Very sad and scared

[cobalt]

My wife currently has a spouse visa, part 1, that expires in November. Her son is also here on a family visa that is linked to her visa.

We have parted. That's the sad bit. The scary bit is that she is alleging that she is a victim of domestic abuse and is looking to apply for the victims of domestic abuse visa.

I know some forum members will have very strong feelings about this, and I respect that completely - so do I as a matter of fact. But I have not done the things that she has told the police I did to her, nor would I. The police are investigating and that's all I can say about that - suffice to say I am defending myself against her accusations.

My understanding is that in normal circumstances, if her spouse visa lapses (i.e. if we don't get the second part in November - which obviously we won't) the HO will give her 60 days notice to leave the country. However, by initiating the claim that she is a victim of domestic abuse, the clock stops on her current status and she is allowed to remain here to pursue her victim visa.

Am I right in assuming this?

[AmazonianX]

Your assumption is right and she may get leave to stay via the DV route if she proves her case well with evidence.

[cobalt]

This seems to be problematic.

If the HO accept her claims before any court case that would be highly prejudicial to me, and if they reject her claims, that would be prejudicial to her.

[CR001]

Just to clarify, her clock on her current visa doesn't stop. It only stops IF she is granted another visa, ie grant of another visa supercedes her spouse visa and the spouse visa is cancelled.

Also not that if her visa expires in November, and she has not applied for another visa she qualifies for before expiry, she becomes an overstayer. She doesn't get another 60 days etc after visa expiry.

[cobalt]

Thanks - I had wondered about that as well.

[cobalt]

Am I also right in assuming that applying for the second part of the spouse visa is not something she could do independent of me? I presume I would need to be involved in that process as well?

[CR001]

Am I also right in assuming that applying for the second part of the spouse visa is not something she could do independent of me? I presume I would need to be involved in that process as well?

Correct, she cannot apply for a spouse visa extension without you or your support.

[cobalt]

Last point, if she applies for the DV route, would I be informed of that?

[CR001]

Last point, if she applies for the DV route, would I be informed of that?

Unlikely.

[AmazonianX]

Last point, if she applies for the DV route, would I be informed of that? No

[cobalt]

Ok. Thanks

[cobalt]

I have a question that I'm not sure can be answered!

The HO will assess my wife's allegations as part of her application for the DV visa, but they have a lower standard of evidence in granting these visas than a judicial process would require for a conviction.

I'm struggling with the logic. If UKIV give her a DV visa, that's one branch of the HO accepting as fact that I am guilty of DV, all the while another branch of the HO - the CPS/Police - is having to build a viable case before charging or not charging me of DV.

Am I missing something here, or does anyone else think this is something of a problem?

Thanks

[alterhase58]

Can't really answer to your concerns.
But note the CPS is not part of the Home Office, and is a non-ministerial body, which means it's not answerable to a govt. minister as I understand it.
The CPS was founded in 1986. Before then it was the Police that brought criminal prosecutions to court.

[Frontier Mole]

Not to belittle DV in any way or form but the route being pursued by your wife is not that unusual or uncommon for individuals on a spouse visa. Many migrant spouses make DV allegations as part of a strategy to remain in the U.K. particularly at the end of the initial spouse visa period.

The Home Office will ask your wife for numerous pieces of evidence to support her claim. Usually police, social worker or DV Charity organisations reports. Because there is a noted trend of misuse of DV allegations the burden of proof lays heavily on those reports and very little on your wife’s allegations.

If your relationship is over then I suggest you report this to the Home Office as that will in itself start a process to bring the spouse visa to an end. Remember the U.K. has a no fault divorce process so I would recommend you research that and begin the divorce.

[cobalt]

Thank you for your comments.

I have no idea what - if any - reports or otherwise exist out there as a result of her involving the police (I actually don't even know if SHE involved them or if a neighbour or other contacted them.) I'm completely in the dark as to what she has told other agencies but I do know that she provided a statement to the police (highly unfavourable to me and not the truth) and that the police have or are sending the case to the CPS.

