Advanced Members
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


7by7 last won the day on March 12 2013

7by7 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

5,983 Excellent

About 7by7

  • Rank
    Star Member
  • Birthday 09/09/1955

Contact Methods

  • ICQ

Previous Fields

  • Location
    Surrey and Bangsu

Recent Profile Visitors

29,213 profile views
  1. As you say, her ILR has not expired simply because the passport the stamp is in has. But with the introduction of BRPs things have changed somewhat. The guidance says So it is logical to believe that this applies to proof of status and right to work in the UK as well. But; on page 14 of An employer’s guide to acceptable right to work documents it says So, to be honest, I'm not totally sure; but it looks like she will have to apply for a BRP using the no time limit form. Perhaps, as both the UK and Thailand allow dual nationality, she should have applied for naturalisation as British when she was time qualified in 2011? The fees for doing so back then were not as exorbitant as they are now, and doing so would have saved all this hassle as well as the other advantages; such as British citizens being able to visit many more countries without a visa than Thai citizens can. Still worth considering, I believe, despite the cost.
  2. Yes, if the EU national is exercising a treaty right under the Freedom of Movement Directive; just as a British national can do the same in any other EU and EEA country and Switzerland. See EEA Family Permit for how the UK handle applications of this type. As i say above, all this is likely to change post Brexit.
  3. No; it was the referendum result which did this How on earth do you come to that conclusion? The referendum was just in or out and acceptance of the pathetic package that DC negotiated The referendum was a simple; remain in the EU on the basis of the package negotiated by Cameron, or leave. The result was to leave. If not a member of the EU, or EEA, then the FoM directive does not apply. Which means that, unless as part of the deal the UK government, whoever that may be, agrees to remain bound by the FoM directive, then post Brexit EU, EEA and Swiss nationals will no longer have any rights under the directive as far as the UK is concerned. Neither will British nationals have those rights in the EU, EEA or Switzerland. If the referendum result had been to remain in the EU, then this would not be an issue because the UK would still be bound by the directive. One hopes the position of EU, EEA and Swiss nationals already resident in the UK, and vice versa, will be enshrined in any deal and they will be able to remain and obtain PR if they wish.
  4. Are you sure? As far as I am aware, apart from a couple of exceptions (see here) all family migrants have to pay the surcharge as do all those entering the UK under the Points Based System; even if they are coming to work for the NHS. I suggest the reason he was unaware of it is because his wife entered the UK prior to it's introduction.
  5. True; but as I said Labour prior to the 2010 election had similar plans. It was Labour who started this, the Coalition and then the Tories alone simply carried on what Labour had started. True; but Labour didn't object at the time and have made no commitment to reintroduce them. No; it was the referendum result which did this. May was a Remainer and is now trying to make the best of a bad decision. Whilst I am no particular fan of her or her party, I do believe she will make a better job of this, and obtain a more favourable agreement for the UK, than Corbyn would. But this is not the place to discuss that; there are several topics in News where one can do so. The rest of your post is simply too bizarre to be worthy of comment; especially the last sentence! Edit: I see the Mods have now removed that last sentence; well done them.
  6. It needs to be remembered by some that trip along the road to making family immigration to the UK more difficult and more expensive was begun by Labour. It was Labour who introduced a new fees regime which meant that the fees charged are considerably more than the cost of processing the application. It was Labour who introduced the principle of annual fee increases well above inflation. It was Labour who introduced language tests and the LitUK test. Labour also had plans, had they won in 2010, to introduce stricter financial requirements very similar to those introduced by the Coalition in July 2012. Did Labour made any promise in their 2015 manifesto to ease the requirements, especially the financial requirement, for family migrants? Not that I can find. They have pledged this time to scrap the income threshold, they have not, as far as I can see, said what will replace it. Nor have they made any commitment to reduce the exorbitant fees to a level more in line with actual costs. Of course, some MPs, of all parties, are on our side; particularly on the matter of the financial requirement. I have previously mentioned the Parliamentary inquiry into new family migration rules, which reported in June 2013, and the matter is still of concern to some MPs, as this extract from Hansard on 30/1/17 shows. Unfortunately, at present not enough MPs, of all parties, care enough about this matter to make any attempt to force a change. They don't care because most of their constituents, if they care at all, want to see immigration reduced and don't care how that's achieved. Even when it means breaking up families who can't meet this inflexible financial requirement yet are perfectly able to support themselves without recourse to any public funds; which they're not entitled to anyway. Finally each quarter roughly half the immigrants to the UK come from the EEA. While a member of the EU there is little the British government can do about this. What will happen after Brexit remains to be seen. Of the other half, most are students or workers; only around 20% are family migrants. Like her predecessors, Labour and Tory, May is going for the easy target; even though she must know it's a target which will have little effect on the overall figures.
  7. I know personaly several UK based British boyfriends and Thai based Thai girlfriends (and one gay couple) who have successfully obtained a UK visit visa after the applicant stated in their application that they wished to remain in the UK for the full 6 months. I am aware of other couples in the same situation who were successful through forums such as this. Most of those applicants did not have a solid reason to return; certainly none of them worked. The ECOs are well aware that employed Thais get very little annual holiday, and that very few, if any, Thai employers will grant an employee a 6 months sabbatical. It all depends on the applicant coming across as credible with a genuine reason for visiting the UK for so long. In most cases of which I am aware, the reason was to get a taste of life in the UK and meet their partner's family before committing to marriage followed by settlement. If she, or pr2017, had told the truth in the application, there would have been no confusion! The only sure fire way of avoiding being caught in a lie is to not lie in the first place! Because that is the length of a standard UK visit visa laid down by Parliament in the immigration rules. Many applicants, and not just those in a relationship with a UK resident or British citizen, have genuine reasons for visiting the UK for that long. That is a question you need to ask her. I believe (but may be wrong, check with TVE) that she can ask for a transcript of the interview.
