Mae Draper, another case of the consequence of wrong visa and example of being on only a ILR visa, then spending 2 years away from the UK An immigration lawyer stated in a TV interview that a period of living apart for 2 years, fails the requirement of proving 'genuine and subsisting'! The saddest news, is that due to being deported using public funds, an application to re-enter cannot be made for at least 2yrs. http://chrisskidmore.com/chris-campaigns/help-mae-draper/
Another outrage. Thanks for bringing it up. Posted it to my FB page but hope someone will post it to the British-Filipino page too - I could do but don't feel that I should unless others agree.
Until now, i never knew a 'returning residence visa' even existed? https://www.gov.uk/returning-resident-visa The lesson here is if non-uk partner doesn't achieve UK Citizenship, then can be vulnerable to returning on the wrong visa and overstay or wrongly think that ILR is valid forever
I've never heard of the returning residents visa either. I rather foolishly thought ILR was a permanent status. I guess citizenship is the only answer
So... "indefinite" does not mean "Indefinite"; it means "for as long as the Government feels like it"?
This is a link to another consequence where a partner doesn't bother obtaining citizenship. http://immigrationandvisasolicitors...sick-us-husband-british-national-deported-uk/
Just goes to show that we all need to keep our eye on the ball until the loved ones have that British passport in their hands.
In all of these cases the people either being kicked out of the country or not let in have not followed the immigration rules, so at the end of the day it is not the UKBA that is at fault, they do not often show favourable discretion as we all know from being members here at BF.
yeah UKBA not a fault. The 2nd scenario illustrates that you can't assume the citizenship can simply be put off till later. As any change in circumstances could cause no end of problems later. The only way of avoiding such problems is ultimately obtaining citizenship at the earliest opportunity. Only then does any security exist.
I take your point but the rules are quite clear - and were last tinkered-with by the Blair government. If you are in possession of ILR then you have Indefinite Leave to Remain in the UK. ILR does not grant the right to permanent residence - that's a perk of citizenship and rightly so.
If you are in possession of ILR then you have Indefinite Leave to Remain in the UK. ILR does not grant the right to permanent residence - that's a perk of citizenship and rightly so.[/QUOTE] Yeah, Seems 'indefinite to remain' actually has an expiry time limit associated with it if you do not remain, this being an absence of 2 years or more from the UK. Maybe the returning resident visa is what is used to return to save having to go through the whole ILR process again and is a cheaper visa? Has anyone who has been granted an 'ILR' made aware of the 2 year absence pitfall?
Unfortunately indefinite does mean that. An unspecified length of time. Not permanent. These days they are looking for any way they can to get figures down and, once again, it seems families are the easy targets. Having said that, being out the country for 2 years is a long time to be away without checking it would be ok.
If your a holder of ILR and do spend time away for 2 years or more (maybe accompany a spouse working overseas?), you have to make sure you take with you what you need in order to apply for a returning residence visa. "documents that prove you have ties to the UK, eg proof you’ve earned income, or rented or owned property, in the UK" I would personally be thing ahead about new ventures, but not about how you return. An ILR holder could still be vulnerable, if whilst away the government changes the requirements for return? Unlike the legal system, the UK border agency seems to look at things as 'guilty' unless proven 'innocent'.