My solicitor has advised me against either notifying the HO at this point about the breakdown of the marriage, or initiating any divorce action. He takes the view that until they have had a chance of getting the case dropped by the police or CPS, it is best to not do anything that might look antagonistic to her. I see their point, but I also know that I will have to let the HO know at some point, either by direct contact before the end of the 1st part of the Spouse visa in November, or de jura by not applying for the 2nd part before it becomes due.

In my non-lawyer mind, if the police are sufficiently certain of a CPS charge, because of the differential in the threshold of evidence, that in itself will be enough for the HO in determining her DV visa application. But, I may be wrong on this (I certainly hope I am).

A subsidiary question also arises, albeit about a scenario that I am not actively pursuing right now. Would MY criminal record (if convicted) prevent me from being a sponsor of any future wife requiring a UK visa? As I say, this is moonshine at the moment, but if anyone knows, it would be good to have the full picture.

Many thanks

[Frontier Mole]

The CPS will determine if there is sufficient evidence to warrant charges against you. The police will present the case no matter what level of evidence there is, it is the CPS to determine if there is a case worth pursuing. If the CPS do not pursue charges then that ends the matter.

For the purposes of the DV case the HO will look at the same evidence that is presented by your wife. As you know the standard of evidence is set at the balance of probability and not the criminal standard of beyond reasonable doubt.

I personally disagree with the legal opinion given re HO and divorce, if the marriage is over it is not about antagonism it is about fact. I would absolutely inform the HO at this point. You are no longer in a subsisting relationship and the HO will only note the position, it is unlikely they will action visa curtailment with less than six moths before the expiry of the visa.

As for criminal records and the future sponsorship of a spouse, it is not something that gets considered.

[cobalt]

Many thanks - I also have doubts concerning my solicitor's advice on the HO matter.

[cobalt]

This is more of a technical question but nonetheless a very important one (it would seem to me).

If UKIV issue a DV visa based on evidence given my my ex, that means they have accepted that I guilty of domestic abuse. In that case, surely I have to be notified of this? Or are we living in a state where official documentation can exist that assumes guilt of a crime and there is no requirement to inform the "guilty" person?

Habeous Corpus ?

[Frontier Mole]

I suspect based on your comments that there is a reasonable belief that there was some form of domestic abuse, at least enough for the police to take note and push the case to CPS.
There is every possibility that your wife will be granted a DV visa, solely based on the evidence that she will probably be able to present. You seem overly concerned about your “rights” to know what the Home Office considers or not. You will not have access to any of your wife’s records or the evidence she presents. If by the measurement on the balance of probability suggests the DV threshold is met the Home Office will grant a visa. Does that information need to be shared with you, no it does not. Are you entitled to query, question or make representations - no. Does it impact on you, no. Your marriage is over therefore the spouse visa will come to an end. This is an administrative matter as far as the Home Office is concerned, nothing more.

[cobalt]

Are you serious?

Whatever you suspect, I know the following:

I did not do the thing she alleged to the police. We'll let the court service deal with that one.

As for seeming to be "overly concerned" about my ""rights"" to know what the Home Office has determined about me in respect of these allegations - would you not be? Are you seriously suggesting that UK citizens are not entitled to be made aware of what statutory bodies have decided about them? Exactly what is unusual about wanting to know this?

Does it impact on me? Well, let's start with the presumption of innocence. Somewhat tainted I would argue if the prosecution can point to a government department and say, well look here, they've already decided he is guilty. So there's that.

A quasi judicial - at best - a non judicial body in fact, adjudicating on someone's guilt or otherwise BEFORE the judicial process is even started? Yes, that sounds a little dodgy as well!

Reputation, DBS, employment problems, financial strain, stress, yes, they impact on me.

You assert yourself in earlier messages that the DV route is a well trodden one for people who want to circumvent the normal family/spouse visa one; that there are cases of this is uncontroversial. That those people would choose to make up allegations about partners who no longer wished to remain married to them, and therefore who would be at imminent risk of losing their existing visa entitlements, seems to me to be inevitable: they have nothing to lose in doing so. If their spouse visa runs out, they leave the UK, if they make a false allegation and it is accepted by the lower standard of evidence, they get to stay, if they don't get it they go back. It really is a complete zero sum game for them.

