Strange requirement from Tullamore immigration officer

[razor91]

Has anyone else got this strange ask from immigration officer to provide activities in the state for an unemployed wife?
My wife is a home maker and I work and we are happy with this setup. However when we go to renew my wife's immigration permission in tullamore office, everytime the office ask for some letter from tesco or letter to show that my wife engages in activities outside home in order to renew her immigration permission.
Now i have all the bank statements under both our names, utility bills and even house ownership as form of official documents to prove her reckonable residence. besides checking my wife's passport stamps indicate whether she has been in the country or not.
However this immigration officer in tullamore does not accept any bank statements regardless of the fact that it has many local transactions under my wifes name. for her it has to be some personalized letter or even a letter from a neighbour to indicate my wife's activities outside home. It just comes as a ridiculous requirement to me specially given the fact that there are so many who get their immigration permission renewed from other offices without none of these documents. Now i still provide letter from my office to indicate her prescence in office activities but the immigration officer claims it is not sufficient. I would like to know if anyone else faces this kind of requirement in tullamore immigration office? Its just ridiculous.

[Vadrar]

Requests like this are increasingly popping up about the place. Briefings from peer organisations suggest it relates to a series of investigations last year that uncovered some fraud amongst couples (dual names on docs, one person goes to home country while still accumulating reckonable residency for various permissions.) There has also been a rise in the instances of domestic abuse and household slavery uncovered.

I'm not suggesting any of that applies to you or your wife. I mention it as I imagine it is the reason they are starting to ask different questions to the past and to reassure you that you are not the only person being asked.

There seems to be a move towards requiring at least some documents in the sole name of applicant (eg bank account in sole name, not joint name, with activity proof.) I suspect that if you presented this the next time you would be less likely to get a repeat of this request. The issue with a joint account is that it can't be proved who performed the transaction - it could be just you. I'm not suggesting this is the case - I'm making no inferences on you personally - just that as the paperwork stands, it doesn't prove activity by either of you specifically.

I'm also not suggesting that a bank account in a sole name showing transactions prevents determined fraud or on its own totally prevents domestic abuse or household slavery.

For those who are looking to naturalise (and this may not relate to OP, I realise they are speaking about immigration permission; this is a general comment), the emerging suggestion is that applicants will need a bank account in their sole name (rather than a joint account as is possible now, and certainly not no bank account at all) with regular transactions if they don't have work records. There is a growing belief that this will be a future iteration of the scoresheet and we have recommended each person has their own sole named account with at least some regular monthly POS transactions for some time - if only to make applications easier. We are seeing increasing push back where applicants have no documentation in their sole name - that is, requests for additional documentation that relate to activity from them solely unless a reason (such as learning disability or debilitating health issue) why they can't have something individual to them. I suspect this is a parallel to the OP's experience in immigration permissions and indicates a fairly broad, if yet new, adoption of this approach.

There are free accounts available so it doesn't increase household costs (eg N26, BOI has a basic free account, Bunq - and I'm sure there will be others too.) However, there is no official guidance on this yet, it's merely what people involved in the area are saying, so do with this as you will.

[notme]

wow this is stupid. Why do they want that ? But in case it help may be a membership of a sports club. They send letters to home with your name address and membership number. Something like a swimming club, hiking group. That obviously depends upon why are they asking for this documentation. If you have kids then may be the letters from creche or school, GP visits. These documents will have her name (sole) and would prove her presence in country. But this is strange.

[razor91]

Thanks for your response.

I understand your points regarding maintaining a sole account. In our case, my wife also has a sole account (something similar to what you mentioned). That bank is also regulated by central bank of ireland. But my only concern here is, if that was down to the fact of having both names in the statement, why was that not pointed out in the first place. It was a complete NO NO for bank statements regardless of the fact that it was a joint account or a sole account.

