UK HOME OFFICE REQUEST FOR MORE INFO

[5mash]

I am British English, my wife is Ukrainian, we recently submitted paperwork to extend for the 2nd time a visa for 2.5yrs.

I helped my wife address all the info requested for during the application process; my salary slips, times I claimed benefit (as I was a out of work for a short period), proof we live together and proof out kids live with us etc etc etc.

The home office wrote to my wife today to request; her salary slips, my salary slips, an explanation on why areas of my own (not my wife's) bank statements were blanked out, proof that we live and have lived together and that our kids live with us.

I know my wife submitted 'all' of the above, we even wrote and included a covering letter explaining the documents, however I do not believe the home office have actually taken the info into consideration, given they have addressed all the questions to my wife, specifically asking when did she claim benefit (she never has) and for how long (never), how long has she been working for (she did but doesn't now).. all said questioning, to me at least, holds weight the home office believe all of this info is related solely to my wife and not me; as the sponsor.

So I have questions:

1. If I am sponsoring my wife, why are the home office requesting her salary slips or proof of her employment? - I believe there is simply no need given it is my salary they should rely on and we never stated her employment or that she was ever employed during the period they are requesting documents for.

2. why does the home office need to know how when and where I spent money (bank statements I blanked out - I only highlighted salary in - blanking all other details out) - noting the application form asks to show over a period of time money from employment is paid into a bank account same as illustrated in salary slips.

Help please, on the above .. also has anyone ever come across this before?

[SimonS]

They will write directly to your wife because it is her applicatiion!

Unless they have misunderstood the application and got it completely back to front, I think it could possibly be to do with the fact that you claimed benefits during a period of the sponsorship and they are trying to ascertain if it was a legitimate claim that did not breach the immigration rules.

Which benefits did you claim and on the claim form you submitted, did you declare that your spouse was subject to immigration control?

You mentioned that your wife worked at some point, if it was legitimate - and I don't doubt for a second it was - there will be a record and they can see it. Did her employment coincide at any stage with the period you were claiming benefits?

As a British citizen you are still entitled to claim benefits and there are some exemptions which allow you to claim for your spouse too, however, it must be declared that they are subject to immigration control.

As to the bank statements, why did you blank out the transactions? That just makes it look like you have something to hide! Of course they will ask about them.

These people are determining whether or not they will allow your wife to remain in the UK with you, or send her home. If they want to know where you buy your socks or what colour your shoe laces are, probably best to tell them.

You should provide all of the evidence they have asked for along with a new covering letter explaining the situation again and fresh, untarnished bank statements.

[5mash]

I'm goign to take this with a pinch of salt, if the HO ask for x on a application form and I or my wife send that x that's all they need, otherwise they need to adjust their app form. Isn't that 'normal'.

Why do I or my wife have to indicate where I spend or what I spend our funds on.. can;t see this being lawful at all.

Does anyone else have an opinion or been in the situation before?

[Casa]

Redacting transactions on the bank statement will be seen as editing/modifying an original document which the Case Worker won't consider acceptable. As SimonS has pointed out, it will have raised questions regarding why these transactions are sensitive.

For example, checks will be carried out to determine whether you have any undeclared income during the period when you were claiming to be unemployed and receiving Public funds.

[SimonS]

Here is a link to quite long document but you may find it very useful to study it carefully. The immigration rules as they apply to accessing Public Funds.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/s ... _v13.0.pdf

In there you will find that the HO can seek information directly from HMRC and your local council. You already consented to sharing of information when you signed the declaration on the form. If your wife worked legitimately, they may already know because HMRC told them. If you claimed benefits such as Tax credits/Working tax credits, they may already know because HMRC told them.

Now they are asking your wife to confirm the details, perhaps they are just being nosey, but the onus is on you and your wife to demonstrate to their satisfaction that you have complied with the rules. As I suggested earlier, I really consider it a good idea to respond in full.

Failure to send the original, unadulterated bank statements after a specific request is a quick path to refusal and that is lawful.

[secret.simon]

Just stepping into this conversation to say that not having advised earlier in this thread, I do not take any credit for SimonS's contributions.

It sounds not dissimilar to the Casa/CR001 confusion that occurs from time-to-time

Why do I or my wife have to indicate where I spend or what I spend our funds on.. can;t see this being lawful at all.