And you seem to think that not only is that ok, we should also allow it to happen without the involvement - in any circumstance - of the person who is being placed under suspicion. Who, by the way, is the ONLY person who can repudiate or counter the allegations that have been made against him which the HO would then be able to consider in their decision making.

Let me bring you up to speed on my case. One evening in late May, I was mowing my lawn when 4 police officers turned up at my home - 24 hours after my wife and I had had an argument - and I was arrested following an allegation of domestic abuse. I was processed, handcuffed, put in a cell and told nothing else until 3am in the morning when I was interviewed under caution and told that my wife had alleged I had tried to strangle her and that the charge against me would be non fatal strangulation.

24 hours before that my wife was standing in out hall with the front door open screaming at the top of her voice 'HELP ME HELP ME." The front door was open and our neighbours were having a BBQ in their garden, about 15 m away. My wife has a habit of doing this. Two weeks earlier, when I had tried to get away from her while she was attacking me, and had run into my ageing father's home and tried to close the front door, she pushed the door so hard that she broke the lock. When I stood in the doorway to prevent her from entering his house, she stood on the street and shouted "DAD DAD HE'S TRYING TO HURT ME." Dad is 90 in September, poorly and frail. On other occasions she has texted or called friends or associates of mine and lied to them about me and then later on - sometimes as quickly as the same day - she has contacted them again and retracted what she told them, and apologised. She has written me long tracts of abuse and allegations and then equally long equally impassioned messages apologising for and retracting everything she wrote in the first ones. She has scratched both sides of my face with all her fingers so deeply that I have had four lines of blood on either side of my face and deep gashes that required me to take time off work because there's no way I could disguise them as anything other than what they were. Why didn't I want people at work to see them, or neighbours/people on the street at my dad's home to hear her screaming and accusations? Well, it may surprise you to learn, I was aware that our marriage needed to be a genuine one if we were to successfully apply for the second part of her spouse visa in November, and that therefore it was a really bad idea to take her wildly exaggerated and unfounded allegations out into public. In short, I didn't want her to be deported by her own actions, because - amazingly - I loved her.

And so, on the night in question, as she stood in the hallway screaming, I tried to put my hand gently on her mouth to stop her. In all honesty, I don't even know if I made any contact with her at all, because she immediately started to hit me with both hands. I walked away. Now, technically, that very well may be domestic abuse.

And that was why the police bailed me with conditions which means that for 6 weeks now, I haven't been to my own home, I have't slept in my own bed, showered in my own bathroom, cooked in my own Spam. I haven't spoken to her or her son (or in fact had any contact), I haven't seen my dog (who she never walks) I haven't been in my office from which I work, or had access to any of my personal documents, tools of my job, clothes. It's why I am couch surfing at friend's and family's homes, getting in their way, it's why my DBS now shows an arrest - thus making getting work very difficult. It's why my life has basically come to an end, it's why something as simple as wanting to sit in a favourite chair for a few minutes and do sod all has become like a fantasy for me.

And I know nothing else from that point, except that I am to return to the police station next week at which time, my solicitor tells me, it is most likely the police will extend the bail and the conditions for another 3 months.

So yes, all in all, I think I would like to know if the Home Office deem me to be guilty of domestic abuse. I'm living a nightmare - and it could get worse. I could go to jail. I'm a grandfather, in a small town. That would be lovely for them wouldn't it?

Should a court case take place, I just hope I don't get 12 jurors with your uncanny knack to assume guilt without knowledge of the case, and maybe one or two who share my ever-so-controversial view that people should be aware of what public bodies have on their files.

Good grief.

[AmazonianX]

You have engaged solicitor on the matter, let them do what you engaged them for. If you are doubting their competency, it's time to change.
Online here maybe good to vent and get perspectives on things, however on here is for sharing experiences, ideas and opinion and understanding/interpretation of the immigration rules. Keep to the part of professionals to resolve things.

[Frontier Mole]

Oh the drama

There is one thing the law does not have and that is emotion. The other sometimes infuriating point is the law is not logical. Mixed together these two elements can give rise to what I refer to as bar room barristers thinking, including the “surely that can’t be right” and belief in “rights” that do not exist. The state holds an abundance of information on individuals for many reasons, some trivial, some are matters of national security, some you have a right of access, some you don’t.

