ESC

Click the "allow" button if you want to receive important news and updates from immigrationboards.com


Immigrationboards.com: Immigration, work visa and work permit discussion board

Welcome to immigrationboards.com!

Login Register Do not show

immigration rule contradicts to the guideline on the cohabitation

Only for queries regarding Indefinite Leave to Remain (ILR). Please use the EU Settlement Scheme forum for queries about settled status under Appendix EU

Moderators: Casa, John, ChetanOjha, archigabe, CR001, push, JAJ, ca.funke, Amber, zimba, vinny, Obie, EUsmileWEallsmile, batleykhan, meself2, geriatrix

Locked
User avatar
cyclina1
Senior Member
Posts: 924
Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2018 1:38 am
Hong Kong

immigration rule contradicts to the guideline on the cohabitation

Post by cyclina1 » Sun Apr 15, 2018 10:45 pm

If you are the PBS dependent of a settled person through PBS 5-year route and the VISA applied after 9 july 2012. You should need 5 years cohabitation, according to UKVI website.

But why this rule cannot be found in the immigration law? It's still 2 years. In this case, the guideline is not necessary to follow as the immigration law is the highest? In this case, actually the caseworker cannot refuse even cohabited less than 5 year but more than 2 years?
I am not a lawyer or immigration advisor. My statements/comments do not constitute legal advice.

User avatar
cyclina1
Senior Member
Posts: 924
Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2018 1:38 am
Hong Kong

Re: immigration rule contradicts to the guideline on the cohabitation

Post by cyclina1 » Sun Apr 15, 2018 11:15 pm

paragraph 287a(i)(d) requires 2 years. and appendix FM has no specific requirement about 5 years rule neither.
I am not a lawyer or immigration advisor. My statements/comments do not constitute legal advice.

secret.simon
Moderator
Posts: 11261
Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2013 9:29 pm

Re: immigration rule contradicts to the guideline on the cohabitation

Post by secret.simon » Sun Apr 15, 2018 11:26 pm

Immigration Rule 319E. Requirements for indefinite leave to remain - (Partners of relevant points-based system migrants) wrote: (d) The applicant and the Relevant Points Based System Migrant must have been living together in the UK in a marriage or civil partnership, or in a relationship similar to marriage or civil partnership, for at least the applicable specified period in either (i) or (ii), subject to (iii): (i) If the applicant was granted leave as:
  • (a) the Partner of that Relevant Points Based System Migrant, or
  • (b) the spouse or civil partner, unmarried or same-sex partner of that person at a time when that person had leave under another category of these Rules
under the Rules in place before 9 July 2012, and since then has had continuous leave as the Partner of that Relevant Points based System Migrant, the specified period is 2 years

(ii) If (i) does not apply, the specified period is a continuous period of 5 years, during which the applicant must:
  • (a) have been in a relationship with the same Relevant Points Based System Migrant for this entire period,
  • (b) have spent the most recent part of the 5 year period with leave as the Partner of that Relevant Points Based System Migrant, and during that part of the period have met all of the requirements of paragraph 319C(a) to (e),
  • (c) have spent the remainder of the 5 year period, where applicable, with leave as the spouse or civil partner, unmarried or same-sex partner of that person at a time when that person had leave under another category of these Rules, and
  • (d) not have been absent from the UK for more than 180 days during any 12 month period in the continuous period, except that:
    • (1) any absence from the UK for the purpose of assisting with a national or international humanitarian or environmental crisis overseas shall not count towards the 180 days, if the applicant provides evidence that this was the purpose of the absence(s), and
    • (2) any absence from the UK during periods of leave granted under the Rules in place before 11 January 2018 shall not count towards the 180 days.
(iii) Any time spent lawfully in the Bailiwick of Guernsey, Bailiwick of Jersey or the Isle of Man shall be deemed to be time spent in the UK.
I am not a lawyer or immigration advisor. My statements/comments do not constitute legal advice. E&OE. Please do not PM me for advice.

User avatar
cyclina1
Senior Member
Posts: 924
Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2018 1:38 am
Hong Kong

Re: immigration rule contradicts to the guideline on the cohabitation

Post by cyclina1 » Sun Apr 15, 2018 11:52 pm

(b) have spent the most recent part of the 5 year period with leave as the Partner of that Relevant Points Based System Migrant, and during that part of the period have met all of the requirements of paragraph 319C(a) to (e),

Obviously not whole 5 years.......

and

319C(b)(c)(iii) the applicant and the Relevant Points Based System Migrant must have been living together in a relationship similar to marriage or civil partnership for a period of at least 2 years.

also imply living together for whole 5 years is not a must, but must be at least 2 years.

