Denied fiancee visa

[Hollandia]

That won't work Hollandia. Part 2. will be where the the Government can say that Megan's SO doesn't fulfill the financial sponsorship requirement, so the government is not obligated to let her SO into the country.

"There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country"

The Government could say that because her SO doesn't fulfill the sponsorship requirements, Megan could become an economic burden.

I'm not a lawyer but my (very very limited) law experience tells me that if you satisfy the criteria and it cannot be proven otherwise, a country CANNOT decline an application for a spousal visa. That does not mean that every signatory country has to let in any spouse married to an applicable citizen.

I also don't recommend going down this route because Megan & her SO would be better off just saving the extra money. It will take more than 6 months for a potential court case to be settled.

I think I would contact an attorney about that. I have done some research on some attorney websites and their are loopholes. In my case for sure, since I DO have the monies but their government laws choose to not take them into account. The are other ways to fight it too, through other sponsors if they can get his parents to assist for instance. The biggest issue is that it is not a guarantee that fiancee's will marry and it would always be harder to enter through one of them. I have read much more research then just that wiki link and hence why I suggest more research would be worth her time at the least.

If you love somebody enough to marry them, then you should marry. The government's will see you have been married and living apart and take your nuptials as more true to form than asking to come and promising to marry. If you are not ready to marry then you should not be using a fiancee visa. I would ask why they are intending to use a fiancee visa if not already ready to marry? If they don't come up with the cash in a year they might split?..............then you are not ready to marry. You are right, the immigration makes final say but they do take into account if you are engaged or actually married.

[Tooki]

Megan said that the UK removed the ability to sign co-sponsors so sadly that option is out. Your situation is completely different as the money is there, it just isn't in a Dutch bank account. Megan and her SO didn't have the money that the immigration conditions stated. She won't get around that unless she has the money.

If it were an issue of technicality she could probably use Article 8 to get around it but I just don't see it happening when this is why she got denied the visa.

[Hollandia]

Megan said that the UK removed the ability to sign co-sponsors so sadly that option is out. Your situation is completely different as the money is there, it just isn't in a Dutch bank account. Megan and her SO didn't have the money that the immigration conditions stated. She won't get around that unless she has the money.

If it were an issue of technicality she could probably use Article 8 to get around it but I just don't see it happening when this is why she got denied the visa.

That is the exact point an attorney would use to fight with the Article 8. UK government's law removed the ability to allow it for what purpose? If they can show she will not affect their economics by other means, then Article 8 applies. My para-legal days are way past , but I will still be taking it to an attorney. The law is a Human Rights issue and a good attorney can also fight the amount listed as being unfair and yes, they can fight under that premise.

I did not guarantee a win, but why are you trying so hard to pooh pooh it? It is worth looking into. Take my word for it, a good attorney will shock you with what they can accomplish and not just in the USA. Laws are changed btw, by new precedents being set by such actions all the time. That is how the law functions. It is not a finite thing, it changes all the time.

[Tooki]

My point is that by the time Megan goes through all of this, she could have saved the money and had it in her SO's account for 6 months. She would have also saved herself thousands of dollars in legal fees. This is an easily rectifiable situation that can be solved within 12 months. I just think that your suggestion is inappropriate, especially given the limited financial situation that her and her SO face. The court could also easily say that the current conditions are sufficient and that it is reasonable for her to satisfy them.

I also know how Law works. We use Common Law in Australia as well and it mirrors that of the other Commonwealth nations.

[Hollandia]

My point is that by the time Megan goes through all of this, she could have saved the money and had it in her SO's account for 6 months. She would have also saved herself thousands of dollars in legal fees. If this came down to an issue that cannot be changed, such as criminal charges, then I could understand why going to court would be the best option.

What if she cannot save up the money? What if she gets injured or he does? What if a family member becomes very ill and requires one of them to cut back on work? How about if they get pregnant? I am almost most concerned about the year needed to try again, and then maybe to give up. I again, suggested, looking into it and finding out what direction they should work towards best. A consultation does not cost thousands. The whole point of Human Rights laws is to protect our human rights, and with humans comes many potential what if's throughout a years time.

I also think that if she does have a third party sponsor that guarantees to support her then it is internal government laws preventing her from being with her SO and not really to protect the economical prosperity of the country. OTOH, Human Rights such as Asylum rights override those requirements across the board. How long before they take those away too? They really are hurting the economics of the UK and much of the once prosperous countries in the EU.

It is good we both know the law. We both know that you never know the outcome until after the trial. This is international law of which I am speaking, I don't know if it pertains to Australia, It is the European Convention.


I would never at least not try unless I was told not to do so by a few immigration attorneys. My suggestion was to get a consultation from a trained immigration attorney that knows much more than both you and I. That is not inappropriate.

[Dezface]

Wow this thread got heated.