The point you appear to be failing to grasp is that you have absolutely no rights to have any access to your wife’s records or submissions to the Home Office. I will repeat - The decision to grant a DV visa is based on entirely on the submissions made by your wife and other recognised third party organisations. You are not involved, consulted or in any way part of the process as you are simply not part of the considerations for an unassociated visa application by an individual that was formally reliant on you for their spouse visa. Your wife is making an application for leave to remain in her own right that does not involve you in any part of the process. The background noise is the claim of DV, if she had applied for a work visa the rules in play would be the same, you can’t access another person’s information or give comment.

What you say or want to say is irrelevant in the immigration process, it is a caseworker that will decide whether your wife is granted a DV visa on its own merits. You are plainly uncomfortable with the lack of redress or input, unfortunately that is the process. This is not a court or adversarial situation where your evidence or testimony is presented or metered against the other person and public decision is promulgated. It is a private matter between the applicant and the Home Office. In the same way your spouse visa was not subject to the considerations of individuals outside the process.

As I said from an immigration point of view it has no impact on you. If the DV visa is granted or not, you are no longer a feature of your wife’s leave to remain in the U.K. Accepting that for what it is and moving forward to deal with the far more serious matter of the criminal case is probably a better use of your energy. I get it you are personally suffering because of the allegations, the negative impact on your personal life and you are aggrieved at the possibility your wife might get a DV visa. The DV visa is the small stuff.

Does it matter in law whether your wife is granted a DV visa or not for the criminal case - no. The criminal case and the immigration process are completely unrelated, measured against different standards and the immigration decision has no impact on the criminal case. It is not binding on the criminal case, unlike the criminal case, if you were prosecuted, would be binding on the DV application.

You might be missing the bigger picture here, if your wife gets a DV visa you might just find that she is just less willing to proceed with the criminal case…. that would be preferable to a potential court appearance for both you and her

The immigration decision will not be referred to by CPS or relied on for the prosecution of your case as it is merely an administrative process to address the potential regularisation for continued stay in the U.K. Remember there is the possibility that the DV visa is not granted.

[cobalt]

Thank you for your comments.

The point you make about her being satisfied with the DV and dropping the allegations for the criminal case is noted.

On the whole, as I was not aware of the points you make in reference to the DV decision having no judicial element or vice versa, I think my original concern was justified. If I had known that - and I'm pretty sure that's what I was asking for clarification on at some point in this thread - I wouldn't have raised it again. I am many things, but I'm not stupid.

As for the justifications you articulate for their being no requirement to involve the person allegedly responsible for perpetrating the abuse upon which a DV visa is granted, I simply reject them. The HO are not slow at making value judgements on such things as the authenticity of a relationship when making a decision on, say, a spouse visa. Indeed, they solicit statements from ALL parties to the application, in order to provide the evidence they then consider.

You seem confused about my motive, I don't want access to any information about her or her application, I have no strong feeling either way. But you will never convince me that hearing only one side of the allegations (supported and no doubt guided by parties with their own axes to grind) without at least considering the statements of the only other person involved at the time of the allegations, is fair or logical or sensible.

The HO can not claim the spouse visa consideration is as robust as possible BECAUSE they have canvassed as much information as they require, and simultaneously claim their consideration of a DV application is equally robust when they actively ignore an unarguably vital source of evidence completely. That's a nonsense. Both routes lead to a settled status: they both should have the same standard of evidence.

Nonetheless, I am grateful for your reply and in particular your clarification on the points you make in respect of the influence or otherwise of the HO involvement. I would point you to the heading of this thread. I didn't choose those words lightly. To be suddenly and unexpectedly thrown in to a world one knows nothing about, with nobody to guide you, to lose overnight the woman you thought loved you, the step son you had cared for as though he was your own, to be banned from your own property and your own dog, to see one's family members also suffer, all these things are very human things. There is a coldness and a utilitarianism at large in the institutions that deal with you in times like this. It hurts nobody, it changes nothing, to remember we are humans first. All of us.