We expect those with no legal right to remain in the country to leave.

[BrilloPad]

I think we can all agree that the important thing is that the rules have been applied and she is out of the country.

Hear hear. Now we need to get more rules and get them applied. Before the UK sinks.

[NotAllThere]

OK, ignore the point then.

Oh GB9... I addressed your point precisely, explaining why your brainfart had no relevance. MrMarkyMark saw that, and he's hardly a fan of mine. But, as ever, you're so utterly lacking in even the most basic of analytic skill, you're just too dumb to see it. Never mind poppet - don't trouble your head with it any further.

I don't really have much sympathy for this story after having read the account that was in the Sunday Times.

Married 1990 in the UK, granted ILR
Both moved to Singapore to live and work, ILR lapsed
He returned in 1998, but she stayed until 1999 - ostensibly to be there for her mother during her final days.
She had ILR applications rejected numerous times.
She (legally) returned to Britain in 2013, and applied for ILR a few more times within the country.
She's now been deported.

What's still missing is why multiple applications for ILR have been rejected. There are rules covering rejections - I wonder what she has or hasn't done that results in the decision to reject?

[northernladyuk]

The country is full.

Once Noel Edmonds is being quoted, we know we are on safe ground.

[SueEllen]

The country is full.

No it is not.

Though most immigrants don't want to live in Scotland, Wales or parts of Northern England.

[d000hg]

The country is full.

That's clearly not even slightly true. It may be fuller than you would like, it may be fuller than I would like, but it isn't full. The issue is more about the uneven distribution of people as much as the total population anyway. Luckily everyone seems to want to go to London so I'm spared the crowding

No it is not.

Though most immigrants don't want to live in Scotland, Wales or parts of Northern England.

Neither do non-immigrants.

[SueEllen]

Oh GB9... I addressed your point precisely, explaining why your brainfart had no relevance. MrMarkyMark saw that, and he's hardly a fan of mine. But, as ever, you're so utterly lacking in even the most basic of analytic skill, you're just too dumb to see it. Never mind poppet - don't trouble your head with it any further.

I don't really have much sympathy for this story after having read the account that was in the Sunday Times.

Married 1990 in the UK, granted ILR
Both moved to Singapore to live and work, ILR lapsed
He returned in 1998, but she stayed until 1999 - ostensibly to be there for her mother during her final days.
She had ILR applications rejected numerous times.
She (legally) returned to Britain in 2013, and applied for ILR a few more times within the country.
She's now been deported.

What's still missing is why multiple applications for ILR have been rejected. There are rules covering rejections - I wonder what she has or hasn't done that results in the decision to reject?

His earnings?

Partners of British nationals have no recourse to public funds so if he's not earning enough, doesn't have enough savings or his pensions are too low then she can't stay.

[stek]

Oh GB9... I addressed your point precisely, explaining why your brainfart had no relevance. MrMarkyMark saw that, and he's hardly a fan of mine. But, as ever, you're so utterly lacking in even the most basic of analytic skill, you're just too dumb to see it. Never mind poppet - don't trouble your head with it any further.

I don't really have much sympathy for this story after having read the account that was in the Sunday Times.

Married 1990 in the UK, granted ILR
Both moved to Singapore to live and work, ILR lapsed
He returned in 1998, but she stayed until 1999 - ostensibly to be there for her mother during her final days.
She had ILR applications rejected numerous times.
She (legally) returned to Britain in 2013, and applied for ILR a few more times within the country.
She's now been deported.

What's still missing is why multiple applications for ILR have been rejected. There are rules covering rejections - I wonder what she has or hasn't done that results in the decision to reject?

1. Once ILR lapses, usually after two years out of the country with no UK ties the 'clock' starts again and in this case she'd have to start the spouse visa app. from scratch assuming her husband is in UK. (Haven't read the case, just what's on here).

2. Returning resident doesn't apply unless under exception circumstances (which this doesn't seem to be).

3. Seems she returned to UK on various visit visas, although visit visas have a VALIDITY of six months, doesn't mean you can stay for six months on it. Various Sub-contintental piss-taking has put paid to that - now 2/3 weeks at a time a couple of times over the six months is expected.

4. You cannot switch in-country to any other visa from a visit visa, that's why ILR was refused those times, plus ILR is not relevant now, it's FLR at stage one, still not able to apply in-country.

The solution is simple, she must apply for FLR as the spouse of a British citizen living in UK (if he is) on the five year path to ILR and Naturalisation. Basically she's fuucked up her ILR and it's her fault totally. Ignorance, in any part of the law is no defence.

Could argue UKVI could be lenient, but then everyone else will be trying the same trick and pleading leniency.

Back in the mid-90's (and I might be wrong here) all these visas were free, now it will cost 5 years and about £5k to get back to par. Expensive mistake.

[stek]

His earnings?

Partners of British nationals have no recourse to public funds so if he's not earning enough, doesn't have enough savings or his pensions are too low then she can't stay.

Can apply under FLR(FP) under fee waiver if can't afford the fees but it's a 10 year route and you have to be totally strapped.......

[PurpleGorilla]

The Welsh were Celtic...

[northernladyuk]

The Welsh were Celtic...

Britons were Celts.