Megan-I'm sorry, it sucks to be denied. But you have to have a realistic view of the situation. While some of us are smart asses, yes it's true, we're also by and large realists. We just want you to see the objective viewpoint. Lashing out at people does not make anyone more sympathetic to your situation. I think we all agree that it must be devastating, but we're trying to persuade you to pick yourself up, do the work, and try again.

[Tooki]

If she cannot save up the money, she shouldn't be trying to move to another country then. Based on pure numbers, the requirements aren't unrealistic and many people on here have SUCCESSFULLY moved internationally, because they are willing to wait as long as they need to and they have saved up more than the minimum requirement.

[Hollandia]

If she cannot save up the money, she shouldn't be trying to move to another country then. Based on pure numbers, the requirements aren't unrealistic and many people on here have SUCCESSFULLY moved internationally, because they are willing to wait as long as they need to and they have saved up more than the minimum requirement.

You and I disagree on this point. You should not be kept from your soulmate because this country decides that that country is okay but this other one is not. If they lived in two different countries of the EU, it would all be a moot point. There are a thousand things that could happen to prevent them from coming up with that money. It is pretty rude to say people should just wait however long it takes. There is a reason why immigration attorneys exist.

We do not all have the blessing of youth to start our families either. If they forced her to register and made sure she continued to not drain the economy there is again no legitimate reason to not allow her to be there. I ask you again about the countries of the EU that are draining the prosperous dry ? How about the nations that are not in the EU but have people flocking for asylum? I really don't think the EU or UK is being overrun by Americans or Australians taking their jobs. As someone in an LDR it seems pretty odd that you agree so heartily with the governments rights to keep us all apart. Should they be banned from having sex? What if she gets pregnant? Does the baby have the right to live with both parents? If you think this is applicable to Article 8, then you run the risk of people having babies to satisfy the law and making a bigger and legit demand on UK's economy. My point is, things are not so cut and dry.

We both stated our opinions so I don't see either one changing their minds. I know I won't and if the time comes when we are ready to marry and his boss still won't raise his income up by the amount needed then I will certainly contact an immigration attorney.

[Tooki]

I know it would be moot if both parties are from an EU member state. If my GF was from New Zealand, it would be the same story. It is rude to say that you should wait as long as you do, but people can't just choose to go and live in another country because they feel like it (except for certain situations that have already been mentioned)

What does EU taxation have to do with this (draining the rich dry)? It's not about taking jobs, it's about making sure that non-citizens won't start becoming a burden to the state. Governments want to do their best to prevent false marriages and also make sure that relevant applicants are financially prepared to sponsor a spouse. Things aren't cut and dry but now this isn't about Megan. You have brought in factors that aren't relevant to the discussion at all.

On the baby talk, the baby would be a British citizen by descent. I imagine that there are less stringent conditions if this were the situation.

I agree with the right to have borders and control who goes in and out. I also agree with controlled immigration. Why is it odd that I supported controlled immigration? I would love to have things easy but they rarely are like that. The process of closing the distance is long and hard, but again, it's achievable and people on the forum have showed that it can be done if do what the application form says.

Feel free to get a lawyer for when you move. Ill plan on satisfying the criteria and beyond. I apologise to whoever reads this Drabble. All I was trying to tell Megan is that she is better off saving up the extra money instead of taking the UK Government to court. It's not even going to be a bad thing if she does move to the UK with more money.

[Hollandia]

I know it would be moot if both parties are from an EU member state. If my GF was from New Zealand, it would be the same story. It is rude to say that you should wait as long as you do, but people can't just choose to go and live in another country because they feel like it (except for certain situations that have already been mentioned)

What does EU taxation have to do with this (draining the rich dry)? It's not about taking jobs, it's about making sure that non-citizens won't start becoming a burden to the state. Governments want to do their best to prevent false marriages and also make sure that relevant applicants are financially prepared to sponsor a spouse. Things aren't cut and dry but now this isn't about Megan. You have brought in factors that aren't relevant to the discussion at all.

On the baby talk, the baby would be a British citizen by descent. I imagine that there are less stringent conditions if this were the situation.

I agree with the right to have borders and control who goes in and out. I also agree with controlled immigration. Why is it odd that I supported controlled immigration? I would love to have things easy but they rarely are like that. The process of closing the distance is long and hard, but again, it's achievable and people on the forum have showed that it can be done if do what the application form says.

Feel free to get a lawyer for when you move. Ill plan on satisfying the criteria and beyond. I apologise to whoever reads this Drabble. All I was trying to tell Megan is that she is better off saving up the extra money instead of taking the UK Government to court. It's not even going to be a bad thing if she does move to the UK with more money.

Drabble? Why because you say so? You responded to my OP that was for Megan.

