Visa put on hold

[rajauk]

I have just completed my reply to unjustified decision to hold my application on not meeting the financial requirement, thought will ask your thoughts. Does it sound too strong or do you think its fine. I am writing from my wife's perspective as she is the one who received the decision.

I am writing in response to the letter I received, dated ******* informing me that my visa application has been put on hold due to my spouse not meeting the minimum income threshold. It seems there has been massive misunderstanding by the ECO in reaching the decision as my spouse does meet the financial requirement according to rules and guidance provided by the UKBA. I will in this letter show you why the decision is wrong and as my spouse does meet the financial requirement and all the required evidence which is already with you, my visa should be issued promptly as that is only reason according to letter I did not receive the visa.

It seems by providing information regarding my husband’s second job. It has confused the ECO in to making the wrong decision.

I was only relying on my husband’s job at ************* and savings to meet the financial requirement. The information regarding my husband’s second job was only included to explain the salary coming in to his bank from *************. It seems in endeavour to give as much information as possible, we may have confused the ECO.

The evidence and information that I provided with my application and is currently with you proves that we do meet the financial requirement.

I feel it’s unfair, immoral and unjust even after meeting all the stringent requirements of UKBA and the effort that it entails, a wrong decision has been taken by the ECO which will result in prolonging our misery and effecting our human rights to family life. We have already waited anxiously for 3 months before we received this unjust and unexplainable decision which has shocked me and will extend our misery.

Firstly even though in my application as well as my husband’s sponsorship letter we made it clear that we were not relying on my husband’s second job at ************ to meet the financial requirement, the ECO used it to reach his decision. We were only relying on my husband’s job at ******** and the savings we have to meet the requirements. As far as we are aware as long as it’s within rules and guidance we can meet the financial requirement with any combination. But for some odd reason in your decision letter in paragraph 4 it states,

“You say in your Appendix 2 that your sponsor is employed with ********* and is paid an annual gross salary of £9314. You state that he is also employed in a second job for less than 6 months prior to the date of application. In respect to your sponsor’s salaried employment in the UK you should provide the following:”

As I had already mentioned in my application as well as my husband’s sponsorship letter we were not relaying on the second job. The ECO’s decision is based on wrong assumption in (a) and (c).

The above that we were not relying on the second job were mentioned at the following in the original application papers:-

1) Appendix 2 (VAF4A November 2012) Financial Requirement Form. Part 5 – Continuation and additional information - Part 5 continued on additional pages 1 of 3 in paragraph 1.
2) In my husband’s sponsorship letter page 3 paragraph 2.

So it seems the ECO missed this vital information as result of which he reached the wrong conclusion.

The other reason I have been refused is cash savings, where it states in the decision letter,

“Your sponsor also cites cash savings to meet the financial requirements of the Rules. However, you have not provided evidence of the required level of savings held continuously by you or your sponsor for the past 6 months”

I completely disagree with the above as we have given you evidence to prove that we had savings that meets but also exceeds the required level.

I want to make it as clear as possible how we meet requirements so will explain in detail how we do and that you already have the evidence and information which proves this.

As mentioned earlier I am relying on my husband’s job at ********* and cash savings to meet the financial requirement which fall under Category A and D.

According to the guidance in Section-FM-1.7 in Section 5 Salaried and non-salaried employment it gives the guidance on how we can meet the financial requirement. So according to given guidance: -

I am able to use my husband’s employment at ********* where he had worked for more than 6 months on a non-salaried basis as he was paid hourly towards meeting the requirement.

On the basis of above and using the formula given, my husband’s 6 month income from ********** was -

In six months to ********* 2013, my husband earned a total of £5025.70 which when divided by 6 months gives an average monthly income of £837.61.
As this is monthly income, it is annualised so the annual income is £837.61x12=£10051.32

£10051.32 is the gross salary that the ECO should have taken in to account rather than the lower figure of £9314 that the ECO assumed according to the guidance.

The evidence required for the above is covered in Section-FM-1.7 Section 5.6. Salaried and non-salaried employment – specified evidence that need to be met.

In my application I supplied all the requested evidence. Which included 6 months wage slips (in fact I sent 12 months of wage slips when only 6 months was required and my P60 for financial year 2012-2013), 6 months of bank statements showing salary being paid in to them as well as letter from my employer confirming my employment. So all the specified evidence requirements were met by us to prove the above income.

As the above income from my husband’s salary alone was not enough to meet the financial requirement of an income of £18,600, we used our saving to meet the requirement as can be done according to guidance.

The shortfall was as follows:

£18600-£10051.32=£8548.68

Therefore according to guidance in Section-FM-1.7 Section 7. Cash savings, the required savings needed to meet the financial requirement is:-

£8548.68x2.5 +16000= £37371.70

So we needed £37,371.70 to meet the financial requirement. As during the 6 month qualifying period the lowest amount of savings we held during this period was £40,012 in my accounts. At the time of application my husband held £45,273 in saving accounts. As all the money held is in Pound sterling that is the exact figure I had. As my husband is in employment according to guidance £45,273 pounds should be counted as the savings.

According to guidance in Section-FM-1.7 Section 7.2 further information, we meet the required evidence to prove the money is ours. This evidence was provided with the original application. It included statements for 6 months from accounts in which the savings are held and my husband in his statement and I in the application confirming that the money is ours and under our control.

Therefore according to the above sums our savings exceed the required level so we meet the financial requirement.

As I have explained above unless I have completely misunderstood the law, rules and guidance I meet the financial requirement. If I don’t, I would request the ECO to explain to me where I have made a mistake in calculating that I meet the financial requirement. If the ECO
still thinks I do not meet the requirement, could the ECO please inform me what other evidence ECO needs to overturn the decision. I have in my opinion provided everything that was requested with my application and fulfilled all the requirements.

Otherwise I would kindly request the ECO to grant me visa so I can join my husband in United Kingdom.

I would also like to inform you that my husband intends to take legal advice and consider his legal options considering we believe we have provided all evidence requested and an unlawful decision was made in putting our application on hold. He also intends to involve his local MP and raise this issue through him to concerned minister if we do not receive a reply in an appropriate time frame.


What do you lot think I have examined the letter from ECO forensically and then replied to them informing him why he is wrong. I intend to email this early next also ask my wife to post one signed copy to high commission.
Regards,
raja

[Amber]

Please continue in your other thread