wife is96 temporary admission-no work, live at X and report.

[Obie]

As i said before, if you are applying as a partner, then there are mandatory conditions, like two years cohabitation, which has to be met.

In your case, your relationship has not endured for a period of 2 years, therefore your partner cannot qualify as such.

The UKBA stopped their, and fail to consider the your wife under the British Child route.

[Ayyubi72]

NO right of appeal = They could not give you right of appeal. Out of time applications which are refused have no right of appeal, even on article 8 grounds.

Reporting = A routine procedure.

EEA 2 on Zambrano grounds = Refusal is guaranteed, not to mention a long long wait before you get refusal. Whichever solicitor suggested EEA 2 on Zambrano grounds seems to have no clue what Zambrano is about.

In my opinion, the best way forward is a simple application based on established family life, children etc. You are most likely to succeed this way and your wife is most likely to get 10 years settlement route. She will be given 2.5 years visa four times and then ILR. Once she gets her first time 2.5 years visa, then further applications will merely be a formality. Basically you will pay the fees and get further 3 visas.

If by off chance, and if a caseworker is on drugs, and your application is refused, then still won't get right of appeal, but a success at JR is guaranteed (well, almost, I must add.)

[east579new]

Just spoke to the scoliciter today and they told me the barrister said the case JR does not have enough merit for public funding(which we never assumed we always had the intention of funding it ourselves, the scoliciter said he is happy to go ahead and prepare for JR if thats what we want) and the scoliciter said if we decided to pay ourselves there is no garantuee of success(which we already new as nothing in life is garunteed).



They made alternative suggestions like get married then put a new application in now we dont know what to do i really want to fight this point now as if we got married then put another application in they would just find another excuse to refuse i really dont know what to do?.

[sublime688]

It seems to me those non-EEA partners who unfortunately get separated from their British Citizen partners due to arguments, fights or whatever, are the ones who are most favoured by the all elusive Appendix FM. I have noticed from research that when they get access rights to the children, they get the leave granted almost always. How ironic, that families that are together are not encouraged to stay together by the rules. The cases of the couples in this thread is testimony of this. It appears the government by their Rules are rewarding separated non-EEA parents with leave to remain under the Rules.Some may say there is a point in the way Appendix FM operates, but I find it really odd.

[east579new]

It seems to me those non-EEA partners who unfortunately get separated from their British Citizen partners due to arguments, fights or whatever, are the ones who are most favoured by the all elusive Appendix FM. I have noticed from research that when they get access rights to the children, they get the leave granted almost always. How ironic, that families that are together are not encouraged to stay together by the rules. The cases of the couples in this thread is testimony of this. It appears the government by their Rules are rewarding separated non-EEA parents with leave to remain under the Rules.Some may say there is a point in the way Appendix FM operates, but I find it really odd.

What you have said there sublime is exactly the conclusion i have drawn too from reading various similar situations on these forums.

Unfortunately the UKBA don’t even follow there own rules and guidance in these situations anymore i have the impression now legal aid has finished they are refusing most of these applications as a matter of course counting on the fact some people may not have the ability to fight back anymore(ill re phrase that counting on the fact that most people no longer have access to the legal system-justice).

They will never issue removal instructions as that activates a right of appeal thus leaving people in limbo, and hoping people become that frustrated that they give up and leave of there own accord.

The UKBA is a corrupt organization who are a law unto themselves hopefully it wont be long before they get found out and someone puts a stop too this, they think they can just air brush (cleanse) parents from there children’s life’s they are wrong THEY MAKE ME SICK they are not fit for purpose.

[Choc-Ice]

It seems to me those non-EEA partners who unfortunately get separated from their British Citizen partners due to arguments, fights or whatever, are the ones who are most favoured by the all elusive Appendix FM. I have noticed from research that when they get access rights to the children, they get the leave granted almost always. How ironic, that families that are together are not encouraged to stay together by the rules. The cases of the couples in this thread is testimony of this. It appears the government by their Rules are rewarding separated non-EEA parents with leave to remain under the Rules.Some may say there is a point in the way Appendix FM operates, but I find it really odd.

What you have said there sublime is exactly the conclusion i have drawn too from reading various similar situations on these forums.

