Which category of visa to apply for parents to settle in UK?

Hello,

I'm a British citizen and would like my aged parents to live/settle with me in the UK. They already have a family visitor Visa (valid for 5 years), however I would like to switch them over to a settlement visa asap in case their health deteriorates and they need access to the NHS.

My parents are retired and are fully dependant on me. They are currently staying with me in the UK (for the last 1 month. so they have another 5 months before they go back). I'm a bit confused about which category of visa to apply for first. There is a lot of confusing information on the home office website around 'family of person settled in UK' visa and the '2 year route', '5 year route' etc. and also eligibility for settlement. Also there is no clarity around whether my parents need to provide proof of English Language knowledge.

Any guidance on this front will be greatly appreciated.

Many thanks in advance
Suhas

This is one of the most difficult visas to get and very expensive too. Since the rules changed and were made harder in July 2012, there have only been about 3-4 approvals (that we know of) in the last 3 years. They would need to meet the stringent requirements below and the application would be intensely scrutinized and face likely refusal.

If you choose to take the huge risk, bear in mind that if their application is refused, it will likely shut the door on any future visitor visas as their intention to settle in the UK will be documented and known. Please think very carefully before applying in this category.

https://www.gov.uk/join-family-in-uk/eligibility

Coming to be cared for - you’re an adult dependent relative

You must be dependent on a parent, grandchild, brother, sister, son or daughter of someone living permanently in the UK.

You must prove that:

you need long-term care to do everyday personal and household tasks
the care you need is not available or affordable in the country you live in
the person you’ll be joining in the UK will be able to support, accommodate and care for you without claiming public funds for at least 5 years
you’re 18 or over

Since the rules changed and were made harder in July 2012, there have only been about 3-4 approvals (that we know of) in the last 3 years.

To the OP, those 3-4 successful cases are mainly from countries such as USA.

There has been no successful applications (as far as I'm aware) from countries such as Pakistan, India, Bangladesh etc... so if you parents are from are one of these countries, I wouldn't risk it. As CR001 has mentioned, you will be shutting the doors to all future visitor visa's.

Without a doubt from what you have written, they would fail to qualify as the situation is at present. You would be unable to prove the most stringent conditions:
you need long-term care to do everyday personal and household tasks
the care you need is not available or affordable in the country you live in

The case worker would need to see that both of your parents need daily care and if you could afford to pay to support them with this in the UK, you would almost certainly be able to afford to pay for care in their home country. The door for elderly dependent visas has virtually been closed apart from extreme circumstances. As you've been advised, apply and receive a refusal and any future applications for visitor visas will stand little chance of success.

Hi All,
Thanks a lot for your quick responses. Your inputs are truly invaluable.
It is an outrage that the UK home office chooses to create a catch-22 situation by demanding proof of sustainability of parents in UK and proof of non-sustainability in parents' home country and use this as a means for rejecting visa applications. It is understandable that if this visa is not scrutinised properly, it will be abused to bring in relatives who may not truly be dependant. However blocking the visa altogether is not a solution. They could impose higher age or financial restrictions.
I read from another similar post about this inhumane treatment as well (http://www.immigrationboards.com/immigr ... 56308.html). Has anybody actually contacted Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants (JCWI) and sought legal advice? If so, could you please share their assessment and outcomes ? Also, it says on their page (http://jcwi.org.uk/policy/adult-dependent-relatives) that they are awaiting a judicial review case. Could somebody knowledgeable here please clarify what that means?

Many thanks
Suhas

suhas.choulgere wrote:Hi All,
Thanks a lot for your quick responses. Your inputs are truly invaluable.
It is an outrage that the UK home office chooses to create a catch-22 situation by demanding proof of sustainability of parents in UK and proof of non-sustainability in parents' home country and use this as a means for rejecting visa applications. It is understandable that if this visa is not scrutinised properly, it will be abused to bring in relatives who may not truly be dependant. However blocking the visa altogether is not a solution. They could impose higher age or financial restrictions.
I read from another similar post about this inhumane treatment as well (http://www.immigrationboards.com/immigr ... 56308.html). Has anybody actually contacted Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants (JCWI) and sought legal advice? If so, could you please share their assessment and outcomes ? Also, it says on their page (http://jcwi.org.uk/policy/adult-dependent-relatives) that they are awaiting a judicial review case. Could somebody knowledgeable here please clarify what that means?

Many thanks
Suhas

The UK does not allow chain migration.

Also, you (and I) chose to come to the UK. We had no obligation to do so!

Thems the rules.

The Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants (JCWI)is on the look-out for a case to take on in the courts to challenge these rules. Not quite the same as "awaiting a case".

That is a slightly dangerous approach (in my opinion). If such a case were filed and won,

• popular opinion would be even more negative towards migrants
• Once the flaws in the law are pointed out to them, the government will rewrite the law to make it even more proper/legally compliant in the future.

I agree with physicskate. We choose to settle in the UK. These are the rules and we should obey them.
The downside of living in a democracy is that you must live by the rules made by others.

Given the research you have demonstrated in your post, I am sure that you are aware of the Surinder Singh route, which should still be open to you.

Thank you once again for your responses.
My objective here is to not start a debate but to obtain information from knowledgeable people like yourselves. But as a quick response,

physicskate wrote: The UK does not allow chain migration.