On the other hand, whatever this new practice coming in to place with immigration renewal it doesnt seem to be consistent across all local branches neither seems to be an approach regulated by the irish immigration. for an example, I have lived in Athlone before and the process was quite straightforward as long as we provide the documents mentioned by irish immigration officially here. https://www.irishimmigration.ie/wp-cont ... -Guide.pdf (please check page 7)

The other concern i have is, checking if someone was away from the country is straightforward thing when passport stamps are checked. why is it not checked?

Anyway these are just my thoughts on the whole incident. I wanted to get another perspective to why it is happening like this and you certainly provided me with different view point. Thank you

[notme]

Requests like this are increasingly popping up about the place. Briefings from peer organisations suggest it relates to a series of investigations last year that uncovered some fraud amongst couples (dual names on docs, one person goes to home country while still accumulating reckonable residency for various permissions.) There has also been a rise in the instances of domestic abuse and household slavery uncovered.

I'm not suggesting any of that applies to you or your wife. I mention it as I imagine it is the reason they are starting to ask different questions to the past and to reassure you that you are not the only person being asked.

There seems to be a move towards requiring at least some documents in the sole name of applicant (eg bank account in sole name, not joint name, with activity proof.) I suspect that if you presented this the next time you would be less likely to get a repeat of this request. The issue with a joint account is that it can't be proved who performed the transaction - it could be just you. I'm not suggesting this is the case - I'm making no inferences on you personally - just that as the paperwork stands, it doesn't prove activity by either of you specifically.

I'm also not suggesting that a bank account in a sole name showing transactions prevents determined fraud or on its own totally prevents domestic abuse or household slavery.

For those who are looking to naturalise (and this may not relate to OP, I realise they are speaking about immigration permission; this is a general comment), the emerging suggestion is that applicants will need a bank account in their sole name (rather than a joint account as is possible now, and certainly not no bank account at all) with regular transactions if they don't have work records. There is a growing belief that this will be a future iteration of the scoresheet and we have recommended each person has their own sole named account with at least some regular monthly POS transactions for some time - if only to make applications easier. We are seeing increasing push back where applicants have no documentation in their sole name - that is, requests for additional documentation that relate to activity from them solely unless a reason (such as learning disability or debilitating health issue) why they can't have something individual to them. I suspect this is a parallel to the OP's experience in immigration permissions and indicates a fairly broad, if yet new, adoption of this approach.

There are free accounts available so it doesn't increase household costs (eg N26, BOI has a basic free account, Bunq - and I'm sure there will be others too.) However, there is no official guidance on this yet, it's merely what people involved in the area are saying, so do with this as you will.

Such interesting opinion and helpful too. I have recently applied for an EUTR application and experienced exactly opposite where was asked to show if I have a joint account. which I dont. So, I guess this all depends upon what the officer thinks/believes.

[Vadrar]

Requests like this are increasingly popping up about the place. Briefings from peer organisations suggest it relates to a series of investigations last year that uncovered some fraud amongst couples (dual names on docs, one person goes to home country while still accumulating reckonable residency for various permissions.) There has also been a rise in the instances of domestic abuse and household slavery uncovered.

I'm not suggesting any of that applies to you or your wife. I mention it as I imagine it is the reason they are starting to ask different questions to the past and to reassure you that you are not the only person being asked.

There seems to be a move towards requiring at least some documents in the sole name of applicant (eg bank account in sole name, not joint name, with activity proof.) I suspect that if you presented this the next time you would be less likely to get a repeat of this request. The issue with a joint account is that it can't be proved who performed the transaction - it could be just you. I'm not suggesting this is the case - I'm making no inferences on you personally - just that as the paperwork stands, it doesn't prove activity by either of you specifically.

I'm also not suggesting that a bank account in a sole name showing transactions prevents determined fraud or on its own totally prevents domestic abuse or household slavery.

