well that's because they, like we are in the EU and the phils is not
but until we exit the EU there is not much we can do
but until we exit the EU there is not much we can do
Originally Posted by fred
well said brother
Exactly, and that's why WE in particular get wound up about it.
I voted NO to the Common Market in the first place, and whatever it has called itself since taking over the running of our country.
Yeah the reason for refusal isn't clear.
once your here people will waste money making visa apps that are bound to fail, wasting money on solicitors and court time when its almost certain their visa application or appeal will fail. they lost an appeal its time they played by the rules or it will encourage more people to do the same thing.
we don't actually know why she was refused or her appeal was refusedbut i think its because of pera
and no entry clearance
I know of two Fiipinas who were originally here as students, who married and successfully got the spouse visa. When they married their partners, their student visa had expired
First one, married few months after her visa had expired, initially failed to get her spouse visa but won on appeal some months later.
The other married nearly a year after her student visa expired. Bit more complicated as in that year she was a victim of a visa scam where she was promised some other visa. Home office knew of the case too. Anyway within a few months of getting married she got her spouse visa.
In both cases the guys (sponsors) met the requirement of earnings, so as mentioned before, maybe that's the reason.
There are obstacles that make things hard, but if these are met then there shouldn't be much of a problem in my observations......
How long ago was these 2 cases ?Yeah the reason for refusal isn't clear.
I know of two Fiipinas who were originally here as students, who married and successfully got the spouse visa. When they married their partners, their student visas had expired
First one, married a few months after her visa had expired, initially failed to get her spouse visa but won on appeal some months later.
The other married nearly a year after her student visa expired. Bit more complicated as in that year she was a victim of a visa scam where she was promised some other visa. Home office knew of the case too. Anyway within a few months of getting married she got her spouse visa.
In both cases the guys (sponsors) met the requirement of earnings, so as mentioned before, maybe that's the reason.
There are obstacles that make things hard, but if these are met then there shouldn't be much of a problem in my observations......
There have been some changes recently, as always, I'm sure if your visa has expired now and you make an new application for a visa, as your visa has expired you don't have 'leave to remain' if you don't have leave to remain you have no right to appeal, not unless she made an application for FLR before her student visa expired.
The thing is it says she is working full time, and her student visa has expired, no mention of any other visa, so I wonder if she has the right to be working, especially full-time
The First one was Married n November 2012, her college had shut june. the UKBA had sent her a letter informing her she had 60days to either leave or find another course and apply for new student visa. She actually visited friends in Germany in this 60-day period ( after the letter had been sent) and on re-entry they initially refused to let her back in...however she had changed address and as the UKBA sent that letter to the old address my mistake they allowed her back in.How long ago was these 2 cases ?
There have been some changes recently, as always, I'm sure if your visa has expired now and you make an new application for a visa, as your visa has expired you don't have 'leave to remain' if you don't have leave to remain you have no right to appeal, not unless she made an application for FLR before her student visa expired.
The thing is it says she is working full time, and her student visa has expired, no mention of any other visa, so I wonder if she has the right to be working, especially full-time
The second lady got married August last year, and within a few months got her spouse visa.
I always understood that once a college shut or the course ended the students visa (leave to remain or whatever) would expire after 60 days and they'd become overstayers, illegally here. However, it seems from my GFs experience the 60 days doesn't start until they receive official notice from the Home office stating such...
http://www.ukimmigrationbarristers.c...-prolong-stay/
I think in this case it looks like he doesn't meet the financial requirement
A Home Office spokesman said: “The decision to refuse the application was made in line with the immigration rules and has been upheld by an independent immigration judge.
“The Home Office considers each application to remain in the UK on its individual merits and according to the evidence provided.”
That says it all doesn't it? End of.
"What if this is as good as it gets?"
http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/it_feels...n_uk_1_3776867‘It feels like a lead weight has been lifted’ - Norfolk couple win two-year immigration battle to stay in UK
Good for them.
Still not clear on the visa refusal and initial appeal failure.
Does anyone know the basis of this turnaround ?
I'm very glad they won the battle whatever the details
For FLR both incomes should be allowed
http://www.greatyarmouthmercury.co.u...ttle_1_3344441Forty-five-year-old Arlene, who works full time at a care home in Hemsby, moved to the UK from the Philippines in 2009.
She arrived on a student visa,studying health and social care, and a year later fell in love with a neighbour, Stephen, and the couple married in 2012.
As her student visa expired, Arlene applied for leave to remain - the common route for foreign nationals who marry British citizens.
working full time on a student visa
in the name of fairness, she should have gone back, some people on here are struggling because of the minimum financial requirement
I know what you think joe, but it depends how you read and interpret that uninformed media report.http://www.greatyarmouthmercury.co.u...ttle_1_3344441
working full time on a student visa
in the name of fairness, she should have gone back, some people on here are struggling because of the minimum financial requirement
Those pieces you've highlighted do not refer to any single timeline.
At the time of writing that article she was working full time. Doesn't mean she was working full time when she arrived.
As her student visa expired she applied for FLR
That's what everyone does.....applies for a new visa as the old one expires.
I just think there's more to this story. It's the only one that the Home Office has 'lost' when immigration rules have been broken in the way that report seems to suggest.
There could be a valuable precedent and case law involved here. Maybe something to help lots of others
Just my view
Yes indeed. The press never let the facts get in the way of a good story.
how can she work full time at the time of writing the article?, she was in the uk on a student visa.
did she apply b4 or after it expired,,,As her student visa expired, Arlene applied for leave to remain
the above doesn't matter anyway Peter, they didn't meet the financial requirement , just as some on here are struggling to, so how is it fair on those who have been refused or cant apply
oops a bit didn't get posted,
your right about being more to the story (as always) , many reporters probably know little or nothing about immigration rules, and miss out important information.
I'm sure there are other similar cases where they were granted their visa (the missionary story) where they didn't meet the minimum financial requirement but in the end were granted their visa, i think all the ones i can remember they were already in the uk thou, so its a bit unfair for those who are not who are being refused or cant apply
So what 'key' allowed them to remain legally now after court ?how can she work full time at the time of writing the article?, she was in the uk on a student visa.
did she apply b4 or after it expired,,,
the above doesn't matter anyway Peter, they didn't meet the financial requirement , just as some on here are struggling to, so how is it fair on those who have been refused or cant apply
I'm just wondering if there's an important legal argument that can be used when others fall foul of the financial requirement at FLR
If they do right things from the beginning then they shouldn't encountered this kind of consequences. Sometimes people like to do thing short cuts.most of the members here followed the rules, why can't they? I don't give my sympathy to these people thinking what we been thru all the process to live here legally.
Fair point Jane.
That's why some of us rant and rave about illegals all the time.
right to a family life ?So what 'key' allowed them to remain legally now after court ?
I'm just wondering if there's an important legal argument that can be used when others fall foul of the financial requirement at FLR
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Quote Reply
