Simple question about Family Permit Packet.

I am about to send my application and supporting documents to have my Family Permit issued.

I do,however, have a very simple question: Do I have to include a self-stamped envelope to have my passport returned? Or this is something UKBA provides?.

Thank-you.

You have to include it

Thank-you...!
Gracias!

jrge wrote:Thank-you...!
Gracias!

De nada

I thought you only had to provide it if you want special handling (such as special delivery) for the returned documents... Though this is a good idea in any case because it is tracked and controlled...

I'm back to share my experience.

Like many users had indicated, obtaining the EEA family permit is easier than thought, assuming you summit the proper and only necessary documents.

In our (mine) particular case, these are the documents we sent:

* A certified copy of my wife's passport ( certified by the Italian consulate in London) * My Venezuelan passport ( I hold dual citizenship: American-Venezuelan) NOTE: wasn't asked to show evidence of legal status!
* A photograph of me (passport style)
* A letter from my wife, indicating her wish to have my permit expedite ( polite and to the point)
* A photocopy of our marriage certificate
* A photocopy of her payslip ( even though this wasn't necessary)

Additional information:

* I was fingerprinted by Homeland Security in the USA; as required by UKBA. This was extremely easy and fast.
* Sent packet via UPS
* Included a certified, insured envelope to have my passport back (DON'T DO THIS, AT LEAST IN THE USA) They send everything via UPS and you must sign for it

That's it! Two weeks later I received my passport.

Next step, fly to London at the end of September and apply for my Resident Card.

My only question is: Where are the jobs?

Why did you send a payslip?
And who exactly took your fingerprints? Was it a US Govt agency?

We sent the payslip, because when my wife wrote the petition letter, she indicated that was already working in London, and didn't want to take chance of UKBA delaying my Family Permit for an insignificant piece of paper. But, if it would've been up to me, that wouldn't been sent.

And yes, I was fingerprinted by a federal agency of the US government. You know, big brother trying to keep terrorists "under control".

And as for the Resident Card, we are going to send the very same documents. Well, two pictures of me, instead of one.

Good decision about payslip!

Any web reference to the fingerprinting process?

As one is completing the on-line application, you are prompt to make an appointment right away. Pretty much pick and choose what day and time you would like to go.

UKBA indicates this: "(If applying in the USA, you will need to attend an Application Support Center operated by the Dept of Homeland Security. Applicants in New Zealand should attend the New Zealand Department of Labour offices in Auckland, Christchurch or Wellington. Applicants in Bermuda attend an office of the Government of Bermuda to register their biometric information.)" Extracted from: http://www.ukvisas.gov.uk/en/howtoapply/biometricvisa/

Application support center: http://twe.ly/z1qb

Important: Applicant must print and bring, unique reference document to biometrics appointment. It needs to be stamped, and subsequently enclosed with application and supporting documents.

Interesting to use the US government for this. I wonder exactly what information they get from the USG. It raises some serious privacy issues, and will prevent people who are illegally in the US from applying for the EEA FP.

Well, actually it's the other way around. The US Federal Government wants to make sure that real "criminals" don't go to another country without paying their debt to our society. Not the British Government.

This fingerprinting doesn't prevent any unlawful alien in the USA to applying for the VFA5 Family permit, unless, the individual has committed a serious crime. There is actually an user, whose husband had an order of removal, applied and successfully obtained it.

Please, read these useful links:

1.- http://twe.ly/E2qb
2.- http://twe.ly/J2qb

jrge wrote:I'm back to share my experience.

My only question is: Where are the jobs?

Congratulations!

That is what I am trying to find all these weeks!, can't wait to be there and start the search !

jrge wrote:Well, actually it's the other way around. The US Federal Government wants to make sure that real "criminals" don't go to another country without paying their debt to our society.

Might well be that the US govt would like to benefit from this. But US federal government does not have a legal role in visa applications to the UK (which are done on the basis of EU free movement law).

jrge wrote:This fingerprinting doesn't prevent any unlawful alien in the USA to applying for the VFA5 Family permit, unless, the individual has committed a serious crime. There is actually an user, whose husband had an order of removal, applied and successfully obtained it.

Have you read anything official which says that people fingerprinted by DHS will only be challenged if they have committed a serious crime? I doubt it. Even immigration irregularities are civil and not criminal matters...

Directive/2004/38/EC wrote: Might well be that the US govt would like to benefit from this. But US federal government does not have a legal role in visa applications to the UK (which are done on the basis of EU free movement law).

That's America after 9-11 . The US implemented a piece of legislation called: Patriot Act. Such legislation, allows the Federal Government to do anything the want, even to interfere in other countries affairs, in order to keep "terrorist" and "potential terrorist" under their watch.

Directive/2004/38/EC wrote: Have you read anything official which says that people fingerprinted by DHS will only be challenged if they have committed a serious crime? I doubt it.

I just lost one of my project managers who had a warrant for his arrest for domestic violence. While applying to obtain his permanent residency, AKA: green card, that warrant came up, he was detained on the spot and is in removal proceedings.

Directive/2004/38/EC wrote:
Even immigration irregularities are civil and not criminal matters...

Here in the US, immigration irregularities are considered simple administrative violations. However, if an individual that had been previously removed from the US, unlawfully re-enters the country and is detained, is subject to criminal charges and will face jail time.

jrge wrote:

Directive/2004/38/EC wrote: Might well be that the US govt would like to benefit from this. But US federal government does not have a legal role in visa applications to the UK (which are done on the basis of EU free movement law).

That's America after 9-11 . The US implemented a piece of legislation called: Patriot Act. Such legislation, allows the Federal Government to do anything the want, even to interfere in other countries affairs, in order to keep "terrorist" and "potential terrorist" under their watch.

