- 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
Yes, that was one of the "grey areas" in my application. I you read one of my previous posts ^^ I think I wrote about that....crukleeds wrote:The UK authorities obviously dont wanna help...... They presume what they want without real evidence.
Not sure if u saw the post before. I just asked if they thought yours was a marriage of convenience????
Quite simply, the IOs at the border have treated you as the spouse of a British citizen. This explains the stamps / notes in your passport and comments from the woman on the phone.wet26 wrote:benifa - one thing I think is odd. When my passport was returned, it was endorsed with a "no work no recourse to public funds" stamp, which was struck through and handwritten endorsed in error. The second stamp is a "no recourse to public funds" stamp only. Different numbers for each stamp.
Refer to Metock. How you entered is irrelevant.wet26 wrote:I didn't get a letter or anything, so I don't know 100% the terms of my entry...
She's treating you as the spouse of a British citizen and giving advice to you in line with the Immigration Rules (UK national laws).wet26 wrote:only what the woman said on the phone, which was that I couldn't work and I need to go back to Australia.
If your husband is a UK national who was resident in Spain, where he pursued an economic activity, Singh conditions apply on his return to the UK.wet26 wrote:Also, I've had a look at the EEA2 app form and I can't see how it applies to me, because husband was not considered an EEA national...
I don't know exactly why I was refused - they didn't give me anything in writing at the port, only said there were several grey areas, marriage of convenience being one of them, and the question of whether he was exercising treaty rights. As far as I am concerned, he was exercising treaty rights because he was working and residing in Spain. I have not been shown where it states that he needed to receive a Spanish income in order to be exercising treaty rights.crukleeds wrote:It is mad especially when you have been living together before your marriage. From what i have read they need to do "exhaustive enquiries" before thinking it.
But if im right in saying your application wasnt refused because of that right? it was because they didnt class your partner as an EEA national? or should I say not exercising Treaty rights?
Absolutely!wet26 wrote:benifa - Are you of the opinion that the IO at the port was wrong in saying that because he was still receiving a UK income (and paying UK tax and NI) that he was not exercising treaty rights in Spain?
Thank you for your post, very helpful. Can I ask why you think the spouse visa may be refused? The IO at the port said he was 99.9% sure I would get the visa.Directive/2004/38/EC wrote: (10) I can not see any point in applying for a Spouse Visa under UK law. It is expensive and I suspect likely not to be issued.
Well, if they do not think your marriage is legit for the European one, then they will also not think it is legit for the Spouse visa. Also, the UKBA’s burden of proof for a refusal is a lot higher under the European law application. I am not sure what grounds exactly they can turn down a Spouse visa, but there are very few grounds they can turn down the European application.wet26 wrote:Thank you for your post, very helpful. Can I ask why you think the spouse visa may be refused? The IO at the port said he was 99.9% sure I would get the visa.Directive/2004/38/EC wrote: (10) I can not see any point in applying for a Spouse Visa under UK law. It is expensive and I suspect likely not to be issued.
I have mentioned this before but didn't receive a definite response, as far as I remember:Directive/2004/38/EC wrote: About the only way to turn down a Singh application under European law are that it is a fraudulent marriage .
This is from Section 4.2 here: http://www.minbuza.nl/binaries/ecer-en- ... -1--2-.pdfRecital 28 defines marriages of convenience for the purposes of the Directive as marriages contracted for the sole purpose of enjoying the right of free movement and residence under the Directive that someone would not have otherwise. A marriage cannot be considered as a marriage of convenience simply because it brings an immigration advantage, or indeed any other advantage. The quality of the relationship is immaterial to the application of Article 35.
It is nice that he chose to interpret it that way. I chose to wear red socks today. But it is not really his job to do much interpretation.wet26 wrote:The IO said the Singh judgment is open to interpretation, and he chose to interpret "working in Spain" as being employed by a Spanish company. Is this defined in the EEA rules anywhere?
I know a British citizen who did a same sex partnership in the British embassy in Bogota to her Colombia partner. The applied for (?) spouse visa was issued two days later. I think UK embassies have very clear instructions to deal with this as they would any other marriage or partnership. There were no problems. They two of them make a lovely couple!crukleeds wrote:Plus i think ill be testing the consulate because I'm in a Same-gender marriage, which is legal here in spain, however i am aware it will become a civil partnership in the UK maybe that will really confuse them hahahaha
I'm sending off that request this arvo. £10 it costs.Directive/2004/38/EC wrote:It is still worth doing a SAR to get your full file. Don't trust any random UKBA person you talk with on the phone, even if you have their name!
Smooth sailing on the Residence Card application. Remember to keep copies of EVERYTHING and document EVERYTHING.