They are not interested in where you spend your money. But they are interested in why the document looks very unlike a standard bank statement, which it would with multiple redactions. How would they know that all that has been redacted is inconsequential? It is not you who is the judge of what is required for the application, it is they who are the determiner of that.

If you are that fussed about your privacy, you can transfer your salary/earnings out of the bank account that you receive it in by standing order and place it in another account for spending. I have a system of accounts with each for a different purpose; receiving salary, direct debits, day-to-day spending, investments & savings. That way, I can monitor my outgoings better and in this case, provide precisely the statement required, rather than redacting an all-purpose statement.

In your case, I would recommend handing over the unredacted statement to progress the application.

unadulterated bank statements

Unredacted...Milk and oil are adulterated. Bank statements and other documents are redacted.

[SimonS]

My word of the day "redacted"

Cheers
Simon

[5mash]

The way I think of these matters is below; not to everyone's cup of tea, granted;
The business that is 'UK Visa & Immigration' are a subcontracted (closed door contact centre; as most contact centres are), they use a form; once filled in and signed is a legal (not lawful) document, such that the info contained; if not inline or appropriate for their business ('UK Visa & Immigration') they will ask for additional info, info more than likely the business will use to hang one with; that they will use, under the guise as being an ‘authoritive figure’ i.e. the government, of which they are not, noting they are no different to any contact centre and or private ltd or traded company i.e. Vodafone.

The difference is to convince these miscreants that one is of good standing, and can afford a wife/partner/loved one; in line with their business definition (which is no way lawful, or takes into account the human aspect of the situation; as you are in their eyes an ‘entity’ that falls under their authority).

In my case they requested banking statements and an explanation on why I had redacted info on the banking statements; the short answer I value my privacy, noting these employees hold more about me than I do on them (f*** knows what these people or individuals do with the info in or outside of their business/work; noting several incidents where so called subcontracted government employers/employees take shit home and lose it publicly, this being the pit of despair on having to deal with such jumped up self-worth business entities.

More-so, and this is my point, they have more info on me and my wife than their own business form ‘application form’ ever asked for i.e. they only needed to see my salary into my bank account tied in with my pay slips, now what they have is my outgoings; entertainment, transfers to friends and family, bill payments etc. – which if that is what the business known as 'UK Visa & Immigration' needed, then why didn’t they ask for specifics first time via their application form, why such dramatics and suggestions of hiding anything and the premise on having me and my wife ‘proving’ additional circumstances. Noting I massively earn more than the £18600 threshold needed for sponsorship.

These people need to understand they are employees, and need to look at what their own application form is asking, it is not on one (applicant) to volunteer anything up an above what is being asked, if it is, then the 'UK Visa & Immigration' need to f***** ask it outright, instead of making and portraying individuals as criminals or such that have something to hide, or on the premise the application will be refused without it.
What I do fully believe is these case workers ‘employees’ take it upon themselves to deep dive everything up an above what they need (being asked from the application form), so they can justify any bonuses and targets deadlines and metrics, I also do believe there are elements of jealousy and envy by these individual employees (caseworkers), upon applicants (their specified caseloads), in the way applicants are handled and how far application forms are deep dived.

My last presumption is based solely on the fact that if earning a lot and having an ideal life scenario can be grounds for hardship by these individual employees, and the same is said in the opposite; in such scenarios of just managing to attain the threshold for sponsorship, and having to deal with life in a struggle.

I note that some of my friends and acquaintances who claim from the job centre (another business entity subcontracted to the current government) feel the same attitudes from case workers there, where from several stories; the case worker begrudges processing application forms or expenses (bus fares etc.) for individuals, let alone and heavens forbid they themselves have to sign off payments to these job-seekers each fortnight.

The system is shite.. society (that man-made bubble we all live in) and the perception of government is too self-authorising (more so the individuals that believe they’re suited in such roles – those looking for power over others) and unlawful.

Luckily, if all else fails, there is Article 8, which the current gov I know are moving away from, noting the UK is still in the EU and until we leave the EU rules still apply, and then there’s a new area I found online from which a non-EU mother/father can claim citizenship based on their children’s citizenship, the premise is the parent in question has to prove it’s in their and children’s best interests. Which, if I had known beforehand, I would have saved myself approx £1500 incl the health surcharge and I’d missed jail and gone straight to and passed GO.