  8. VFS act as handling agents for a number of countries in Thailand; it would help if you said which country the application is for. However, I remember, confirmed by checking your previous posts, that your wife is applying to the UK. The result of UK visa applications are treated as strictly confidential by UKVI. Passports etc. are returned to VFS in sealed packages.. SMS messages will only say that the package has been received by VFS and is awaiting collection by or is being forwarded to the applicant or their appointed representative, whichever option the applicant chose. As rasg says, your wife wont know the actual result until she receives and opens that package. If using the courier service, this can be 2 or 3 days after VFS receive it, and someone has to be home to sign for it.
  9. All EEA embassies, wherever they are, will want certified translations of wedding certificates, and/or any other supporting documents, which are not in an EEA language. In the case of Thailand, many also want the translations certified as correct by the Thai MFA. What the Spanish in Bangkok were insisting upon from spouses of British citizens was a certificate that their marriage was legally recognised in the UK. Such a document does not exist, and is superfluous anyway as far as the issuing of a Schengen visa, residence card or any other visa or leave to remain under the FoM directive is concerned. Whether or not the UK recognises a Thai marriage is irrelevant, what matters is whether or not the country one is applying to, in that case Spain, does. The member concerned was advised to make an official complaint to SOLVIT; whether he did or not, and if so what the result was, he never said.
  10. Playing devil's advocate, again: If she understood what was in the application, why did she give a completely different answer when asked about the length of her stay during the phone interview, and then later in the same interview contradict that answer? Over the years I have seen many posts in this and similar forums from people advising that it will 'make the application look better' if the applicant says they only intend to stay for 2 or 3 weeks even though they actually intend to stay for longer; even the full 6 months. Whether this is was your intention or not; your experience shows the folly of heeding such 'advice.'
  11. They are not challenging the basic rules at all. As Article 7 of the Schengen visa code clearly states, anyone, family member of an EEA national or not, can apply for a Schengen visa in any other member state as long as they are in that state legally; they do not have to be a resident there. Anyone who takes the time to check the code or EU issued guidance will discover that, and so believe that they will be able to apply for their Schengen visa in the UK whilst here as a visitor, because the code says that they can. I agree that it is best to organise everything in advance. My step son and his wife are visiting us in the UK later this year, and while here intend to spend a couple of nights in Paris. They will be applying to the French embassy in Bangkok for their Schengen visas as soon as they have their UK ones. Doing this saves wasting a day, at least, out of their holiday at the French embassy in Kensington. But there are reasons why some may not be able to do this; as you say, time constraints being one of them. Another being a spur of the moment decision to visit another country from the UK; particularly if the visitor is in the UK for several months. There is no legal reason why it is not possible for a Thai, or any one else, to apply for a Schengen visa whilst in the UK as a visitor. The Schengen visa code allows it and if they are the family member of an EEA national the FoM directive means they should be offered every facility to obtain any necessary visa wherever in the world they are. Those embassies which do not comply with this are breaking the rules and, in the case of family members, the law; pure and simple. IMHO, those who suffer because of this must make a complaint to SOLVIT. It may not help in time for their trip, but the more people complain, the more likely it is that the offending embassies will be made to follow not just the visa code, but also EU law. But if no one complains, nothing will be done. Of course, as far as the UK, British citizens and their non EEA national family members are concerned everything I've posted is dependent upon the UK's membership of the EU: we can only speculate what the position post Brexit will be.
  12. Para 1 of Article 6 of the visa code does, indeed, say But this is not cast in stone. Para 2 of Article 6 says Furthermore, Article 7 says So, even those who are not family members of an EEA national and so are not covered by the FoM directive can still apply in countries where they are not a resident provided that they are legally present, which a holder of a valid UK visit visa present in the UK is, and if the country concerned is not a member state they have a valid reason for so doing, or the country where they are applying is a member state; which at the moment the UK is. As said by Donutz above, and is confirmed in part III of the Schengen visa handbook, the FoM directive takes precedence over the Schengen visa code. You are correct that the FoM directive does not specifically state that the family member of an EEA national can apply for a Schengen visa anywhere; in fact it makes no mention of where they can or cannot apply at all! "Every facility" is neither inferred nor implied in the directive; it is specifically stated in Article 5, para 2 As already shown, 'every facility' in the FoM directive means, among other things, that the family member of an EEA national travelling with or to join their EEA national family member can obtain any necessary visa at the border; and this is confirmed in Article 5 para 4 . If this is possible, why would obtaining one from an embassy in a third country not be?
  13. "Thai wife?" How many wives of various nationalities do you think the OP has? To answer your question:
  14. VFS

    VFS act as visa application centres in Bangkok for several countries, and have at least two offices in the Trendy Building; one for Australia and another for the UK. Which are you asking about?
  15. Not if you are a applying under the directive because you are a qualifying family member of an EEA national and travelling with or to join them. All you need to provide is evidence that you are, indeed, a qualifying member of an EEA national; such as marriage certificate, with a certified translation into an EU language if necessary, and a certified copy of the EEA nationals passport to show that they are an EEA national. If an embassy or consulate asks for anything else, they are breaking the rules. Even those who are not family members of EEA nationals and so are not covered by the directive should not pay for flights and accommodation until they have the visa. As Donutz says in his pinned topic Then as I said before As a last resort, you could try simply turning up at Italian immigration. From Travel documents for non-EU family members The main problem here being that you may not get as far as Italian immigration because your airline may be unaware of this and so not allow her to board the flight without a visa!