potential work problems

Satisfy the requirements and you will be okay. Many many succesful applicants will bear testimony to that.

Here is Kuyas own take on it

http://www.euro-pinoy.com/index.php/relationship-issues/item/39-visa-declined-how-to-appeal

A very popular read, by all accounts.

I have seen a good handful of similar overturns of a wrongful decision. If the UKVI have clearly got it wrong they cannot win on that basis. If the application case content is fragile ( with regard to immigration law of the day ) then it may fail then, for the obvious reasoning.

With respect and appreciation to the two posters above, I don't entirely agree with your reasoning, as well-intentioned as it might be. And I don't see how cast-iron guarantees can be given on anything to do with immigration to the UK.

UKVI have messed people around in the past, they are doing so now, they have a political remit to do so (given the zeitgeist), they sometimes work contrary to European law, and they will probably find new ways of doing so in the future - by accident or design, who is to say? Many sources are out there, that point to design, and point to the fact that 'fragile cases' aren't the only reason for rejection (and if UKVI say it is a fragile case, are they automatically believed?). I don't mean this just in relation to a UK citizen bringing his non-EEA wife to live in the UK - I mean in pretty much all areas of visa application. Myself, I don't know for sure really do I, as I have not been through the process yet, but having had experiences of other institutions, and the amount of inconsistent interpretation/box ticking they perform, let's just say that I tend towards the cynical. It's small and yellow and quacking, and you say it's not remotely canard? With respect for your help (which I have always had): How are you so sure that it is a 95% rate (is that based on 19 out of 20 people you know?) - and how much of that does that apply to those with an income between 18,600 and 23,000 for instance?

Of course, the question is - how many people have had positive experiences, and negative ones through no fault of their own? Given the many negative accounts that are available to see 'out there', should one want to see them, of course - you cannot deny that there is an element of chance in the whole thing. Of course, they could be dismissed as those who just didn't put their paperwork in order, but that would be a comforting, yet dangerous trap to fall into.

I don't see Kuya's case as showing UKVI in a good light, at all. He was messed around, and had to arrange a personal hearing. He had to bombard them with emails. So, he got lucky. He got a two month delay. Others probably have been delayed longer. Not evidence of a good system at all.

Once again, I will state: generally, those that do well through the system think it is fair, and those that do not will not. It is UKVI's job to keep people out (thus keeping us safe, it could be argued - I certainly have concern over arranged marriages, and human trafficking, for instance). Not to be fair. And it is how they interpret the rules, often on a case by case basis, that they get their real power from. Sorry, it seems like another case of the Emperor's New Clothes to me!

Anyway, it is what it is, irrespective of what anyone thinks. I just hope the dice fall lucky for me I have booked my flight today, and can't wait

Nothing like research to realise that there is a difference between "the rules" and "Political Policy" some of the errors in law on European route settlement are so mad you couldnt make it up.

You sound defeated before you start, Andy.

Myself and Halo Halo were merely trying to add our positive perspective on this. Help if you will. One can but try. I gather the spousal route has a 90 something percent success rate, so on that basis we all stand a good chance if we meet the requirements.

Not a case of we have done it, arent we great. More a case of we have done it, so can you.

No cast iron gaurantees though. If you as a couple dont meet the requirements or dont prove that you meet the requirements then you or anyone else will set yourself up to fail.

The 90 something percent success rate is based on probably hundreds I have seen over the last 4 years. But there is a chap who actually tracked down the actual figures and that is what they were.

Please yourself, though. I am not forcing you to do anything. Like I said, here to help. Take it as you want.

We all have different perspectives I guess Andy. My feeling is as we have already said, meet the requirements and you're good to go. Oh and do enjoy the trip When are you going?

Andy. Do not marry the girl if you think it is too risky. Certainly not in the Philippines. You wouldnt want to put her through that to find she is refused a spouse visa, now would you?

Well I'm glad you're not offended that I have a different perspective than you

I'm going late May, not for long, but it's a start.

