pregnant by british boyfriend, with student visa

Obie wrote:Furthermore I fail to understand or comprehend how this individual was able to deduce that the OP was here on visitors visa.

From the OP's declarations:

studentepregnant wrote:I returned to my country and apply for my current extendent student visitor visa.

studentepregnant wrote: thank you for reply, with my visa ¨"student visitor visa" (NO TIER 4) I cant get married.

But a student visitors visa has a different meaning to a visitors visa for tourism purpose.

They have 2 distinct purpose.

One permits a course of study for a period up to 11 months. The other is tourism.

I see no reason why a student visitors of up to 11 months will not permit a switch from within the UK.

Yes. But is a student visitor considered as a visitor for the purposes of E-LTRP.2.1, if leave was granted under Part 2?

vinny wrote:Yes. But is a student visitor considered as a visitor for the purposes of E-LTRP.2.1?

Clearly not. With the utmost respect, if that is a statement of fact, rather than a question, I will be unable to accept.

An extended student visitors which can be above 6 month and up to 11 months, clearly meets the requirement of eltrp 2.1.

Wouldn't they consider people with leave granted under Part 2 > (56K-56M) as visitors?

Well the Op was issued leave under part 3 A57A[/b].

It seems to me that people who were issued leave under A57A are not classified as visitors.

I am not sure of the relevance of those archived provision to this case.

The OP had used the term Student visitor. I had assumed that the OP had applied under the old visitor rules prior to the visitor rule changes:

7.7. The student visitor and extended student visitor routes are being rebranded as short term study routes which will sit in Part 3 of the Immigration Rules alongside other study provisions. The reason for this is to make the system clearer for those whose main purpose for coming to the UK is to study a short course up to six months, or 11 months in the case of adults studying longer English language courses.

You're absolutely correct. Under the current rules, she would not be classified as a visitor, as she would come under Part 3.

Therefore, if she is not a visitor, then she should be free to marry as well?

It seems like the Op would have still qualified under the archived provision, as that rules defined "visitors" and "Special Visitors".

OP falls under the category of Special visitors, so he would still have been ok.

But i guess that is under the bridge in any event, as the current provision exclude her from the definition of visitor.

I'm a little concerned about this:

Introduction wrote:A "visitor" is a person granted leave to enter or remain in the UK under paragraphs 40-56Z, 75A-M or 82-87 of these Rules before 24 April 2015 or under Appendix V:Immigration Rules for Visitors on or after 24 April 2015.

However, if her leave was granted from 24 April 2015, then she may benefit from the transitional provisions?

2 wrote:An application made under paragraphs 56K to 56M for a student visit before 24 April 2015 will be decided as if it were an application for short-term study under paragraphs A57A to A57H of these Rules.

check your private inbox somebody have vital information for you.

Good luck

vinny wrote:However, if her leave was granted from 24 April 2015, then she may benefit from the transitional provisions?

2 wrote:An application made under paragraphs 56K to 56M for a student visit before 24 April 2015 will be decided as if it were an application for short-term study under paragraphs A57A to A57H of these Rules.

I believe the OP's application was made before the 24 April 2015 or After, as her visa expires on the 14 March 2016.

I believe the maximum a person can have that visa for is 11 months.

I suppose the argument of whether her case falls within "Visitor" or "Special Visitor" to all intense and purposes seems academic.

Wise wrote:check your private inbox somebody have vital information for you.

Good luck

I believe the vital information you have for the OP could be put on open forum, as sending PM to her is of no use, as she will not be able to access it.

Amber wrote:Patronising someone by calling them an amateur when they actually moderate this forum and have helped thousands of people is of poor taste. [...] It's not a wise idea to disrespect moderators on a forum.

Don't get me wrong. The Moderators do an excellent job, including correcting me. I was making sure OP manages her expectations by reminding her that among the informed Moderators, any Tom, Dick or Harry (including me) can post their response, and they do.

I maintain that OP's situation is dicey and not clean-cut, although happy to have been corrected about some of my concerns.

sah10406 wrote:
I maintain that OP's situation is dicey and not clean-cut, although happy to have been corrected about some of my concerns.

Why dicey?

I believe you stand to learn a lot through humility that looking down your nose at people.

I joined this forum several years back as a student, and you can be rest assured that i have gained enormously more experience here than I have at the lecture theatre . I have even learned a lot from people Like Casa and Wanderer ( Even though we don't see eye to eye on many things).

You have to drop this attitude . There is no reason for a decent profession to conduct themselves in this way.

Obie wrote:

sah10406 wrote: Why dicey?

Because unfortunately a case worker could be suspicious and difficult about her original intentions on her visit visa. Although hopefully they would have no cause.

sah10406 wrote:
I maintain that OP's situation is dicey and not clean-cut, although happy to have been corrected about some of my concerns.

Why dicey?

I am of the view that there is a decent prospect of success, at present if her husband is earning 18600, she passes her English language test, after birth the chances are even much greater, if she has not committed a criminal offense.

I may be inclined to say, that the SSHD my have insurmountable in removing her, if her history, is as she has presented.

I respect your view sah10406, it may be at variance with mine, that is clearly part of a healthy debate. There is no reason to be offensive towards other, if you don't like their view, or threatening them that they will be jailed, when they are not in violation of section 84 in no way.

I believe you stand to learn a lot through humility that looking down your nose at people.

I joined this forum several years back as a student, and you can be rest assured that i have gained enormously more experience here than I have at the lecture theatre . I have even learned a lot from people Like Casa and Wanderer ( Even though we don't see eye to eye on many things).

You have to drop this attitude . There is no reason for a decent profession to conduct themselves in this way.

sah10406 wrote:
Because unfortunately a case worker could be suspicious and difficult about her original intentions on her visit visa. Although hopefully they would have no cause.

But she is not on a visitors visa? that is the respectful debate i have been having with vinny over the course of the last 8 hours.

Obie wrote: But she is not on a visitors visa? that is the respectful debate i have been having with vinny over the course of the last 8 hours.

You guys might be at cross purposes, or someone may have conflated two different issues.

She most certainly is on a visitor visa: an Extended Student Visitor Visa for 11 months. The length of the visa (issued as a concession for more than 6 months) means that she can apply to switch to spouse (which is the nuance I was wrong about until I was helpfully corrected), but the purpose of the visa (a visit) might still throw up some issues of intention when applying to switching into (any) other category.

sah10406 wrote:

Obie wrote: But she is not on a visitors visa? that is the respectful debate i have been having with vinny over the course of the last 8 hours.

You guys might be at cross purposes, or someone may have conflated two different issues.

She most certainly is on a visitor visa: an Extended Student Visitor Visa for 11 months. The length of the visa (issued as a concession for more than 6 months) means that she can apply to switch to spouse (which is the nuance I was wrong about until I was helpfully corrected), but the purpose of the visa (a visit) might still throw up some issues of intention when applying to switching into (any) other category.

Again there is a disagreement, the purpose of the visa is not to visit the United Kingdom, but rather to undertake a short term course of study.

There is a transitional provision for people who applied for that sort of visa before the 24-04-2015. They are treated as if they applied under A57A.

A visa Issued under A57A is certainly not a visitors visa, according to the definition of visitor in the immigration rules.

Thanks Obei for letting us know. Please all moderators I personal wouldn't know which best advice to go with as I can see that many advices is on ground. Beside all routes raised can all moderator agree on a easiest way so that we can learn and move forward .I pray she's not stress by now.

Thanks all.