Page 1 of 1

Differing settlement visas

Posted: Mon Nov 08, 2010 10:19 am
by conno26
My wife and daughter both applied for settlement visas whilst we were living and working in the Gulf. My wife was given a spouse/CP visa with an expiry date of 15/10/12 whereas my daughter received an Indefinite leave to remain visa (under 18) with an expiry date of 11/03/14. I thought this was a little strange but did not question it as they had previously applied for settlement visas in China but were not successful.

On entering UK I asked the UKBA official if he could grant my wife indefinite leave to remain as indicated on their website as she fulfilled the criteria listed. He said that he thought it was strange that they had different visas but that he was unaware of the facility of granting ILR on entry.

So far I have been trying to contact someone in UKBA who can help but without success. Phone calls and emails invariably redirect you back to their website. Has anyone had a similar experience and can offer any advice?

Posted: Mon Nov 08, 2010 11:05 am
by vinny
If your wife has been married and living with you outside the UK for at least 4 years and has satisfied the KOL requirements, then she should have been granted a spouse visa with an "ILE" endorsement (282(b)).

Else, if your wife has been married and living with you outside the UK for at least 4 years but has not satisfied the KOL requirements, then she should have been granted a 27-month spouse visa with a "KOL REQ" endorsement (282(c)).

Else, she should have been granted a 27-month spouse visa endorsement (282(a)).

See also Checking your visa and Correcting an incorrect endorsement.
conno26 wrote:On entering UK I asked the UKBA official if he could grant my wife indefinite leave to remain as indicated on their website as she fulfilled the criteria listed. He said that he thought it was strange that they had different visas but that he was unaware of the facility of granting ILR on entry.
31A wrote:An Immigration Officer acting on behalf of the Secretary of State may vary the leave at the port of entry but is not obliged to consider an application for variation made at the port of entry.