I'm done jumping through hoops, for now.

[chapelle]

.... and then there’s a new area I found online from which a non-EU mother/father can claim citizenship based on their children’s citizenship, the premise is the parent in question has to prove it’s in their and children’s best interests..

Hi 5mash,

I really feel your pain about how the HO had treated your application... I hope things work out well for you and your family.
Please can you share a link of your above quote so that those of us ( non EU British parents) can explore?

Thanks

[CR001]

.... and then there’s a new area I found online from which a non-EU mother/father can claim citizenship based on their children’s citizenship, the premise is the parent in question has to prove it’s in their and children’s best interests..

Hi 5mash,

I really feel your pain about how the HO had treated your application... I hope things work out well for you and your family.
Please can you share a link of your above quote so that those of us ( non EU British parents) can explore?

Thanks

There is no such easy route to British Citizenship for parents. It is a 10 year (4 x 2.5 year visas) route and ILR required first.

[5mash]

.... and then there’s a new area I found online from which a non-EU mother/father can claim citizenship based on their children’s citizenship, the premise is the parent in question has to prove it’s in their and children’s best interests..

Hi 5mash,

I really feel your pain about how the HO had treated your application... I hope things work out well for you and your family.
Please can you share a link of your above quote so that those of us ( non EU British parents) can explore?

Thanks

There is no such easy route to British Citizenship for parents. It is a 10 year (4 x 2.5 year visas) route and ILR required first.

I was def not aware of the 4x 2.5yrs route, the info I have read online did not suggest or support such, but, I know 'UK Visa and immigration' would try (if not already in place) to make this an arduous/impossible task.

What I figure, from what I have read online is that 'UK Visa and immigration' have been set targets to hit, based on Brexit, noting given rejection for the most obscured reasons.

What I particularly love is that the majority of individuals now opt for paperless banking statements; the fad that we are contributing to an eco-conscious future blah blah shite.. when in fact no business organisation or entity actually accepts such online & self printed statements, unless they’ve been sent out officially from the bank, to a residence, noting printing statements off and having the said bank stamp them as genuine is a service no bank offers (due to the complex fraud a stamp can lead to; at least that’s what I’ve been told by three banks to-date).

The point is that we all should simply shit on these businesses and opt for paper statemented and f*** what the tree bashers claim and the business tryign to save money, as we all shall follow what is in ‘our own best interest’ and not that of a business or businesses; including the current plebs in downing street.

As what occurred in my situation we were given 10 days to provide the HO with official bank statements, letter was dated 4th Aug, the actual letter received was on the 7th Aug, with a date to return additional info by the 14th Aug; what the f***!!! No comment on the account it would take ‘nth’ days - lead time to obtain such info; all banks state 7 days (working) to obtain such statements, BUT one needs to account up to 28 days (working); just in-case, on the understanding that if one goes into a branch they can get a printout that covers the last 3 months 'only' straight away; useless if you are being requested for 1 yrs worth, then there's f all point in the exercise.

We're all being setup to fail, in line with 'UK Visa and Immigration' business terms & conditions; targets, under the guise 'it was our fault' for not providing the info; more-so the f'ers have our written consent 3x on their application form, to investigate and find the f'n info themselves. Yet they need a name to put against the blame, in such sense taking any wrong doing or the impossible away from their business. As 'UK Visa and Immigration' have to be seen to be there in the public's interest, without emotion or self opinion; when in all cases they do, what I do feel is ridiculous, is that foreigners, are processing British citizens applications; which I have a massive argument against; solely based on such employees spite and bad experiences themselves; pay back is a biatch. I DO NOT in any case feel such processing is impartial.

Anyway.

As for the links, they are below;

https://www.rt.com/news/387922-eu-resid ... mpaign=RSS

https://www.rt.com/uk/387696-eu-rights- ... -passport/

http://eulawanalysis.blogspot.co.uk/201 ... tatus.html

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-39868868

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/05/e ... 57371.html

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/ ... ing-357475

http://www.thejournal.ie/non-eu-residen ... 7-May2017/

[CR001]

The rights of parents of EU children (not British) are different and come under different regulations to the UK Immigration Rules. Important not to confuse the two. Your links, bar for one, is EU Regulations information.

A British citizen in the UK is not considered an EU citizen for UK Immigration purposes (except Surinder Singh route under the EEA regulations).