Unfortunately the UKBA don’t even follow there own rules and guidance in these situations anymore i have the impression now legal aid has finished they are refusing most of these applications as a matter of course counting on the fact some people may not have the ability to fight back anymore(ill re phrase that counting on the fact that most people no longer have access to the legal system-justice).

They will never issue removal instructions as that activates a right of appeal thus leaving people in limbo, and hoping people become that frustrated that they give up and leave of there own accord.

The UKBA is a corrupt organization who are a law unto themselves hopefully it wont be long before they get found out and someone puts a stop too this, they think they can just air brush (cleanse) parents from there children’s life’s they are wrong THEY MAKE ME SICK they are not fit for purpose.

Very precise conclusion! I sort of fall into the same category really. The only positive side is that I was given the option to appeal and my appeal hearing is in a few weeks.

I thought the appendix FM was really straight forward at first but because I live with my partner and son (both British) they refused the application! What really amused me was the fact that nowhere in the decision did this people even put the child 'best interest' into consideration. Now if I separate from them and apply for a LTR they will then turn around and grant that. That is just unacceptable!

[east579new]

It seems to me those non-EEA partners who unfortunately get separated from their British Citizen partners due to arguments, fights or whatever, are the ones who are most favoured by the all elusive Appendix FM. I have noticed from research that when they get access rights to the children, they get the leave granted almost always. How ironic, that families that are together are not encouraged to stay together by the rules. The cases of the couples in this thread is testimony of this. It appears the government by their Rules are rewarding separated non-EEA parents with leave to remain under the Rules.Some may say there is a point in the way Appendix FM operates, but I find it really odd.

What you have said there sublime is exactly the conclusion i have drawn too from reading various similar situations on these forums.

Unfortunately the UKBA don’t even follow there own rules and guidance in these situations anymore i have the impression now legal aid has finished they are refusing most of these applications as a matter of course counting on the fact some people may not have the ability to fight back anymore(ill re phrase that counting on the fact that most people no longer have access to the legal system-justice).

They will never issue removal instructions as that activates a right of appeal thus leaving people in limbo, and hoping people become that frustrated that they give up and leave of there own accord.

The UKBA is a corrupt organization who are a law unto themselves hopefully it wont be long before they get found out and someone puts a stop too this, they think they can just air brush (cleanse) parents from there children’s life’s they are wrong THEY MAKE ME SICK they are not fit for purpose.

Very precise conclusion! I sort of fall into the same category really. The only positive side is that I was given the option to appeal and my appeal hearing is in a few weeks.

I thought the appendix FM was really straight forward at first but because I live with my partner and son (both British) they refused the application! What really amused me was the fact that nowhere in the decision did this people even put the child 'best interest' into consideration. Now if I separate from them and apply for a LTR they will then turn around and grant that. That is just unacceptable!

I couldn’t agree more then there’s the other aspect which really gets to me where you get a family with whom there are no British citizens involved and they seem to grant leave for them also without any problem its as if your child THE BRITISH CITIZEN and the BRITISH CITIZEN PARENTS rights count for nothing.

[Obie]

I am deeply troubled as to why your barrister told you there is not much merit. Surely there is. The decision seem very flawed, as the best interest of the child was given no consideration, it may seem.

[sedor21]

It seems to me those non-EEA partners who unfortunately get separated from their British Citizen partners due to arguments, fights or whatever, are the ones who are most favoured by the all elusive Appendix FM. I have noticed from research that when they get access rights to the children, they get the leave granted almost always. How ironic, that families that are together are not encouraged to stay together by the rules. The cases of the couples in this thread is testimony of this. It appears the government by their Rules are rewarding separated non-EEA parents with leave to remain under the Rules.Some may say there is a point in the way Appendix FM operates, but I find it really odd.

What you have said there sublime is exactly the conclusion i have drawn too from reading various similar situations on these forums.

Unfortunately the UKBA don’t even follow there own rules and guidance in these situations anymore i have the impression now legal aid has finished they are refusing most of these applications as a matter of course counting on the fact some people may not have the ability to fight back anymore(ill re phrase that counting on the fact that most people no longer have access to the legal system-justice).

They will never issue removal instructions as that activates a right of appeal thus leaving people in limbo, and hoping people become that frustrated that they give up and leave of there own accord.

The UKBA is a corrupt organization who are a law unto themselves hopefully it wont be long before they get found out and someone puts a stop too this, they think they can just air brush (cleanse) parents from there children’s life’s they are wrong THEY MAKE ME SICK they are not fit for purpose.

