British-Israeli Fiance Visa

Please advise me. Here are the facts:
I met my b/f on the Internet in April 2006 and have evidence of daily contact. I am a Gap Year student with a confirmed place at university in Sept. 2007. I am now putting studies on hold so that I can apply (in Sept/Oct) for my b/f to come over. He wants to continue his education here for which his father will be paying. I intend to continue working until he's settled.

My parents are very supportive and have agreed that we could stay with them for as long as needed. They will be our co-sponsors as they own the house (mortgage-free) and can provide additional financial evidence to convince the ECO that none of us would, as a result of my b/f, have need to rely on public funds.

My b/f was refused clearance as a visitor at Heathrow in April 2007 and following the ECO's advice, he re-applied for a v/v from Israel about 3 weeks later and that was rejected. We realise that the rejections were due to insufficient preparation on our part. We now know better. While many v/v are approved on the third occasion, we both feel sufficiently committed to each other to get engaged (in July).

My b/f completed his last exam in June 2006 and while waiting for release from the army, he was not studying or working (in case he could not get out of military duty). I visited him for a weekend in April and am going to spend 2 weeks in Israel in July. We plan to meet again, perhaps 1-2 times in Germany or Belgium in the next 2 months.

Given that we're both young (but have support from both our parents), will that count against us when we apply for the fiance visa? We cannot concentrate on our studies without each other, and that would hamper our future prospects. We both have a good level of education.

I have other questions but that would depend on whether you think there is any chance of success with the f/v application - due to our age. Also, are we required to move out of my parents' house after the marriage?

Given that we're both young .......

Actually, how young are the two of you?

19 and 20.

Given those ages be aware that you might be caught by a proposed change of Government policy. That is, at the moment there is a minimum age for the applicant for a UK settlement visa and their sponsor ... 18 years old. The Government is considering changing that minimum age to 21!

Accordingly if you are going to apply ... apply soon! Otherwise it may be necessary to wait until both of you are 21 years old.

Chance of getting the fiancé visa? As long as the required supporting evidence is supplied, especially the evidence from your parents, there is a good chance of success.

Out of curiosity, aren't people from Israel entitled to claim asylum here? It seems to me that the whole place is a big war zone.

John, I have read something about the min. age going up to 21. Will there be a 'consultation' period or at least advanced warning before it is actually implemented? By mid July we'd only have met twice, and we were planning to make it 4 times before applying - hence f/v in October. Do you suppose 2 meetings would be sufficient? Or should we chance it and appeal if we don't succeed? And if the case were to go to an appeal, would the old min. age still apply?

By mid July we'd only have met twice, and we were planning to make it 4 times before applying

Absolutely nothing to do with immigration matters .. the two of you are seriously considering marriage having only met twice? I am speechless!

Well nearly speechless! OK the immigration rules merely say that the two of you need to have met, and you have done that, but to put it lightly, surely the two of you are rushing into marriage. After all that is the purpose of a fiancé visa .... to get married during the 6-months validity of that visa.

18 to 21? Don't know. I actually suspect it will not happen. The government might actually come to its senses and realise that even if it was to bring in the legislation it would infringe human rights legislation and be overturned.

tvt wrote:Out of curiosity, aren't people from Israel entitled to claim asylum here? It seems to me that the whole place is a big war zone.

Generally speaking, no. Well, they are entitled to claim, but very unlikely to get! Israel isn't a big war zone anyway, I went there in January and while there is very high security, there were no problems at all.

John, thank you for your input. I know it rarely happens and I know it sounds rushed and it would be hard to justify it to everyone, but it seems many of my relatives have 'been there, done that' and have long lasting marriages. My parents celebrated their silver anniversary last year. Convincing the ECO is another matter.

Hi - just to let you know, the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal is getting MUCH more iffy about 3rd party support - often not allowing it to qualify under the rules.

For example, the case from 15th June this year AM (3rd party support not permitted R281 (v)) Ethiopia [2007] UKAIT 00058. In the case, the facts were:

"The immigration judge accepted that the sponsor sent to her husband and son in Ethiopia between US$200 and US$300 per month. This equated to between £123 and £184 per month, depending on the exchange rate. The sponsor and the appellant have a daughter who is in well-paid employment in London earning in 2005 £41,000 and now after promotion £50,000. The daughter gives her witness statement says £600 a month to support her father and brother in Ethiopia monthly and the judge accepted she pays £500 into an account for support of the family.

6. A cousin of the appellant who also lives in England supports the appellant and his son in amounts which vary between £100 and £400 per month. The evidence accepted by the immigration judge suggests that the appellant and his son are maintained in Ethiopia by monthly remittances from the UK which at their lowest total £723 per month and at their highest £1184 per month. The son, who is a partial beneficiary of this support, is, as indicated, in his thirties."

They decided that the 3rd party support didn't count:

" Indeed, the structure and wording of paragraph 281 of the Rules focuses the requirements of the Rules on the two individuals who wish to benefit from them; the spouse or civil partner with rights to be in the UK, and the spouse or civil partner who seeks to join that person. The parties must have met (281(ii), they must intend to live permanently with each other and the marriage must be subsisting (281(iii). The accommodation must be adequate and owned and occupied exclusively by one or other of the parties to the relationship (281(iv). This all points clearly to the need for the two persons involved to satisfy the Rules personally without reference to any third parties. So with maintenance. Paragraph 281(v) in our judgement requires the resources to be those of the parties alone."

The conclusion is not favourable:

" We are aware that there are a number of conflicting Tribunal cases as to whether third party support is permitted in spouse applications (see paragraph 11.54 of the sixth edition of Macdonald's Immigration Law and Practice, to which we were not referred). We did not have the benefit of hearing the parties' submissions on those cases but, as far as we can see, these are old cases, pre-dating Arman Ali and they are also cases which fail to take into account the proper approach to the application of section 3 as set out in KP India.

25. Accordingly, the immigration judge erred in law in taking into account the financial support provided by the sponsor's and the appellant's daughter and the cousin."