Also, Brexit affects mainly EU route applications, not UK Immigration route applications.

The path for a non-EU parent of a British child, is FLR(FP) Parent route, 5 year route if you meet the financial requirements and 10 year route if you don't.

Could we also kindly ask you to post appropriately on the forum and refrain from swearing.

[5mash]

if the HO for whatever reason refuse her my wife an extension what would the options be? FLR (FP)?

Under what circumstances would a refusal not allow an appeal, or similar action for the HO to reconsider?

I really thought that my last post was in line with UK immigration as well as EU, as the two should align, but I note they can differ; hugely. However, does any of it apply?

Thanks for the advice so far, and sure I will refrain from the swearing.

[5mash]

Can anyone please advise me, on the last post?

[RealGoldEnergyDrink]

With respect OP, the immigration rules and also the requirements for documentation set out on application forms are abundantly clear, and the issues with documentation appear to be entirely of your own making. In your case you appear to have only submitted documents you personally feel are appropriate to your application and actually altered others because you don't want to give UKVI (or their agents) certain information as you don't feel they need it. The problem with this is that even if you feel they're not necessary to make a decision, UKVI feel they are, and they explicitly want the documentation or they won't give your wife a visa.

Of course they want new documents - you altered the previous ones and crossed out transactions, which if you'd asked anyone they'd have strongly advised against, because it can both mean that you value your privacy or that you have something to hide from UKVI. It also completely violates common sense, especially with a process as sensitive as immigration. If you'd sent non-redacted documents originally, your application would probably be fine and would be proceeding nicely. This is not UKVI's fault nor is it the fault of whoever UKVI subcontract processing to.

Also, while UKVI may subcontract processing to other companies, this is neither here nor there; UKVI themselves write the application forms and set the document standards that these agents of theirs adhere to. And that is the case - UKVI are still issuing the visas, the processors are their agents, and as such act entirely on their behalf. UKVI are fully entitled to do this; your other option, if you don't want to send this information to these "miscreants", is to not apply for a visa.

[5mash]

Noted.

However they should tout themselves as who they are, and not ‘government’ and for clarity they ‘should’ state specifics in their application form, given they want ‘you’ to be specific and precise in ‘everything’ you provide.

A I stated before, it’s a setup to fail scenario, as there are many comprehensions of ‘what is being asked and what to provide’. And I don’t need to look outside of the box to understand that.

[RealGoldEnergyDrink]

I'm not sure how there can be "many comprehensions" of what you're asked to provide, but then I also don't see how crossing out bits of an original document could be seen as a reasonable course of action, or how this falls into a different "comprehension". Me and my partner followed the guidance and application forms to the letter and our visa was granted quickly and with no particular fuss.

UKVI are part of the Government. The people acting on their behalf are acting on behalf of the Government. You should therefore treat whoever these people are as if they are the Government; not least since they are the ones who are deciding whether or not your wife can come into the country.

[5mash]

without too much of an argument I do see you tend to give these 'entities' (government and such businesses) too much of you, without questioning why; their question was: provide bank statements highlighting salary/income from employment from June '16-'17 vs pay slips.

I provided exactly what they asked for, blanking out what they did not need to know - as they never asked.

And I do not claim to be a mind reader, or possess crystal balls; I do however value my privacy and rights under the law (not legalities).

If you applied for a job and you were asked for your previous employment, and after the fact of providing it, they specifically asked why you did not include the paper round you had when you were 12... you too wouldn't question it and ask why...

same situation different subject

[Casa]

The crucial point here is that the Home Office (UKVI) advise that original documents MUST be submitted. A document which has been redacted isn't in it's original state.

[secret.simon]

The business that is 'UK Visa & Immigration'

For clarity, the UKV&I Have contracted out their contact centre. The UKV&I itself is a part of the Home Office and the caseworkers are civil servants who implement the Immigration Rules that are agreed to (or as they are approved by negative procedure, it would be more appropriate to say that they are "not disagreed to") by both Houses of Parliament.