John - I don't agree with you, I have said that I have appreciated your help, twice now. If you wish to poke fun or whatever, just because I have the temerity to respectfully disagree with you, go ahead. If you feel like you need an argument, move on. I put my points strongly but always respectfully.

And - if visas are rejected, there is Singh and if that is no good then I move abroad. Is that still defeatist to you? The problem with optimism is that no contingencies are made. Anyways, good day to you Sir.

Its all just a question of getting your head round it, game on Andy

Keith,

Should there be a referendum soon or in 2017 and the decision was made for Britain to pull out of Europe, would that be the end of the Singh route?

If there was a referendum, and we decided on complete withdrawal (which might take a couple of years) then it is possible however transitional protection for folk already in the system would almost certainly exist .
Thats the hypothetical I find it to be improbable however that a referendum will result from the Thursday vote no matter what Cameron might say to placate his right wingers and Clegg makes it clear that the legislation that the coalition placed on statute in the last parliment only gets activated if NEW powers were required to be devolved

In short not any time soon if ever

Why the hell is that first case in the newspaper? Some self-employed guy earns over 18,600, but didn't get a visa for his wife because he didn't provide enough evidence.

So what?

Same thing happened to us. Guess what we did. We applied again, provided more evidence and she got one. So, big deal on that one.

Some of the stuff that gets in newspapers is ridiculous.

It's 2 years for self-employed people. They need full accounts certified by an accountant showing 2 full financial years, plus evidence of NI contributions, business bank accounts and 2 years Tax Returns certified by the accountant.

I think you are probably right about the referendum. Was just looking for clarification on the Singh route, should the withdrawal happen...

Unless they ask for more, and they can.

The UK will not withdraw from Europe. It's pie in the sky to think that this will happen. The USA don't want it to. The bankers don't want it to, the multinationals also. Who are more powerful than them?

The best that can be done is to renegotiate the terms, and only have some things changed, thus giving the politicians at the helm something they can sell to the people as a victory, thus a referendum would not be required.

Expect much rhetoric and willy-waving ahead. Even if it does come to a referendum, there will be mass scaremongering on a level far above what we saw in the run-up to the Scottish election.

At least now it will be entertaining to watch Cameron having to take responsibility for his manifesto pledge, now that he cant blame another party for blocking it

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b05wpwcn the vote now show 8mis 30" on Camerons dilemma very funny and all worth a listen including "Clegg has been punished by his constituency by being elected to spend five more years in parliament"

Umm, you are probably in a different position to this person. Being rejected really hurt him, when given that he submitted all the evidence he could think of , he was rejected without them specifying further evidence, and that has messed his family up, and put him to great inconvenience. There are children involved, and he didn't want his wife going back to Panama.

Here was the thrust of it:

He added: 'The relationship requirements and everything like that were met, but they refused the visa, saying that I don't meet the financial requirements.
'You have to earn £18,600 a year as a minimum. I'm self-employed and earn about £3,000 a month and I gave them bank statements and everything I could think of to prove it.
'But they refused the visa, saying that I don't meet the financial requirements. They said I didnt give the necessary evidence, but didn't say what that was supposed to be.
'She had 28 days to appeal but you have to be in your home country to do that, so she would have had to go back to Panama so we could appeal it.
'If we cant get this decision turned around, we will all have to go back to Panama and start the process of applying again.
'When we went to Panama to hand in the forms and evidence, I was there to answer any questions they wanted to ask, but they didn't ask me anything.
'It's not the refusal that I think is unfair, but it does indicate incompetence and a broken system.'

I'm glad the system worked for you. However, given you pay what over £900, having an application rejected on lack of evidence after you had given the evidence (and then don't specify what you need) is galling, and represents very poor value for money, don't you think? I think it smacks of being messed around for the sake of it.

Yet, if he wasn't British, he would have more rights than someone who was, despite applying in their own country. That's not right.

He was actually punished by those voters who'd normally have voted Conservative but voted tactically on this occasion to - as you say - punish him! Clegg faced a strong challenge from Labour so their tactical had the added benefit of ensuring Labour didn't steal the seat.