benefits in their own name and bill free NHS: known as Discretionary Leave -  2 three year visas to ILR.  It was a well known abuse on the forums. Those who followed the rules and came on a spouse visa, had to wait until ILR to have UK benefits in their own name.

In about 2012, the UK ended DL. Now these must have British children in the UK to be allowed to stay in the UK, outside of the imnigration rules, and even then it is not a given. And  it is now 10 years to ILR instead for these: 4 visas to qualify for and pay for, 4 lots of IHS to pay for, and now no UK benefits in their name until ILR.

Those that then tried to abuse these rules and did get the new 10 year route to ILR as they had British children, often left the UK when they saw that DL had gone and returned on a spouse visa instead: much cheaper and only 5 years to ILR instead of 10. The rest found they had to go home as that no longer worked and they had to apply for a spouse visa, as they should have done before they came to the UK.

Then the no in-county appeals came in, under the Immgiration Act 2014 (for points based visas) and 2016 (for everything), to stop that abuse. Once refused, these then go back to their own country to appeal their refusal. This defeats the object they wanted, to try to stay in the UK for years on various appeals during all their refusals, for all different applications they put in. These often return on the spouse visa instead.

At the suggestion of the Chief Immigration Officer, the UK made immigration crime part of the Good Character requirement for citizenship,and that applied for all decisions taken from 11 December 2014. For those that got the old  DL after they lied  to UKVI to enter the UK/a period of being an overstayer, this means they are not of good character and they get refused BC for 10 years: for these, their 10 year clock starting from when they got their first DL, as long as they don't do something else that is not of good character. Whereas those who respected the laws back then when DL was around, and correctly entered the UK on a spouse visa, had their British citizenship in 3 years.

The abusers alway make it harder for the genuine people because the rules have to be changed to stop all the abuse - and not just with immigration rules.

And that is one of my biggest gripes about life in general... I always do things by the book. It was the way I was raised. So it's sooooo frustrating for me when other people cheat and deceive and get the benefits that I bust my a$$ for. Or even worse, that they would receive any reward through negative behavior while I do everything right and don't see any pay off for it ever. Humans! 

I agree. As a gay man with a British husband, I wouldn't expect to go over there on a tourist visa and then live the rest of my life. I did research. I know what needs to be done. Yes, you and your husband were going through a stressful situation due to the medical issue with your family. HOWEVER, that didn't mean you couldn't fly back to the US and apply for your Spouse Visa like everyone else.

Not sure they were trying to make this a "whoa is us we're gay" story. Lord knows there are plenty of examples of straight couples doing the exact same thing. I think the article was just trying THIS couples story and THIS couple happened to be gay. But it doesn't change the rules. You're married AND your husband is British. That gives you an advantage over SO MANY other couples who WANT to move to the UK who can't because one of them is not a British citizen or they can't get a work visa or a student visa. So do it the correct way. If it means being apart for a number of months, then damn, you'll have to be apart for months. Sorry, you should have done this correctly to begin with.

Here’s another one! However, they do not deny that they missed documents to evidence the financial requirements were met. But the previous visa must have expired and yet they can re-apply? Otherwise, only seven days to leave the country is harsh!

http://archive.is/cHzYh


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Here’s another one! However, they do not deny that they missed documents to evidence the financial requirements were met. But the previous visa must have expired and yet they can re-apply? Otherwise, only seven days to leave the country is harsh!

http://archive.is/cHzYh


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

They should be given 14 days from the date of the refusal... but perhaps it took several days to receive the refusal letter, which meant there was only a week left by the time they got it.

They should have been given 14 days to either:
- appeal
- reapply
- leave the UK

See: https://www.freemovement.org.uk/overstaying-applying-leave/#What_if_I_apply_in_time_but_am_refused

What if I apply in time, but am refused?
The Home Office will now disregard the overstaying period following a refusal of an application made before the expiry of previous leave where it was made:

within 14 days of:

(i) the refusal of the previous application for leave; or

(ii) the expiry of any leave extended by section 3C of the Immigration Act 1971; or

(iii) the expiry of the time-limit for making an in-time application for administrative review or appeal (where applicable); or

(iv) any administrative review or appeal being concluded, withdrawn or abandoned or lapsing.

The reference to Section 3C of the Immigration Act 1971 includes those whose leave was extended automatically following an in-time application to extend.

Therefore applicants whose applications have been refused, for example as a result of a mistake in their application, will still be entitled to another attempt. The period of time has simply reduced from 28 days to 14 days.

It sounds like they don't have the funds for another application, and also she's supposed to be attending her brother's wedding in November in Australia, but if they reapply, she won't be able to travel due to UKVI having her passport.They are talking about needing £6,000 in application plus lawyer fees, but if it's just missing documents, they may not even need a lawyer, so that would reduce it to £2,389 for the visa fee.

However, it also says they have raised the £6,000 already, so if it is just a case of missing documents, then if they can get all the documents together in time and reapply before the 7 days is up, her only issue will be missing the wedding in Australia next month!

That is probably what happened, the letter took a week to reach her. Reading the story in the Daily Mail, she says no reason was given for the refusal, but she thinks it may be because their bank statements were not stamped on every page. I cannot believe no reason was given!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I cannot believe no reason was given!

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Yeah, they have to give a reason!

That is probably what happened, the letter took a week to reach her.

In the Scottish Sun (https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/3335635/aussie-woman-plea-visa-cash/), it says:

"The Home Office gave Christina 14 days to leave the country – but the letter was sent second class and took five days to get to her."

And also:

"A lawyer, who reckons the first application was refused because her full bank statements weren’t stamped, is going to fast-track a new application for her."

But the end of the article actually states:

"However it is claimed Christina failed to provide several documents which were needed as evidence to support her application.

A Home Office spokesperson said: “All visa applications are considered on their individual merits and in line with the immigration rules.”"

Considering though this was their third settlement visa application, I'm surprised they didn't already know that they had to provide all those things!

Yeah, they have to give a reason!

In the Scottish Sun (https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/3335635/aussie-woman-plea-visa-cash/), it says:

"The Home Office gave Christina 14 days to leave the country – but the letter was sent second class and took five days to get to her."

And also:

"A lawyer, who reckons the first application was refused because her full bank statements weren’t stamped, is going to fast-track a new application for her."

But the end of the article actually states:

"However it is claimed Christina failed to provide several documents which were needed as evidence to support her application.

A Home Office spokesperson said: “All visa applications are considered on their individual merits and in line with the immigration rules.”"

Considering though this was their third settlement visa application, I'm surprised they didn't already know that they had to provide all those things!

I love how their lawyer who screwed up the first application says he guarantees this one will be successful if they raise. £6,000.   

It's criminal how some of these so-called lawyers can almost magically guarantee an application's success if a certain amount of money is raised.  For their fees, of course. 

Like how some of them always recommend appealing - with professional representation naturally - rather than the easier, quicker, and cheaper re-applying option in cases where the refusal was something simple (such as a missing bank statement or employer letter).