Refusal exemptions

[bingobano]

Just noticed this at the bottom of the spouse visa requirements on the UKBA website.

Refusal exemptionsTo apply for entry to the UK, or to stay here or be granted settlement you will need to meet the suitability, relationship, financial and English language requirements. If you do not meet the requirements your application will be refused unless:

• You are the parent of a child who:

• 
  
  • is under the age of 18, and
  • is in the UK, and
  • is a British citizen or has lived in the UK for the last 7 years, and
  • it would not be reasonable for us to expect the child to leave the UK.

or

• there are insurmountable obstacles to family life with your partner continuing outside the UK.

Insurmountable obstacles means that we would look at the seriousness of any difficulties that would prevent you and your partner from living in another country, and whether those difficulties could be overcome.

So if I read this correctly if you and your partner have a child and you bring that child to live in the UK, your partner would be exempt from the immigration requirements? Or if there is another reason that you and your partner cannot live together outside of the UK?

[Gary & Nok]

BB, I do not think you are reading this correctly, as what you would be saying is that this is an encouragement for everyone to bonk away have a kid and then come to the UK without the need for immigration requirements.

Can't imagine that is the thinking of the UKBA/Government (but you never know )

[KhunIanB-UK]

is under the age of 18, and is in the UK, and
is a British citizen or has lived in the UK for the last 7 years, and
it would not be reasonable for us to expect the child to leave the UK.

Read the above again, the child would have to be British and in the UK already or have been living in the UK for 7 years if not British, those and then the final part would put the dampers to:-

if you and your partner have a child and you bring that child to live in the UK, your partner would be exempt from the immigration requirements

[bingobano]

Read the above again, the child would have to be British and in the UK already or have been living in the UK for 7 years if not British, those and then the final part would put the dampers to:-

I dont see it as a big problem, bring the child to the UK, who for most people living in the UK already will be british citizens hence the child will be british even if born abroad. (the 7 years only applies to non british childre) Depending on age of child get them into a school or nursery and apply for the visa. For someone who does not earn the minimum £18600, this could be a way round it.

Same for the second part, if your a man who laready has kids in the UK from a previous mariage then it is unresonable to expect you to live in another country away from your current children would you not say?

"or

• there are insurmountable obstacles to family life with your partner continuing outside the UK.

"
And this information is hidden away right at the bottom of the can you apply section on the UKBA website hidden under a tab. Why? could it be to stop it getting challenged in the european court ofhuman rights by any chance?

http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/vi...can-you-apply/

- - - Updated - - -

BB, I do not think you are reading this correctly, as what you would be saying is that this is an encouragement for everyone to bonk away have a kid and then come to the UK without the need for immigration requirements.

Can't imagine that is the thinking of the UKBA/Government (but you never know )

Take a look at the website and tell me how else it could be read? it seems quite clear to me

http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/vi...can-you-apply/

[toddmeister]

For someone who does not earn the minimum £18600, this could be a way round it

If the reason the spouse can not get a visa is because the sponsor can't meet the financial requirements, then having a baby isn't exactly going to help matters is it? Financially I mean. It's hard enough trying to support two people without adding a baby into the equation. If the sponsor were earning less than the new salary requirement of £18,600 than personally I can't see how they would manage themselves, plus the baby......hence the reason for the requirement. Even if this method were possible it's hardly a good reason to bring a child into the world is it.

could it be to stop it getting challenged in the european court ofhuman rights by any chance?

If you're talking human rights, is it ​morally right to have a child simply to qualify for a visa?

[bingobano]

If the reason the spouse can not get a visa is because the sponsor can't meet the financial requirements, then having a baby isn't exactly going to help matters is it? Financially I mean. It's hard enough trying to support two people without adding a baby into the equation. If the sponsor were earning less than the new salary requirement of £18,600 than personally I can't see how they would manage themselves, plus the baby......hence the reason for the requirement. Even if this method were possible it's hardly a good reason to bring a child into the world is it.



If you're talking human rights, is it ​morally right to have a child simply to qualify for a visa?

I never suggested anyone should have a child for this reason but the fact remains some people out there even members who have posted on this forum that thay have children but dont meet the finance requirement, should they give up the dream of living here with there family? I just posted what the website says for oppinions not argumnets, they have put this infromation on the website for a reason so this information may help some families out there.

[KhunIanB-UK]

If you're talking human rights, is it ​morally right to have a child simply to qualify for a visa?

That's where I feel that equal weight should be put on responsibilities as is put on rights.


If the child has been recently "planted" in the UK as a reason to circumvent the requirements, even if schooling etc had been arranged then I personally think that

it would not be reasonable for us to expect the child to leave the UK.

should be used if the "parents" don't meet requirements. IMHO and to be honest the requirements would really benefit not only the country, but also those who fall under them, after all it is now telling people that there is a sense of responsibility which comes at a cost, it might seem high, but it is also realistic! Could also benefit the indiginous population falling under the same rules

[bingobano]

If the child has been recently "planted" in the UK as a reason to circumvent the requirements,

Requirements that many feel are unfair, morally wrong and are preventing families and "Planted" children from being with their familes.