Directive/2004/38/EC wrote: Have you read anything official which says that people fingerprinted by DHS will only be challenged if they have committed a serious crime? I doubt it.

I just lost one of my project managers who had a warrant for his arrest for domestic violence. While applying to obtain his permanent residency, AKA: green card, that warrant came up, he was detained on the spot and is in removal proceedings.

And my point was that it may not make sense for the UK govt to use DHS for fingerprinting applicants under UK (and specifically EU) law. Your observations reinforce that!

Directive/2004/38/EC wrote: And my point was that it may not make sense for the UK govt to use DHS for fingerprinting applicants under UK (and specifically EU) law. Your observations reinforce that!

Sorry for not getting back to you any sooner. Could I ask you why may not make sense for the UK govt to use DHS for fingerprinting applicants under UK (and specifically EU) law?

jrge wrote:

Directive/2004/38/EC wrote: And my point was that it may not make sense for the UK govt to use DHS for fingerprinting applicants under UK (and specifically EU) law. Your observations reinforce that!

Sorry for not getting back to you any sooner. Could I ask you why may not make sense for the UK govt to use DHS for fingerprinting applicants under UK (and specifically EU) law?

Because it makes the US government a gatekeeper for entry to the UK.

You would expect that if a FBI-most-wanted-list person applies for a UK visa, that he/she would go to the DHS office to be fingerprinted. When the match comes up positive (I am assuming in real time), they would immediately arrest the applicant in the DHS office. While in practice I am probably happy that baddies get arrested at the first opportunity, the problem comes in other cases.

Lets say the applicant has outstanding immigration issues in the US? Or is wanted by for violating a 250 year old statute prohibiting oral s.e.x. by some state? Or because of, god knows, NY city parking tickets? The mere prospect of DHS fingerprinting applicants may prevent them from applying, in a very different way than if it was consulate employees doing the fingerprinting for their internal purposes.

I can not speak to UK law and to applications under UK law. That might be fully legal to outsource this work to US DHS.

But there are some very narrow rules for the issue of free movement visas to non-EU family of EU citizens. And giving fingerprints of applicants and allowing them to have defacto right of refusal is not one of them.

Do you know if DHS provides the British embassy with an indication of criminal records along with the fingerprints?

Directive/2004/38/EC wrote:Because it makes the US government a gatekeeper for entry to the UK.

The US has imposed the fingerprinting rule to prevent "serious" offenders from leaving the country, and the UK government might use this to ensure not such of "baddies" get a free pass.

Directive/2004/38/EC wrote:You would expect that if a FBI-most-wanted-list person applies for a UK visa, that he/she would go to the DHS office to be fingerprinted. When the match comes up positive (I am assuming in real time), they would immediately arrest the applicant in the DHS office. While in practice I am probably happy that baddies get arrested at the first opportunity, the problem comes in other cases.

It isn't only with the FBI database, but with DHS database. Remember, DHS gathers all the agencies, FBI, CIA, ICE. And, well, if a known criminal tries to do such of thing, deserves to be arrested on the spot.

Directive/2004/38/EC wrote:Lets say the applicant has outstanding immigration issues in the US?

Once again, this is a simple administrative violation. Even if the applicant has an order of removal, (aka: deportation) can apply and obtain a Family permit to enter the UK. NO QUESTIONS ASKED..!

Directive/2004/38/EC wrote:But there are some very narrow rules for the issue of free movement visas to non-EU family of EU citizens. And giving fingerprints of applicants and allowing them (UK Government) to have defacto right of refusal is not one of them.

I must give you this one. If we consider the fact the UK government is cracking down on immigration of non-EEA in order to protect themselves (economically speaking) , then yes, it is wrong and could and should be challenged in the court of law. Developed nations, the UK included, wanted and pushed for globalization. Well, as we "the rest of the world" got educated and can now compete with them, they feel now overtaken and threaten. Ain't that something else?

Directive/2004/38/EC wrote:Do you know if DHS provides the British embassy with an indication of criminal records along with the fingerprints?

Yes, for every application.

jrge wrote:

Directive/2004/38/EC wrote:Because it makes the US government a gatekeeper for entry to the UK.

The US has imposed the fingerprinting rule to prevent "serious" offenders from leaving the country, and the UK government might use this to ensure not such of "baddies" get a free pass.

The US imposed nothing in this situation. The UK govt is the one who decided to use the services of DHS.

How much did you have to pay DHS for them to process your fingerprints and send them to the British embassy?

Directive/2004/38/EC wrote:How much did you have to pay DHS for them to process your fingerprints and send them to the British embassy?

I just paid them a visit! This is a free service.

Applicant only needs to get to the facility, show the security officer the unique registration document and passport (Not even an State issued ID), get a number, get fingerprinted, photographed and in about 10 minutes, you are on your way to Starbucks!

Like I've mentioned before, only those applicants with serious crimes (felonies) and those on the terrorist watch list, are the ones the Government is after.

Good that it is free!

jrge wrote:Like I've mentioned before, only those applicants with serious crimes (felonies) and those on the terrorist watch list, are the ones the Government is after.

I assume you are not privy to the inner workings of the DHS, and that this is a guess?

Directive/2004/38/EC wrote: I assume you are not privy to the inner workings of the DHS, and that this is a guess?

No, I am not privy to the inner workings of the DHS, and this isn't a wild guess either. As a concerned citizen, I asked why the need of biometrics in the first place, and the ICE officer told me what I've written several times now. They only want to apprehend serious offenders, not those with : unpaid traffic tickets, or those weirdos walking naked in a park.