For all visa applicants seeking settlement in the UK with a limited period of leave (usually 30 months) a surcharge of £200 per year - total £500 will be levied at the time of application. If the visa is refused this will be automatically refunded.
For non EEA applicants already in the UK a further extension of leave such as FLR will also carry the surcharge.
There is no surcharge for those applying for indefinite leave to remain.
In AS v ECO Bangkok the refusal for the child's settlement visa was overturned at the First Tier Tribunal and our grounds for appeal were accepted without the Home Office contesting them. This case had been followed closely by the local press in Lincolnshire. We are delighted for this family who must remain anonymous.
Today at the Tribunal we represented a child previously refused a settlement visa by the ECO Bangkok for lack of sole responsibility.
The appeal was allowed.
This case was amusing in that the step-father of the child had previously worked in security at the British Embassy in Bangkok and was well kinown to all the staff there.
An anonymity order was made.
The Home Office has announced that starting in March 2015 long term visas of over 6 months will no longer be issued. Instead a visa valid for 30 days will be issued along with a letter informing the applicant which post office in the UK they must collect their biometric residency permit at within 10 days of arriving in the UK. Failure to travel within the 30 days period will mean that a new paid for visa application must be made. This system will start in Delhi before being rolled out across the World by the end of July 2015. No date has yet been given for implementation in Bangkok.
Today at Hatton Cross IAC hearing centre we solely represented our client (a spouse settlement visa) in PB v ECO Bangkok who had been refused for using deception in a previous application. We were able to prove that deception had not been used and the visa was issued.
In ML v ECO Bangkok the visa for a child to join his mother in the UK was refused on the basis that the mother had been living in the UK for 5 years and therefore could not satisfy the sole responsibility requirement. We appealed and the case was heard at Hatton Cross. The Judge accepted our adduced evidence and interpretation of the Law and the appeal was allowed at the hearing.
Today our Tony Kierans was the sole counsel in the case of PC v ECO Bangkok at the Immigration Appeals Court. This was a child visa case that had been refused by both the ECO and ECM at the Embassy on the grounds of sole responsibility not being proven and accommodation not being available. The Home Office employed a barrister to represent them and the case was hard fought with the Judge issuing an immediate determination in favour of the appellant, our client. This case has attracted much interest among the Thai community in the West Country and Dorset in particular. Costs were ordered against the Home Office.
Beware that the reception staff at the visa application centre in Bangkok are sending all visitors to an unqualified visa agency instead of directly to the VFS offices as they walk in.
There are plenty of visa touts around and even one offering free Tuk Tuk rides to their offices in the VFS building. Genuine visa operators are regulated by the OISC and are forbidden to tout for business.
Do NOT believe anyone who says they represent us. Our offices are in the building opposite and you are welcome to walk in and see us for help and advice but you will not find us on the pavement touting.
Today we celebrate the 25th anniversary of our establishment!!
As from 3rd January 2014 legal adoptions registered in Thailand will be added to the list of recognised country adoptions accepted by the UK. This does not apply to adoptions made under the Hague convention or to adoptions registered before 3rd January 2014.
We are delighted to have been appointed as immigration consultants to a large importer and wholesaler/retailer of Asian foodstuffs based in Surrey with branches in the UK and Europe who employ staff from several Asian countries.
The Home Office has announced that as from 25 June 2013 the right to appeal against the refusal of this type of visa will be withdrawn.
Applicants will have to re-apply, pay the fee again and address all reasons for the previous refusal.
We are pleased to annouce that our role has been extended indefinitely as immigration advisers to the students studying at the Canterbury, Farnham, Epsom, Maidstone and Rochester campuses of the University.
21/2/2013 In the case of NW v ECO Bangkok the Embassy refused the visa. This case has attracted much attention. We represented the child and the Judge agreed that the Embassy had acted incorrectly and ordered that the visa be issued. Costs were awarded against UKBA.
In the case of NC v ECO which has been very closely followed by an Arabic language newspaper we represented the appellant and her two children. The entry clearance for all three was granted on appeal. Reporting restrictions apply. We were the sole legal representatives.
On 16/6/2011 we were the sole representatives in CS v ECO at Hatton Cross AIT a case refused on the basis that the appellant had overstayed in the UK by three years and the sponsor was in receipt of public funds and could not support his wife. The Judge accepted our arguments and allowed the appeal under paragraph 281 of the Immigration Rules.
On 10/6/2011 we solely represented an eight year old child in TP v ECO at Sutton AIT. The case revolved around whether a mother who had lived apart from the child for five years had retained sole custody. The Counsel for the Home Office argued against allowing the Appeal. However the Judge accepted our submissions that sole responsibility had been maintained and allowed the Appeal.
In the Appeals Tribunal at Hatton Cross today we represented BW v ECO regarding a third refusal under Rule 281 (iii) intention to live together.
We are very pleased that the Judge accepted our pleadings and has allowed the Appeal.
This was their first appeal having used another agency to try for their three visas unsuccessfully before engaging us to lodge an Appeal.
In the case of CE V ECO Bangkok we challenged the refusal of her visa under Rule 320 paragraph 18.
She had been in the UK previously unlawfully and had also received a two year prison sentence whilst in the UK.
Our Tony Kierans acted as lead Counsel and the Appeal was granted with the Immigration Judge agreeing that paragraph 18 was indeed a case of double jeopardy and therefore accepting our contention that this Rule was unlawful.