I GOT MY SETTELEMENT BUT BECAREFUL NEXT TIME JOHN

[karam]

I JUST WANT TO INFORM EVERYBODY IN THE FORUM THAT I GOT MY SETTELEMENT LAST WEEK.
ONE THING SHOULD BE AWARE FOR ANY APPLICANT GOING THROUGH SETTELEMENT IS THAT HIS SPONSOR SHOULD HAVE NO RECOURSE TO PUBLIC FUNDS!
I HAD AN INTERVIEW WITH VICE COUNSIL OF THE BRITISH EMBASSY AND HE EXPLAINED TO ME THAT IF THE SPONSOR IS GETTING PUBLIC FUNDS MEANS HE OR SHE CAN T SUPPORT THE HUSBAND OR WIFE!
IN CASE YOU DENIED THAT YOUR SPONSOR HAVE NO RECOURSE TO PUBLIC FUNDS AND THEY CHECKED AND FOUND OUT YOU WILL BE EXPOSED BOTH PARTENERS TO SANCTIONS WHICH RESULT OF THE REFUSAL OF THE VISA AND CUTTING THE PUBLIC FUNDS FOR THE SPONSOR.
THIS IS WHAT I TRIED TO EXPLAIN TO JOHN BEFORE BUT I DONT THINK HE GOT IT .SO MY ADVISE FOR EVERYONE WHO IS APPLYING IS TO BE CLEAR ABOUT THIS AND YOUR SPONSOR SHOULD NT HAVE ANY RECOURSE TO PUBLIC FUND.
GLAD I DIDNT FOLLOW YOUR ADVISE JOHN OTHERWISE I WILL BE HAVING TROUBLES NOW.
I DO BELIEVE YOU TRY TO HELP PEOPLE WHICH KIND OF YOU BUT NEXT TIME BE SURE YOU KNOW THE RIGHT THING BECAUSE IT COULD RESULT OF CATASTROPHY!

THIS IS WHAT JOHN SAID AND IT IS VERY WRONG
John
Moderator


Joined: 10 Nov 2004
Posts: 4322
Location: Birmingham, England
Posted: Mon Oct 30, 2006 10:09 am Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
she declines it to apply for the visa because they say she shouldnt have any recourse to public fund


No it doesn't! It says that she is not allowed to claim more Public Funds if you succeed in getting your visa and come to the UK. She is perfectly entitled to claim benefits that she is entitled to whether or not you are here in the UK.

I make that point because if her employment income is about £1000 per month and she is paying out £600 per month for housing, it is borderline whether the financial test might be passed or not. That is, she needs every financial help she can get in order to legitimately increase the family income, and thus assist you to get your visa.

Thus in a perverse way her not claiming the Child Benefit and Tax Credits could actually harm your chances of getting a visa.
_________________
John

Back to top

[karam]

I HOPE THIS KIND OF MISTAKES SHOULD NOT HAPPEN AGAIN BUT THANKS TO THE FORUM ANY WAY

[Dawie]

Unfortunately by insisting on writing in capital letters and essentially "shouting" your message like a wailing banshee you have, in my eyes at least, lost any credibility you may have had in your complaint against John.

I don't know the merits of this particular case but I do know that this is a forum where a number of members very kindly give their advice and opinion on a range of immigration subjects and issues. There are no guarantees and you are encouraged to make your own judgements about what advice you choose to accept.

This board is a great resource for everyone, but only a fool would blindly take advice here as gospel without finding alternative sources of information to backup what you have been told.

[John]

Problem is that it is not wrong! I have no apologies to make! I feel that the confusion is thus :-

The sponsor is allowed to claim Public Funds ... but if those Public Funds are the total income of the sponsor then it could well be the case that the financial test is failed! Simply insufficient income to show that the applicant applicant will not need to claim certain Public Funds. But that is nothing like saying that the sponsor is not allowed to claim Public Funds.

Secondly, do note that posting in block capitals on the internet is the equivalent to shouting. Accordingly anyone posting in block capitals on this Board is liable to find their post disappearing without notice.

[OL7MAX]

I DO BELIEVE YOU TRY TO HELP PEOPLE WHICH KIND OF YOU BUT NEXT TIME BE SURE YOU KNOW THE RIGHT THING BECAUSE IT COULD RESULT OF CATASTROPHY!

Sometimes I do think there should be a drama queen test for prospective immigrants.

A netiquette one wouldn't go amiss.

An apology to John would be in order, methinks.

[John]

Yes an apology would be nice!

As regards :-

I HAD AN INTERVIEW WITH VICE COUNSIL OF THE BRITISH EMBASSY AND HE EXPLAINED TO ME THAT IF THE SPONSOR IS GETTING PUBLIC FUNDS MEANS HE OR SHE CAN T SUPPORT THE HUSBAND OR WIFE!

:- I shall come up with a simple illustration as to how wrong that is! Take someone settled in the UK earning ... well let's say £50000 pa ... and who has a child from a former relationship living with them ... and claims Child Benefit and Tax Credits because of that child .... so whilst both Child Benefit and Tax Credits are within the definition of Public Funds, it is nevertheless quite clear that the UK settled person can ensure that a visa applicant will not need to claim certain Public Funds.

That is, it simply does not follow that because a UK settled person claims the Public Funds to which they are entitled that they automatically become unable to act as sponsor for a visa.

However it remains the case that a UK settled person whose only income is Public Funds might well struggle to pass the financial test. But no way should that fact be misinterpreted as meaning that the UK settled person cannot claim certain Public Funds.