These are legitimate concerns that you have picked and chosen which ones are acceptable and which ones are not. Just because one was born in the USA and the other was born in UK you are expected to jump through a ton of laws that did not exist years back Those born in Spain and France (etc) do not have to deal with these issues. All members of EU countries are allowed to come and go and live and work in the other EU countries. It is the same, btw, for people born in CA and NYC. The point is that where you are born determines who you can be with if your life does not work out such that you are able to meet the financial standard decided by the politicians of some nation. Such is the world we live in now, but we also have the right to look into other options if we so choose.

The EU taxation is one of the main reasons so many in EU cannot come up with the money that is required to get the Visas. If the UK or other stronger nations were not supporting these weaker nations then the partner in said countries would be able to obtain jobs to meet the standards. The cost of living continues to rise and yet the job market dwindles. It is a vicious catch 22.

The baby option is one that applies to any male and female LDR that are desperate to be together. Megan included. It is also something that if no other option is available many might consider. The Uk would have the choice of depriving a Uk citizenship of their parent or not. I can just read those headlines.

Megan mentioned a third party support system option that is no longer allowed. I have also suggested a registration where she is required to show support for herself. In both situations there would be no drain on the economy and since when would this be a false marriage if they are already planning to marry? These very much pertain to her because it would be ways that the attorney could take into consideration for her.

I am going to say one more time that I suggested she consult an immigration attorney...........I did not tell her to go file a suit. You seem to find the entire concept of immigration attorneys very distasteful and have utter blind faith in the system. I have been around the block a bit more and while your life my seem set for now and you are on track to "meet the criteria" I certainly hope no emergencies befall you or your abilities to do so in the future because a government decides to make a new law or you might change your tune.

I don't apologize for giving her another option than just saving up again and hoping she can get the money together for another one time try in a year or saying goodbye to her love. I believe love is more important than living well off and we are talking about another whole year not just a few months. I also think if a few more people did file some suits the ridiculous immigration laws of some countries might become a bit more reasonable. They have gotten more stringent over the years and can only get worse. This will affect Megan, You, Me and everybody else in a LDR.

[leonsfangirl]

From what my Immigration lawyer told me, You can fight a refusal on human rights grounds, if you can prove there is no way for you to be together in the other persons country. However, you have a stronger case if you are already married.
I found this out as they changed the rules back in July last year which stopped my SO and I filing and we wanted to find out what our options are and this lose and appeal was our only option. I can prove there would be no way other than him coming here for us to be together because i have children from a previous relationship and a court order in place which prohibits me from leaving the country with the children for longer than a month.
So, honestly. If you can prove what i've said above and are up for the fight... appeal. If you can't, save up and reapply. I can't imagine how much this sucks for you but you WILL do this and be together, they only thing in your way is money and your so close.


EDIT!!!

Hang on, you have the extra money in your account but they wont take it into account?

Cant you send the extra to him and leave it there for 6 months? That should be fine and it should help strethen the case in general as your sharing finances.

Just a quick thought after i sent the other comment.

[kittyo9]

I don't apologize for giving her another option than just saving up again and hoping she can get the money together for another one time try in a year or saying goodbye to her love. I believe love is more important than living well off and we are talking about another whole year not just a few months. I also think if a few more people did file some suits the ridiculous immigration laws of some countries might become a bit more reasonable. They have gotten more stringent over the years and can only get worse. This will affect Megan, You, Me and everybody else in a LDR.

It is literally as simple as that she didn't meet the criteria. There is nothing for an attorney to do. There are no laws that say a person has the right to be with their "soul mate"-- and the fact that a "soul mate" cannot be determined by any logical route means that there is no way to make that a law. People lie all the time, frequently in immigration (hello, green card marriages). It doesn't matter if they're "different." You're right, it does affect all of us in international LDRs, but most of us recognize our errors or shortcomings and act to fix them rather than fighting a losing battle for what you deem a "right" (but is really a privilege).

It sucks to have your visa denied and I have serious sympathy for that, as we've had two visas denied as well. It feels like a waste of money and time to do everything you possibly can to meet the requirements and then to have them shrug you off. At the very least, the issue presented here was very straightforward and easily defined on paper (with us, they wouldn't even tell him what he needed to do, just that his circumstances weren't right to give him a tourist visa into the US).

Several good solutions have been suggested here. I don't know why waiting for another year would mean you have to break up, though... many of us have been long distance for many, many years, sometimes with visits that are few and far in between. I guess if you feel like it's not worth it any more, then that makes sense, but I would not let a year of postponement hold me back from the person I love.

[JoeyBug]

I am so sorry to hear that! I do recommend https://talk.uk-yankee.com/index.php as a place to get advice and make sure all the boxes are checked when resubmitting. They are a site for Americans wanting to move to the UK and have a bunch of people who have either done this, or are planning to do it. I know because I'm in a similar siltation. Mine is different because of other factors, but they have been a wealth of information for me, I do know that they should only need £18,600 in savings and have had it in the account for six months. I wish you the best of luck and hope it does not end up with you having to part ways.

Is there no way for him to come to you?