- FAQ
- Login
- Register
- Call Workpermit.com for a paid service +44 (0)344-991-9222
ESC
Welcome to immigrationboards.com!
Moderators: Casa, Amber, archigabe, batleykhan, ca.funke, ChetanOjha, EUsmileWEallsmile, JAJ, John, Obie, push, geriatrix, vinny, CR001, zimba, meself2
What was unacceptable about it? They simply asked questions, which they are entitled to do.Obie wrote:They seem a bit ruthless these days, but there was no basis for the way they behaved to you.
It was wholly unacceptable.
chaoclive wrote:What was unacceptable about it? They simply asked questions, which they are entitled to do.Obie wrote:They seem a bit ruthless these days, but there was no basis for the way they behaved to you.
It was wholly unacceptable.
It is completely unacceptable for the immigration officer to state he/she is well rehearsed and he/she knows about the law, is it a problem for the OP to know about his or her right? And you question the unacceptability of that inappropriateness?chaoclive wrote:What was unacceptable about it? They simply asked questions, which they are entitled to do.Obie wrote:They seem a bit ruthless these days, but there was no basis for the way they behaved to you.
It was wholly unacceptable.
It was a statement of fact. I don't see any issue whatsoever. They are allowed to ask questions, as are respondents allowed to rehearse, they are also allowed to state facts as they see fit. Get over it.gozo1 wrote:It is completely unacceptable for the immigration officer to state he/she is well rehearsed and he/she knows about the law, is it a problem for the OP to know about his or her right? And you question the unacceptability of that inappropriateness?chaoclive wrote:What was unacceptable about it? They simply asked questions, which they are entitled to do.Obie wrote:They seem a bit ruthless these days, but there was no basis for the way they behaved to you.
It was wholly unacceptable.
Of course you can say get over it now, couple of months ago when you were stuck at whatever place it was you were desperately trying to get out of with your other half, you understood what it meant for UKVI to apply the law correctly.chaoclive wrote:
What was unacceptable about it? They simply asked questions, which they are entitled to do.
It was a statement of fact. I don't see any issue whatsoever. They are allowed to ask questions, as are respondents allowed to rehearse, they are also allowed to state facts as they see fit. Get over it.
Please show me where in any legislation it states that this is a problem.
gozo1 wrote:Of course you can say get over it now, couple of months ago when you were stuck at whatever place it was you were desperately trying to get out of with your other half, you understood what it meant for UKVI to apply the law correctly.chaoclive wrote:
What was unacceptable about it? They simply asked questions, which they are entitled to do.
It was a statement of fact. I don't see any issue whatsoever. They are allowed to ask questions, as are respondents allowed to rehearse, they are also allowed to state facts as they see fit. Get over it.
Please show me where in any legislation it states that this is a problem.
It was not a statement of fact, it was a patronising statement, i'm sure you were here months ago too when an applicant was refused in France for simply for understanding the regulations and applicable case law in O&B, that too is a statement of fact right?
They indeed may interview or visit him if he were to apply for PR or another residence card.gozo1 wrote:There are two sides to a coin, whilst I wasn't present when the interrogation took place, one could rightly possibly assume that he was patronising the OP by suggesting they may visit him or call him for interview, what's that about? I am not prepared to engage you further on this issue, I have my opinion on the matter, you have yours, It is nothing to do with gross misapplication of the rules, and therefore not constructive, so I quit.
It was a statement of fact. I don't see any issue whatsoever. They are allowed to ask questions, as are respondents allowed to rehearse, they are also allowed to state facts as they see fit. Get over it.gozo1 wrote:It is completely unacceptable for the immigration officer to state he/she is well rehearsed and he/she knows about the law, is it a problem for the OP to know about his or her right? And you question the unacceptability of that inappropriateness?chaoclive wrote:What was unacceptable about it? They simply asked questions, which they are entitled to do.Obie wrote:They seem a bit ruthless these days, but there was no basis for the way they behaved to you.
It was wholly unacceptable.
As I said to Gozo: you were not there and do not know the tone with which any remarks were made. Don't forget that the Home Office may invite him to interview or arrange a home visit if he applies for another RC in the future, for example. This is not out of the question. I won't be 'deeply offended' to be told that I am well rehearsed; nor would my partner: I've just asked him. If I am in the right, there is nothing to be worried about.Obie wrote: Well if you don't think intimidating a customer by threatening them that they could get home visit, when EU law don't even required joint cohabitation is a good thing, and sarcastically telling a customer that they have well rehearsed is a deeply offensive remarks, then we are certainly not living in the same planet , and i need not take this debate any further than this.
I will simply be content to conclude that we are not on the same wavelength.
chaoclive wrote:As I said to Gozo: you were not there and do not know the tone with which any remarks were made. Don't forget that the Home Office may invite him to interview or arrange a home visit if he applies for another RC in the future, for example. This is not out of the question. I won't be 'deeply offended' to be told that I am well rehearsed; nor would my partner: I've just asked him. If I am in the right, there is nothing to be worried about.Obie wrote: Well if you don't think intimidating a customer by threatening them that they could get home visit, when EU law don't even required joint cohabitation is a good thing, and sarcastically telling a customer that they have well rehearsed is a deeply offensive remarks, then we are certainly not living in the same planet , and i need not take this debate any further than this.
I will simply be content to conclude that we are not on the same wavelength.
I do not condone threatening or intimidation at all. I do, however, acknowledge that IOs are the guardians of the border and have rights to point out the things that they see fit.
I do not need to further debate this either. I am not inviting your comments or response. I am, however, stating that I don't think there are any issues here. IF there are issues, then the OP could make a complaint and request an investigation.
londonman wrote:Wow,
That's weird, I've been there many times as well and they have been nice to me. I thought Heathrow was the toughest port to arrive.
Did she write a note on the system in the end?
Thanks for sharing your experience!!
Obie wrote:The rules on self sufficiency is constantly changing, and the subject of a pending CJEU case called Singh, in regards to whether an EU spouse can established self sufficiency on the basis of their Non-EU spouse's income , which was derived from the employment of the Non-EU spouse, which is derived as a result of his right as fame member.
You need to possibly seek legal advise on your position.