[Mafia]

I am not going to side with any parties here. I am going to say what I think is the right without fear or favour.

I believe John has provided the advice in good faith based on the information you have provided. A rational person would have undertaken further research or advice prior to making his/her application. You should have approached a qualified legal professional as you have a clear redress path if your professional advisor is subsequently proven to be negligent.

Even if the response you obtained here is subsequently proven to be incorrect, I am sure there are more tactful ways of putting that point across. Come on, be sensible, and apologise!

I fully understand where John is coming from and would probably have given a similar response. I am not an expert in settlement related queries but having done a bit of reading today, I can see why the local British Embassy official has provided you with that response.

Extracts from a leading legal firm website ...
" the parties will be able after the marriage to maintain themselves and any dependants adequately without recourse to public funds".

Extracts from a British Embassy website ...
" Evidence of maintenance available in UK. There must be adequate maintenance without recourse to public funds available for the applicant until the date of the marriage and after the marriage the parties must be able to maintain themselves and their dependants adequately without recourse to public funds. "


The Mafia ...

[John]

Mafia, I am unimpressed by the quotes you provide. Have a read of this PDF from the IND website, and in particular read at 5 :-

Cases where money from public funds is being received by an individual’s partner do not count as “recourse to public funds” – for example, where child benefit is being received by a British citizen married to an individual subject to immigration control. In such cases, the individual receiving the money is entitled to do so. Their partner’s immigration status makes no difference to this.

In some exceptional cases, the relevant benefits, tax credits or housing legislation allows individuals subject to immigration control to claim certain public funds in their own right. Paragraph 6B of the Rules provides that, where these exceptional circumstances apply, the individual concerned should not be treated as having recourse to public funds.

Also for the benefit of those dealing with visa applications outside the UK, Chapter 9 of the DSPs ..... click here .... and then go to 9.2, part of which reads :-

There is no objection to the British citizen/settled sponsor receiving any public funds to which he is entitled in his own right. The important factor to consider is whether there will be a need for the sponsor to claim additional public funds to support the applicant. The fact that an applicant may not be eligible to claim public funds is not in itself sufficient to satisfy the requirements of the Rules.

If the sponsor is in receipt of public funds, it does not mean that they will be unable to support the applicant, although clearly a person who is heavily dependent on the state because they don't have sufficient means of their own will find it difficult to support another person for any length of time. The question to be considered is whether additional recourse to public funds will be necessary if the applicant is granted leave to enter.

So again I have no apologies to make about my earlier comments. Apologies now sought also from "a leading legal firm" and a "British Embassy"! Only joking!

[jes2jes]

John:

To tell you the truth, the info you provided was excellent. I read the OP's (Karam) post yesterday and I was disgusted and decided not to comment since it was not worth my time.

The only reason which I believe has brought this inappropriate post from the OP is his/her lack of understanding of the english language and nothing else. Your reply to his post really explained everything and I was surprised he posted further.

Thank you for the extra information provided in your latter post concerning PF. This is excellent and hats off!

Please do not waste your time to respond to such ignorant postings. Help those who really appreciate your help.

I would advise the OP to apologise to John ASAP.

Jes.

[John]

Jes, the fact is that there is a lot of ignorance about this Public Funds question. I just hope this topic will educate ..... and especially amongst those who should know better .... including embassy staff who are clearly often under-trained on this complicated issue.

Mafia, the embassy website you mention, can I ask which embassy we are talking about? I want to get that corrected.

[pumkin]

The advice John gave is correct. When I contacted the Child benefit department to find out, I was told that I could claim even though my husband did not have settlement at that time. I was able to claim child tax credit, but had to name my husband on the forms, as they want the total household income.

My husband has settlement.

[Prince1]

Karam....posted 15....joined 2006...junior member
John...posted 4330.....joined 2004...moderator

I know whose opinion I will rather trust...

John thanks for clarifying even more.....

[Mafia]

The extracts were provided not to undermine John’s comments but to understand how mistakes could potentially have been made by Embassy officials.

Here’s the link from the British Embassy website in Rabat, Morocco. http://www.britishembassy.gov.uk/servle ... 914780#Q14

How do I qualify to join my husband, wife or civil partner in the UK?
You must show that:
• together you can support yourselves and any dependants without any help from public funds
• you have suitable accommodation, which is owned or lived in only by you and your household, and where you and your dependants can live without any help from public funds

Similar wordings are used for fiancé settlement applications - click here :-

“Evidence of maintenance available in UK. There must be adequate maintenance without recourse to public funds available for the applicant until the date of the marriage and after the marriage the parties must be able to maintain themselves and their dependants adequately without recourse to public funds.”

However, have a look at this AIT case in particular paragraphs 18 to 20 which would support John’s argument.
http://www.ait.gov.uk/Public/Upload/j19 ... tarred.doc


The Mafia …

*May be preferable to cut and paste full link to your browser.

[John]

Realising from his previous postings which country Karam had applied in, I emailed the British Embassy in Rabat earlier today ... even before your latest post Mafia.

Simply I want an explanation why allegedly someone there said something clearly not in accordance with 9.2 of the DSPs. The fact that it is now pointed out that their website is clearly inaccurate adds to the problem.

But Mafia as regards ".... which would support John’s argument" .... I don't have an argument here .... I am simply pointing out what the DSPs .... absolutely not written by me .... are clearly saying.