[5mash]

The business that is 'UK Visa & Immigration'

For clarity, the UKV&I Have contracted out their contact centre. The UKV&I itself is a part of the Home Office and the caseworkers are civil servants who implement the Immigration Rules that are agreed to (or as they are approved by negative procedure, it would be more appropriate to say that they are "not disagreed to") by both Houses of Parliament.

and by no means lawful... they are all business entities as described in the legal sense: registered businesses.

the fact their interpretation of what immigration terms and conditions should state (without challenge) is not contested.. but it should be.. these entities are not the law and cannot presume what they say makes law; legal yes, but only on an individual basis (if a contract held between said parties exists)... left alone non of it is law, or lawful.

however, under the guise of law or government weight these entities ultimately decide right or wrong if one gets a visa.. in no way is it lawful...

[RealGoldEnergyDrink]

It is lawful though, and you've had it explained exactly how. You also did not provide "exactly what they asked for" - the FM-SE rules clearly state that "All documentary evidence must be original, unless otherwise stated." and as Casa has said, an altered document is not original. It also says, for the salaried employment section, "(c) Personal bank statements corresponding to the same period(s) as the payslips at paragraph 2(a), showing that the salary has been paid into an account in the name of the person or in the name of the person and their partner jointly." It does not say that you can remove transactions or abridge these and I don't understand why you think it would, or why you think it would be reasonable or even common sense to do so.

At the end of the day, "registered companies" or no, you have to do what UKVI's agents (which as pointed out, are civil servants) want or you won't get the visa, and you have simply not complied with the immigration rules vis a vis submitting original documents. Plenty of people have done exactly what they've been asked to and been refused; I have far more sympathy for them than someone who ignores the plain and obvious meaning of what they've been asked to do, and again basic common sense, and is now trying to spin weird pseudolegal reasons that they were right to do so.

[usmanj]

I'm struggling here a bit. Do you want your wife to receive her UK spouse visa? If so, you need to provide the UKVI with all the documents they require in order to convince them that your wife should be granted a spouse visa.

Whether you think that they are the government or whether you think they don't need to see your transactions is irrelevant. If you don't provide them with what they want, and they are not satisfied; they will not grant the visa. It's pretty simple.

They do state that they require originals unless stated in the Appendix FM-SE (https://www.gov.uk/guidance/immigration ... d-evidence), stating 'All documentary evidence must be original, unless otherwise stated'.

This forum is full of individuals with heights of knowledge in immigration. Use it to your advantage.

[RealGoldEnergyDrink]

Well said, Usmanj.

I do sadly get the impression that OP is not going to heed this advice and instead is going to pursue some harebrained legal action or something.

[5mash]

I note everyone contribution here, but please also in return note that ‘legal’ and ‘lawful’ are NOT the same thing, legal aka legislation (aka defined by contracts – one has to consent – noting one can also decline to consent – the right to say no), the law (the law of the land; such one is born into, it is inalienable and indelible – it cannot be changed and is not defined by legislation) - it applies to everyone born in the UK.

I’m not going to bash this one out, however to say the wife did get her extension granted, and I did serve notice on the Home office & specific employee to follow their guidelines (business terms and conditions) under the specified legalities (legislation) noting they are only guidelines; not actual law.

In the first instance I laid out their guidelines defined by their application form; and associated help document.

I laid claim to a previous application to extend and the documents accepted by their business (with redacted info) I provided to them, and I laid claim that I would not provide additional info outside of their application form unless they could highlight to me specifics they are looking for, which I then touched upon if needed; should be included in the application form in the first instance if it were for the HO to make a decision upon, that the case handler should follow their own rules and apply the legislation as is evident, noting they could only use the info provided for the sole purpose to align against their rules and the current application, and that anything outside of this would not be consented to, unless they (HO) could show cause for such 'further investigation' of which I wanted to be informed about in the first instance. I wouldn’t provide additional info without first being told why it was needed. I did however mention I have the lawful (not legal) right to privacy, outside of their rules, and I didn't have to explain why I redacted anything except for privacy.

Basically I felt the HO were abusing their perceived authority; under their terms and conditions and I gently reminded them to process the info as provided (I felt the HO was looking for ways to decline the application and to scrutinise without warrant the info provided), I wasn’t rude or drastic in my wording, but I wanted them (HO) to focus on the alignment of info provided and the legislation it pertains to, anything outside of that could not be considered unless I was informed.

In all it worked (as I knew it would as I made them (HO) aware I am under the law not their legalities, on anything outside of their application), and we received all documents back and no more mention of redacted info etc or reasons why I had redacted them.