But in my own case they did not consider the children aswell and my first son will be 7years in march 2014 am so disturbed now dont know what do maybe to go for JR or wait my son is 7 years and apply or build a proof of address for 2yrs

[Obie]

They would not,, as exception 1 doesnt apply. 7 years is alternate to British Citizenship, so as you children are British, it does not apply.

[sedor21]

They would not,, as exception 1 doesnt apply. 7 years is alternate to British Citizenship, so as you children are British, it does not apply.

Thanks Obie Now am understanding the law but what about the 2yr address and if we did not do JR do you think they could remove her with her living with 4 british citizen.

[east579new]

Im confused by this Obie as you state that in my case you cant understand why the best interests of the child were not taken into consideration but in sedor's case you state they wouldn't take into consideration the best interests of the child what do you mean and why the difference?.

[Obie]

Taking the best interest of a child is an ongoing duty under section 55. It should always be considered in the decision making process.


I think that post could have been properly constructed.

What i intended to say is that Exception 1 will not be applicable, if the person does not meet the mandatory requirements of the category they are applying under.

In both your cases, you are in a relationship with your partners, so you cannot qualify under the parents route, as you have to either be solely responsible, or the children normally lives with you to qualify.

You are unable to qualify under the partner's route, as you have not lived in an unmarried relationship.

In those circumstance, you will fail under the rules to qualify.

The rules don't define the full scope of Article 8, or the duty under section 55. Decision maker are required to look at the implications of their actions on the welfare of a child.

Exception 1 purport to take implement article 8 requirement, and best interest of a child, but it doesn't.

One can only qualify if the meet the mandatory substantive rules in the category under which they have applied.

The best interest requirement is significantly broader than that.

That post was not clear enough, and could have been better explained or structured.

In summary, what i sort to say in that post is as follows.

1. Ex 1 will only apply if a person meets the substantive mandatory rules in the category they applied under.

2. 7 Years rule is alternate to British or Settled child, a person who has a British or Settled child, don't need to show the child has lived in the UK for 7 years.

3. Section 55 is an ongoing duty on the decision maker. Exception 1 is significantly restrictive than the scope of the section 55 duties.

The authorities are in all circumstances, required to take account of the best interest of a child under section 55.

[east579new]

Taking the best interest of a child is an ongoing duty under section 55. It should always be considered in the decision making process.


I think that post could have been properly constructed.

What i intended to say is that Exception 1 will not be applicable, if the person does not meet the mandatory requirements of the category they are applying under.

In both your cases, you are in a relationship with your partners, so you cannot qualify under the parents route, as you have to either be solely responsible, or the children normally lives with you to qualify.

You are unable to qualify under the partner's route, as you have not lived in an unmarried relationship.

In those circumstance, you will fail under the rules to qualify.

The rules don't define the full scope of Article 8, or the duty under section 55. Decision maker are required to look at the implications of their actions on the welfare of a child.

Exception 1 purport to take implement article 8 requirement, and best interest of a child, but it doesn't.

One can only qualify if the meet the mandatory substantive rules in the category under which they have applied.

The best interest requirement is significantly broader than that.

That post was not clear enough, and could have been better explained or structured.

In summary, what i sort to say in that post is as follows.

1. Ex 1 will only apply if a person meets the substantive mandatory rules in the category they applied under.

2. 7 Years rule is alternate to British or Settled child, a person who has a British or Settled child, don't need to show the child has lived in the UK for 7 years.

3. Section 55 is an ongoing duty on the decision maker. Exception 1 is significantly restrictive than the scope of the section 55 duties.

The authorities are in all circumstances, required to take account of the best interest of a child under section 55.

Thanks Obie, just a quick update on my partners situation we never went for the judicial review on the FLR(0) decision as our immigration advisor advised us it would be best to wait a couple of months until we reach 2 years cohabitation then submit a new application.
We also fell foul of the little trick they play when you send the letter before claim asking them to think about changing there minds before judicial review action, you know where they claim they didn't know your legal representative, was representing you and asked for an authority letter then they just never responded thus the JR clock run down.

[east579new]

Just a quick update its been a while now and still no sign of the UKBA.

[wiggsy]

Just a quick update its been a while now and still no sign of the UKBA.

East. Im gonna PM you my email address