I cannot find concrete 5 years living together is a must...
I am not a lawyer or immigration advisor. My statements/comments do not constitute legal advice.

secret.simon
Moderator
Posts: 11261
Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2013 9:29 pm

Re: immigration rule contradicts to the guideline on the cohabitation

Post by secret.simon » Mon Apr 16, 2018 12:34 am

cyclina1 wrote:
Sun Apr 15, 2018 11:52 pm
(b) have spent the most recent part of the 5 year period with leave as the Partner of that Relevant Points Based System Migrant, and during that part of the period have met all of the requirements of paragraph 319C(a) to (e),

Obviously not whole 5 years.......
secret.simon wrote:
Sun Apr 15, 2018 11:26 pm
Immigration Rule 319E. Requirements for indefinite leave to remain - (Partners of relevant points-based system migrants) wrote: (d) The applicant and the Relevant Points Based System Migrant must have been living together in the UK in a marriage or civil partnership, or in a relationship similar to marriage or civil partnership, for at least the applicable specified period in either (i) or (ii), subject to (iii): (i) If the applicant was granted leave as:
(ii) If (i) does not apply, the specified period is a continuous period of 5 years, during which the applicant must:
  • (a) have been in a relationship with the same Relevant Points Based System Migrant for this entire period,
  • (b) have spent the most recent part of the 5 year period with leave as the Partner of that Relevant Points Based System Migrant, and during that part of the period have met all of the requirements of paragraph 319C(a) to (e),
  • (c) have spent the remainder of the 5 year period, where applicable, with leave as the spouse or civil partner, unmarried or same-sex partner of that person at a time when that person had leave under another category of these Rules, and
...
Totally five years, with the most recent as PBS dependent and the preceding period on any other spousal visa.
cyclina1 wrote:
Sun Apr 15, 2018 11:52 pm
319C(b)(c)(iii) the applicant and the Relevant Points Based System Migrant must have been living together in a relationship similar to marriage or civil partnership for a period of at least 2 years.
Immigration Rule 319C(c) defines the requirement for unmarried partners and states the well-known requirement that unmarried partners need to have lived together in a relationship akin to marriage for a minimum of two years for that relationship to be the basis of a spousal visa.
I am not a lawyer or immigration advisor. My statements/comments do not constitute legal advice. E&OE. Please do not PM me for advice.

User avatar
cyclina1
Senior Member
Posts: 924
Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2018 1:38 am
Hong Kong

Re: immigration rule contradicts to the guideline on the cohabitation

Post by cyclina1 » Mon Apr 16, 2018 12:49 am

If you read the topics here. Some OPs claim or even be advised by solicitor that 2 years are required even visa applied after 8 july 2012..... It should be a reason behind........
I am not a lawyer or immigration advisor. My statements/comments do not constitute legal advice.

User avatar
Casa
Moderator
Posts: 25786
Joined: Wed Jul 23, 2008 3:32 pm
United Kingdom

Re: immigration rule contradicts to the guideline on the cohabitation

Post by Casa » Mon Apr 16, 2018 9:20 am

cyclina1 wrote:
Mon Apr 16, 2018 12:49 am
If you read the topics here. Some OPs claim or even be advised by solicitor that 2 years are required even visa applied after 8 july 2012..... It should be a reason behind........
According to one of your other threads, you've just received your British passport. :?:

Vhttps://www.immigrationboards.com/british-citiz ... l#p1622290
(Casa, not CR001)
Please don't send me PMs asking for immigration advice on posts that are on the open forum. If I haven't responded there, it's because I don't have the answer. I'm a moderator, not a legal professional.

User avatar
cyclina1
Senior Member
Posts: 924
Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2018 1:38 am
Hong Kong

Re: immigration rule contradicts to the guideline on the cohabitation

Post by cyclina1 » Mon Apr 16, 2018 9:38 am

because I am not asking for advice here, but discussion why this happens. Not allowed in this forum?

By the way, do you have any insight on my issue?



Casa wrote:
Mon Apr 16, 2018 9:20 am
cyclina1 wrote:
Mon Apr 16, 2018 12:49 am
If you read the topics here. Some OPs claim or even be advised by solicitor that 2 years are required even visa applied after 8 july 2012..... It should be a reason behind........
According to one of your other threads, you've just received your British passport. :?:

Vhttps://www.immigrationboards.com/british-citiz ... l#p1622290
I am not a lawyer or immigration advisor. My statements/comments do not constitute legal advice.

User avatar
Casa
Moderator
Posts: 25786
Joined: Wed Jul 23, 2008 3:32 pm
United Kingdom

Re: immigration rule contradicts to the guideline on the cohabitation

Post by Casa » Mon Apr 16, 2018 9:52 am

cyclina1 wrote:
Mon Apr 16, 2018 9:38 am
because I am not asking for advice here, but discussion why this happens. Not allowed in this forum?

By the way, do you have any insight on my issue?



Casa wrote:
Mon Apr 16, 2018 9:20 am
cyclina1 wrote:
Mon Apr 16, 2018 12:49 am
If you read the topics here. Some OPs claim or even be advised by solicitor that 2 years are required even visa applied after 8 july 2012..... It should be a reason behind........
According to one of your other threads, you've just received your British passport. :?:

Vhttps://www.immigrationboards.com/british-citiz ... l#p1622290
If secret.simon has the time, I'm sure he will clarify.
(Casa, not CR001)
Please don't send me PMs asking for immigration advice on posts that are on the open forum. If I haven't responded there, it's because I don't have the answer. I'm a moderator, not a legal professional.

Locked