Daniel is a British citizen. He met Rachel, from the USA in 2009 online. "He had me at 'bats in
Honduras," Rachel will say, if asked how their romance started.
Daniel owns and
operates his own cleaning business, works at a health-food store as well and does
odd-jobs self-employed on the side. Through this effort, he satisfies the
income requirement of £18,600 for both the fiancée visa and the subsequent
FLR(M) visa to follow, as the partner of a British person.
They applied for the fiancée visa in 2012, but were
horrified to receive a letter telling them that it was denied for reasons that
even now remain unclear. They enlisted a solicitor and, upon appeal, the visa
was granted with the same documentation that was provided as part of the
original application. Thinking their troubles were over, they put the event
behind them and were married in April 2013.
In June 2013, the couple applied for FLR(M) visa. They used the same solicitor as they had for
the fiancée visa, effectively repeating the process. They even used the same accountant to provide
evidence of income. Eager to get on with
their lives, they opted to pay the extra fees for Premium service.
It didn't go according to plan. Despite having the right to
exercise judgement, the officer interviewing them refused to accept the
credentials of the accountant who had prepared their Statement of Income and
Taxes because it wasn't "certified". They were told that they had ten days to have
a "proper" accountant review the financials, obtain payslips
(including one which had not yet been received or issued!). They were assured that they still maintained
their "priority" status given they had paid for the Premium service.
Frantic, Rachel and Daniel called every accounting firm in
the town they live in, searching for someone who would be willing to complete
the daunting task of reviewing two years of financials in 10 days. Thankfully, there was someone benevolent enough
to take on the challenge. This certified accountant, upon interviewing was puzzled
as to why the officer had rejected their documentation, saying “The way your
accountant did this is exactly the same way that any accountant
would prepare your documents. Accountants
do not know Immigration law”. This
certified accountant pointed out that even the guidance information for the
visa didn't state that they had to be prepared any differently.
Frustrated but grateful the accountant did his best to
address the concerns of the officer, they mailed back the requested
documentation seven days later. Then the waiting started; they heard nothing,
saw nothing, until a month later when a letter arrived through the post,
informing them their “outstanding” documentation was received, and that the
fiancée visa was effective until a decision was made.
The couple believe the complexity arises because Daniel has
three sources of income and UK Home Office does not even flirt with the same
rules HMRC does in calculating income.
All of this is made worse by the Home Office treating self-employment
income almost like it's not legitimate earnings by requiring documentation that
doesn't even exist to prove that it is "real"!
Three months after application, the couple who paid for
Premium service have still not heard anything from the Home Office about their
application.
Update:
At the end of October 2013, Daniel and Rachel received a letter from
the Home Office. Despite the fact that
they have provided clear evidence to show Daniel earns over £18,600, the Home
Office has said their application is on hold indefinitely, because they do not
meet the financial requirements of an annual salary of £18,600. The Home Office was however generous enough
to offer Rachel the option of withdrawing her application and losing her
application fees.
This couple is now stuck in limbo only because the Home Office does not
appear to have staff who can read an Accountant’s Statement of Income.
They will be working with their solicitor to see how best to proceed
with this. Home Office rather than actually reading the documents submitted,
thought it easier to put them in the ‘delay’ pile.
Daniel is reasonably confident the courts will stand by their original
verdict in regards to the Income Requirement ruling and at least, while their
application is on hold the couple gets to remain together as it was an
in-country application. However it’s
very frustrating for Rachel to not be able to do anything or go anywhere; to be
unable to make any sort of contribution to society or even partake in any
activity.
Update 2
Daniel and
Rachel were put on hold for not meeting the income requirements according to
the Home Office, despite HMRC, Certified Public Accountants and bank statements
showing otherwise, pending the result of the MM case.
Rachel and
Daniel grew increasingly worried as the days, weeks, and months passed without any
word. After that awful Court of Appeal
judgment on the MM case, the couple was prepared for the worst and had begun
the process to re-settle in the USA.
Much to
their surprise however, in October 2014, they learned that Rachel's visa had
been approved (begging the question why the MM case was used as an excuse to
put their application on hold pending the judgment given the lack of relevance).
It couldn't have come at a better time,
as the couple are also expecting the birth of their first child.
No comments:
Post a Comment