For those who are looking to naturalise (and this may not relate to OP, I realise they are speaking about immigration permission; this is a general comment), the emerging suggestion is that applicants will need a bank account in their sole name (rather than a joint account as is possible now, and certainly not no bank account at all) with regular transactions if they don't have work records. There is a growing belief that this will be a future iteration of the scoresheet and we have recommended each person has their own sole named account with at least some regular monthly POS transactions for some time - if only to make applications easier. We are seeing increasing push back where applicants have no documentation in their sole name - that is, requests for additional documentation that relate to activity from them solely unless a reason (such as learning disability or debilitating health issue) why they can't have something individual to them. I suspect this is a parallel to the OP's experience in immigration permissions and indicates a fairly broad, if yet new, adoption of this approach.

There are free accounts available so it doesn't increase household costs (eg N26, BOI has a basic free account, Bunq - and I'm sure there will be others too.) However, there is no official guidance on this yet, it's merely what people involved in the area are saying, so do with this as you will.

Such interesting opinion and helpful too. I have recently applied for an EUTR application and experienced exactly opposite where was asked to show if I have a joint account. which I dont. So, I guess this all depends upon what the officer thinks/believes.

Yes, when the immigration permission is based on dependency or partnership, then evidence of dependency/co-habitation is necessary - and so then they want joint bank accounts. It certainly makes it complicated. And frustrating that in some cases (with eg a spousal visa but an adult naturalisation application) then it may be that both a joint account (for spousal visa) and an individual account (for naturalisation) are best to cover both needs. And of course it isn't just bank accounts that are needed for records, so in cases like this the need for documentation that proves partnership and then also individual activity is just multiplied across different proof types.

[Vadrar]

Thanks for your response.

I understand your points regarding maintaining a sole account. In our case, my wife also has a sole account (something similar to what you mentioned). That bank is also regulated by central bank of ireland. But my only concern here is, if that was down to the fact of having both names in the statement, why was that not pointed out in the first place. It was a complete NO NO for bank statements regardless of the fact that it was a joint account or a sole account.

On the other hand, whatever this new practice coming in to place with immigration renewal it doesnt seem to be consistent across all local branches neither seems to be an approach regulated by the irish immigration. for an example, I have lived in Athlone before and the process was quite straightforward as long as we provide the documents mentioned by irish immigration officially here. https://www.irishimmigration.ie/wp-cont ... -Guide.pdf (please check page 7)

The other concern i have is, checking if someone was away from the country is straightforward thing when passport stamps are checked. why is it not checked?

Anyway these are just my thoughts on the whole incident. I wanted to get another perspective to why it is happening like this and you certainly provided me with different view point. Thank you

Honestly, the advice and strategic thinking from officials can be mind-meltingly poor, outdated or just confused. And the approach in Ireland has long been at the discretion of the handling officer - which means, no, things won't be consistent. Hopefully consistent within their own rules (but not always unfortunately), but there is a very broad scope for discretion at to the point of consideration by the officer at every state. It's why absolute statements like 'this will be fine' or 'that won't be accepted' are foolhardy - discretion is applied by just about everyone in the process and that means the process can look unique to each applicant. It isn't what we would want, but it is unfortunately what we face.

Passport stamps in themselves don't actually prove presence in the country. The borders are porous - especially with NI; Ireland doesn't provide exit stamps (generally), ferries frequently don't check or register movement of people; its an island country and people can sail private boats in and out (I'm talking pleasure boats, I'm not making a dig at refugees). Many people don't get stamps at all - EU citizens, UK citizens etc. People slip out and in without any official notice frequently. (And that is not me making a reference to illegal immigrants - I'm talking about legal residents doing legal and innocent trips that don't get noticed, which seems to be conveniently overlooked by rednecks looking to make someone a scapegoat.) If the department only needed stamps to prove physical presence they wouldn't need or ask for other documentation.

If the officer wouldn't accept sole name bank accounts they might be looking at something different altogether of course (which maybe s/he has already forgotten) - I was just speculating based on similar sounding reports coming in.

Anyway, hope you get it sorted easily enough. No-one needs these confusing and surprising turns on anything relating to immigration - they are worrying enough as it is.