UK Family Visitor Visa Refused

Hi Friends,

I applied for a Family visitor Visa to UK to visit my husband from India, and it got refused and states the reason as "Given your personal circumstances as you have presented them iam not satisfied that you indend to leave the UK ant the end of your visit or that you rae genuinely seeking entry as a visitor for a period not exceeding 6 months(paragraph 41(i)(ii) of HC 395 amended)"

My husband holding Tier 1 General visa and he is sponsoring me, and i have submitted my husbands bank statement and our original marriage certificate and his invitation letter to stay with him.
I resigned my job and serving in notice period. i have submitted my resignation accepatance letter and all my income tax return statements.

Still i'am not sure what else i need to submit. If any one knows about this please help me.

Your help much appreciated.

Selvi wrote:I resigned my job and serving in notice period. i have submitted my resignation accepatance letter

They don't think you are going to leave the UK as, by quitting, you have weakened your ties to your homeland. This is a silly reason for refusal and you can appeal. Otherwise, why not pay a bit more money and apply for a PBS dependant visa and use this, instead, to visit the UK (or live there). With this you can go and come as you please.

Lucapooka wrote:This is a silly reason for refusal and you can appeal.

Why is it a silly reason? one of the main requirements of a visit visa is to prove significant ties to your home country to show you will leave at the end of your visit.

OP your application would have been more succesfull if you had kept your job but had a letter from your employer granting you leave for the period of your visit.

Do you have anyother ties to your home country? dependant family? property?

It's silly because it's an arbitrary decision (an opinion rather than one based on actual evidence or confirmed situations where the ECO must refuse) by an individual ECO that runs counter to the circumstances and common sense. The applicant knows full well that a PBS dependant application would have been easier and less onerous (requiring only a bank statement and a marriage cert.) but chose, instead, to apply for a visit visa to make what will be just a visit rather than residence. The ECO will have been completely aware of this and made a very arbitrary decision that she represents an immigration risk of non-return. Yet, given that she easily qualifies for PBS dependant, nobody in their right mind would choose to forego this and enter as a visitor and then remain illegally. It's ridiculous.

Lucapooka wrote:It's silly because it's an arbitrary decision (an opinion rather than one based on actual evidence or confirmed situations where the ECO must refuse) by an individual ECO that runs counter to the circumstances and common sense. The applicant knows full well that a PBS dependant application would have been easier and less onerous (requiring only a bank statement and a marriage cert.) but chose, instead, to apply for a visit visa to make what will be just a visit rather than residence. The ECO will have been completely aware of this and made a very arbitrary decision that she represents an immigration risk of non-return. Yet, given that she easily qualifies for PBS dependant, nobody in their right mind would choose to forego this and enter as a visitor and then remain illegally. It's ridiculous.

it's not an arbitrary decision at all - the OP resigned from her job and is coming to join her husband who is in the UK on a route to settlement therefore the ECO is entitled to find that the applicant does not have sufficient ties in her home country on the basis of the evidence submitted. It is not for the ECO to consider that the applicant could've applied for a tier 1 dependent visa and the fact that she hasn't means that she obviously only intends to visit - it is for the applicant to provide evidence that she meets the requirements of the visa she has applied for. Yes a PBS dependent visa is fairly straightforward, but not that straightforward if they havent possessed the relevent funds for 90 days and don't have sufficient evidence of a subsisting marriage.

All decisions based on the presumed risk of non-return are arbitrary if there is nothing evident to say the intention exists. It's a broad application/interpretation of the rules that may or may not be applied at the ECO's discretion and that's what makes it arbitrary. Do you think he consulted the ECM? She can remain in India as a housewife living on the remittances of her partner or she can find another job. The ECO has jumped to conclusions about her intention to break the law (albeit he is permitted to do this) even though it's clear she has (and is aware of) options and circumstances that mean she does not have to do this, effectively eliminating the chance of the risk occurring. This is a refusal that would likely not have been made by a ECO for a similar application in a developed country.

Lucapooka wrote:All decisions based on the presumed risk of non-return are arbitrary if there is nothing evident to say the intention exists. It's a broad application/interpretation of the rules that may or may not be applied at the ECO's discretion and that's what makes it arbitrary. Do you think he consulted the ECM? She can remain in India as a housewife living on the remittances of her partner or she can find another job. The ECO has jumped to conclusions about her intention to break the law (albeit he is permitted to do this) even though it's clear she has (and is aware of) options and circumstances that mean she does not have to, effectively negating the chance of the risk occurring. This is a refusal that would likely not have been made by a ECO for a similar application in a developed country.

So now you are suggesting that no applicant from a developed country would be refused in these circumstances. Yes refusals are more likely from a developed country for obvious reasons but there are plenty of examples on this forum of applicants from developed countries being refused a visit visa/entry as a visitor to visit a spouse in the UK.

Any applicant for a visit visa needs to prove evidence of their intention to return. An applicant joining a spouse who is living and working in the UK on a route leading to settlement and who has just given up her job has left herself open to refusal in the absence of other evidence to demonstrate her intention to return. The fact that she could've applied for a dependent visa but chose not to does not necessarily help her in showing that she is generally seeking entry as a visitor.Why is it clear she is aware of the fact she can apply for a PBS dependent visa, or clear that she cannot switch from a visitor to PBS dependent in country - after all - there are often posts in this forum asking if someone can switch from a visit visa. The ECO is not required to consult the ECM in such a scenario.

Thanks for your valuable reply.

But how can i prove my return by document, is the Return ticket enough?

Otherwise if i apply for dependent visa what are the documents i need to submit.

Selvi wrote:But how can i prove my return by document, is the Return ticket enough?

No.

Selvi wrote:Otherwise if i apply for dependent visa what are the documents i need to submit.

Reading the relevant policy guidance will help.

Thanks again.

Actually my husband Tier1 General Visa expires on May 2012, that is the reason i tried for Family Visitor. In this situation can i apply for Tier 1 Dependent and get the visa successfully.

Hello!
I've started the petition "Theresa May, UK Government: Bring back the right of appeal for family visit visas" and need your help to get it off the ground.
Will you take 30 seconds to sign it right now? Here's the link:
http://www.change.org/p/theresa-may-uk- ... isit-visas