As per this logic, the spouse should not be allowed to migrate as well. Only the migrant worker who is adding value to the economy is welcome. In cases like mine, it is not the affordability of care to aged parents that should be considered. In our culture we take care of our ailing parents and its simply not acceptable to put them into old-age homes. This cultural aspect should be considered and that too in such special circumstances where there is no other family member to care for them in their country

physicskate wrote: Also, you (and I) chose to come to the UK. We had no obligation to do so!

Thems the rules.

In which case the whole concept of 'human rights' is irrelevant. Any country can make up rules and cannot be challenged.

secret.simon wrote: I agree with physicskate. We choose to settle in the UK. These are the rules and we should obey them.
The downside of living in a democracy is that you must live by the rules made by others.

Given the research you have demonstrated in your post, I am sure that you are aware of the Surinder Singh route, which should still be open to you.

Actually the upside of being in a democracy is that you could challenge rules created by people who are of the same standing as you. I was not aware of the Surinder Singh route. Thanks secret.simon for pointing me in that direction. But as you mentioned yourself, the govt has probably wised up to this - http://www.migrantsrights.org.uk/news/2 ... ingh-route
Then they wonder why people are gaming the system

Is it not fair to say the migrant should consider what will happen to their parents et al when they emigrate? The rules are clear at that point - the migrant has all the facts, it's clear where the onus lies so it's unfair to suddenly bleat about it.

suhas.choulgere wrote:

In which case the whole concept of 'human rights' is irrelevant. Any country can make up rules and cannot be challenged.

What do you mean?!?! How far do 'human rights' extend? Is it the right to life? Is it the right to the life we want? I think it is a little unrealistic to assume that because you (or I) want something to be, it should be. Some cultures have different values, in which case, that should be a consideration before moving to a country with a different culture. I'm not saying you're wrong, but your argument needs some work.

The whole idea of a country is a body (chosen by the people or otherwise) that makes rules to govern its people and set rules that they should all abide by. If the cultural values of that country are different to the rules of law, then they should (and will) change - just look at the recent referendum in Ireland! I am afraid the settled population would have a hard time agreeing with you on this one!

suhas.choulgere wrote: My objective here is to not start a debate

May not have been your objective, but you have. And that is a good thing. One would not learn if one does not have an opposing point of view. Thanks to all participants for keeping the tone of discussion civil and courteous.

suhas.choulgere wrote: As per this logic, the spouse should not be allowed to migrate as well. Only the migrant worker who is adding value to the economy is welcome. In cases like mine, it is not the affordability of care to aged parents that should be considered. In our culture we take care of our ailing parents and its simply not acceptable to put them into old-age homes. This cultural aspect should be considered and that too in such special circumstances where there is no other family member to care for them in their country

If spouses are not included, it may deter a significant number of migrants from moving. Also, most spouses are of working age and there is every expectation (not a certainty, but a possibility) that they will be economically active.

When you immigrate, I think there is a legitimate expectation of the community that you immigrate to that you will assimilate into their culture, while retaining traces of your original culture. Lack of such cultural assimilation is often what causes issues between immigrants and local people. Rather than attempting to force the government (as an embodiment of the people) to change the rules, you may wish to reflect on whether your values will evolve gradually.

suhas.choulgere wrote: In which case the whole concept of 'human rights' is irrelevant. Any country can make up rules and cannot be challenged.

I agree with physicskate that your definition of human rights seems excessively elastic. The way I see it, human rights are quite basic. Citizenship is called "the right to have rights". I would argue that human rights are the rights that you have when you are stateless. And as you can imagine, they would be quite basic.
It is precisely this elastic definition of "right to family and private life" (Article 8 of the ECHR) which has generated the hostile environment to human rights in this country.
As regards the second part of the statement, each country is sovereign and countries can and do make laws which can not be challenged. Try challenging the laws in any Gulf country or in North Korea or even democracies like Brazil or India on the grounds of human rights and you will get a very limited response, if any. The international community would only intervene if there were a genocide or something equally significant.
As mentioned by physicskate, laws should reflect the views of the people of the country.

suhas.choulgere wrote:

secret.simon wrote:
I agree with physicskate. We choose to settle in the UK. These are the rules and we should obey them.
The downside of living in a democracy is that you must live by the rules made by others.

Given the research you have demonstrated in your post, I am sure that you are aware of the Surinder Singh route, which should still be open to you.

Actually the upside of being in a democracy is that you could challenge rules created by people who are of the same standing as you. I was not aware of the Surinder Singh route. Thanks secret.simon for pointing me in that direction. But as you mentioned yourself, the govt has probably wised up to this - http://www.migrantsrights.org.uk/news/2 ... ingh-route
Then they wonder why people are gaming the system

You are confusing democracy with the rule of law. One is the rule by the people, the other is that even the government is subject to the law. Quite separate concepts.

It does come as a surprise to me that you were not aware of the Surinder Singh route. But now you are. The government has been trying for quite a while to clamp down on Surinder Singh and almost certainly there will be significant changes to it in any renegotiation of the UK's place in the EU, if the UK were to stay.

Another user on these forums, Pranjam, has found another possible way to use EEA law to get family dependants here. That thread is located here

http://www.immigrationboards.com/eea-ro ... 187072.htm