[KhunIanB-UK]

Requirements that many feel are unfair, morally wrong and are preventing families and "Planted" children from being with their familes.

Taking that a step further, about 10 to 12 years ago the visas were free and then a charge was introduced to take the burden from the tax payer and onto the applicants, was that " unfair, morally wrong and are preventing families and "Planted" children from being with their familes"? Since then the fees have escalated to make the applicants not only reduce the bill to the tax payer and pay for their own visas, but also pay for other areas of immigration, was that " unfair, morally wrong and are preventing families and "Planted" children from being with their familes"? Now even more so, it's getting weighted more towards extra "responsibilities" and less "rights", IMHO it's because the balance was always to much weighted the other way and hence the UK's predicament with immigration at the present time. It's not just about Thai-UK couples, but all immigration.

One scenario I and work colleagues have been in for a while relates to cheaper labour for our "bosses" from abroad, recent immigration changes have made our "bosses" plans harder to replace us with labour from abroad, but the bleak picture over the last few years was occurring like this:- UK employees were being laid off and replaced with Romanian immigrants from the EU and Indian immigrants from outside the EU. The Romanian's were then shortly replaced by more Indian's that were working for less money and in general were prepared to work longer hours and claim less expenses a "bosses" dream. A UK employee working for around £50,000pa was replaced by 2 or 3 Indians living in shared accomodation and earning less than £15,000pa each. A lot of these had family abroad and would apply to have their partners and children join them, what initially was a great proposition of a job and opportunity then become a bit of a life style and choice issue for them as the shared accomodation become difficult (this is in Reading and an expensive area), there is a lot of resentment and rather than being the happy and dedicated emloyees, quite a few have now left and been replaced by new and cheaper staff and the cycle is continuing. 29 of us recently TUPE'd to an Indian Company as the immigration laws have changed, prior to this we were looking at redundancy with less than favourable terms as happended with many of our previous colleagues before. A lot of our non Thai-UK Indian colleagues are well aware of the fact that if they now gain citizenship and want to bring their family members to the UK then they will have to earn more than their current "bosses" controlled mean wages and so therefore there is a slight possibility for the indiginous workers that they may see a few more years left in their jobs yet. The Governement obviously had a wide area of issues to look at and consider and IMHO the salary requirements and wide spread broadcasting of them could be more of a benefit than people realise.

The only other option to be completely fair and stop " unfair, morally wrong and are preventing families and "Planted" children from being with their familes" would be to drop all immigration requirements and open the borders free to all, but if that happened can you imagine?

[colin244]

Well it appears all governments in the past have caused the immigration problem but can bend the rules if they want as demonstrated in some of the LITUKT questions

colin 244

[Tony M]

The information doesn't seem to be hidden away. I think this is what you are referring to :

This page explains the requirements you must meet to come to the UK as the parent of a child in the UK.
To qualify under this route you must be the parent of a child who is:

• under the age of 18 on the date you apply;
• living in the UK; and
• a British citizen or settled in the UK.

Can I apply?

You can apply under this route if:

• you have sole responsibility for the child; or
• if the parent or carer that the child normally lives with is a British citizen or settled in the UK, but is not your partner, and you do not qualify for entry clearance as a partner.

You must provide evidence that you either have sole responsibility for or access rights to the child or that you are taking, and intend to continue to take, an active role in the child's upbringing. The documents you need to provide are listed on the application form.


The relevant Appendix is the VAF4A - Appendix 5 - Parent exercising access rights

[sumrit]

Taking that a step further, about 10 to 12 years ago the visas were free and then a charge was introduced to take the burden from the tax payer and onto the applicants

Visas might have been free at some time but there was a charge as far back as 1994, eighteen years ago. That's when my first Thai wife got her settlement visa. I can't remember exactly how much it was but it was certainly more than £100. 5 or 6k baht (@ around 40 baht/£) seems to spring to mind because a baht of gold worked out at just over £100 and the visa was slightly more expensive.

I do remember that everybody applying for a visa was interviewed at the Embassy. I was actually invited into the last part of my (ex) wife's interview (not even a security screen in those days), but not to be questioned about our relationship. I was recovering from TB at the time and the interviewer wanted to know exactly what the symptoms were because she was concerned her housekeeper might be infected.

[KhunIanB-UK]

Whoops, yes, sorry, there was a charge for the initial settlement visa 10 to 12 years ago, it was the FLR/ILR which was then processed free

[maokaang]

... and settlement visas had a duration of just 1 year back then. ILR could be applied for after one year free of charge. The general consensus of opinion at the time was that the high price of a settlement visa was justified as it also covered the cost of an ILR application. They then started charging for ILR as well, increasing the price of a settlement visa at the same time, rather than reducing it.

Money, money, money.



The one positive change was increasing the length of a settlement visa to (eventually) 27 months, giving genuine applicants more time to prove a sustained relationship before ILR is granted and making it harder for those in scam marriages.