Mother in law and wife visa !

[huqqapani]

My mother in law has been to UK thrice. She was sponsored by her daughter (my sister in law) for accommodation, I was the financial sponsor. Her last visa was for 2 years which finished in Jan 2016. She left UK in November 2015 on her last (3rd) visit. Her daughter wants her to visit again. Based on the same arrangement (she sponsors accommodation, I sponsor finance during her stay), few questions arise as below:
1) What is the minimum salary/savings requirement to sponsor someones' visit. My sister in laws husband works full time so its a question of whether he is earning enough to sponsor her this time instead of mine. My worry in sponsoring her (financially) this time is given in point 2 below.

2) My wife's FLR M visa (initial) runs out this November 2016. As she is dependent on me financially, is there a chance that UKBA may question my ability to financially sponsor 2 people (Mother in law and my wife) when I apply for her extension to FLR M. I earn 40K p/a?3) Is there any chance that visa may get refused (defacto residence etc.).

4) NHS charge. There has been couple of stories regarding visit visa holders charged money for using NHS which worked out expensive. Is there a cheaper option. She is healthy for her age but you never know.

5) How long should she wait for before applying considering the date she last left/her visa expired.

6) Are there any rule changes in the last 3 years for visit visa for elder people that I need to be informed. Last time I remember we submitted (along with application form) my payslips, financial sponsor letter from, sister in law accommodation letter, council letter for her property's suitability.

Please advise. Thanks for your inputs.

[CR001]

1. There is such a requirement as such. The person seeking a visitor visa also needs to convince the ECO that they are 'genuine visitors' and prove with documentary evidence what their ties are in their home country and what their personal and financial circumstances are. UKVI have become a lot tougher on visitor visas and there have been many refusals in recent months.

2. Not really, different visa categories with different requirements. See #1 above.

4. Travel insurance should ideally be held by people visiting the NHS. Yes your mother in law is not entitled to any free NHS and will have to pay 150% of cost of any treatment/meds etc.

5. What is the length of visits to the UK on her last 3 visits? She should not be 'residing' in the UK.

6. https://www.gov.uk/standard-visitor-visa/overview

[huqqapani]

Thanks CR001
My point 1) really is asking whether there is any financial limit that the financial sponsor must earn in order to justify his suitability to sponsor the visitor? If my sister in law's husband is earning, I much rather him act as financial sponsor for the visit instead of me. For that we need to know of any financial requirement (if any).

re point 6) are there any differences between family visit visa and standard visit visa. I think she was granted family visa for previous visits.

re point 5) she stayed for 4.5 to 5.5 months on each of her visit with roughly at least six months (or more) gap before coming to UK.

[secret.simon]

Three consecutive "visits" or 4.5 to 5.5 months in three years does not sound like visiting, it sounds like residing under the guise of the visit visa.

I would urge caution about reinviting her to the UK. The more frequent the long visits, the more likely a subsequent visa will be rejected. And once a visa is rejected, it will be well nigh impossible to get it again.

Visit visas are mean to be for short memorable visas; 2 weeks to a month, perhaps twice a year. 4.5 to 5.5 months is just too long for a visit and especially so if repeated every year.

For reference, "4.2 (a) (c) (e) of Appendix V, Immigration Rules of Visitors" states:

The applicant must satisfy the decision maker that they are a genuine visitor. This means that the applicant:
(a) will leave the UK at the end of their visit; and
(b) will not live in the UK for extended periods through frequent or successive visits, or make the UK their main home; and
(c) is genuinely seeking entry for a purpose that is permitted by the visitor routes (these are listed in Appendices 3, 4 and 5); and
(d) will not undertake any prohibited activities set out in V 4.5 – V 4.10; and
(e) must have sufficient funds to cover all reasonable costs in relation to their visit without working or accessing public funds. This includes the cost of the return or onward journey, any costs relating to dependants, and the cost of planned activities such as private medical treatment.

[huqqapani]

Refusal is a risk which I have warned her about, its her decision all.

My worry really is about point 2 in the original post. CR001's reply has confused me somewhat. Yes the requirements are different for both visas, but in both visas, I am the financial sponsor. For Spouse visa extension, I believe the salary requirement is £18,600 pa, is there any to sponsor a visitor?

[CR001]

There is no 'minimum financial' requirement for a sponsor of a visitor visa. The applicant has to prove THEIR financial and personal circumstances. HO/UKVI are becoming tough on these visas now.

[huqqapani]

CR001, thanks a lot for clarification.
Is there any difference between Visitor visa and Family visitor visa. What aspect/area of these visa is HO/UKVI using to tighten/refuse the visitors visa (defacto residence and ... and ...)

[CR001]

There is no difference between the two really and both are being scrutinised much more.

[secret.simon]

(defacto residence and ... and ...)

Mainly that.

Essentially, many people (and you can see queries on these forums on the topic) are attempting to (in the UKV&I's view) frustrate the Immigration Rules by bringing their parents here on visit visas. Personally, I would imagine that this is beneficial as the parents are not entitled to free NHS treatment (apart from emergencies) and must leave every six months. But I can imagine that the Home Office/UKV&I's point of view is to avoid them putting down roots in this country, thus negating any possibility of claims under human rights provisions.

The above is, of course, pure conjecture on my part.

[secret.simon]

Posted in error. Browser acting up.