13

Edit: He was waiting outside for 10 hours and i paid 450 for 2 nights at a hotel but i got a part refund i forgot to say so it was 350 for 2 nights, he paid for the train costs and taxi's as well as the other hotel, i wanted to pay the hotel. We went to comic con that's why, not some sex met up lol i have visited the uk before with less money, so i don't see this as being a proper reason and why they refused to believe he'd help me out if i needed it, when we lived together for 2 years and when i visited before he paid for me always.

I have been told I can't appeal or anything, but is there anything at all I can do? I only have a temporary stay until Monday (2 and a half days admission).

I'm a Canadian who came to visit my boyfriend. The last time I visited I didn't have a return ticket and got refused once. This was nearly a year ago now, and the refusal paper pretty much says the reasons are because I have a minimum wage job and spent my months earnings to go on this trip, but who doesn't spend a months earnings when they go on holiday? Even the guards said that to me, and that the reason was weak for refusal.

I paid for one hotel for my stay and he paid for another. He offered to pay me back, but they took this as "he doesn't want to pay for anything even if I'm visiting him".

I honestly don't get it; please have a look at this refusal.

Are these real reasons under the immigration act?

enter image description here

Is there a way someone with temporary admission and who only came as a visitor can fight against this? I have a return ticket, I have money with me (1500 Canadian and my boyfriend has given me 400 pounds today). Is there a way I can apply for entry as a family visitor because we have been together for sooo long? (8 years). I am willing to check into a police station for my full visit (I wanted to stay a month. Even if I could get two weeks it would be great).

Can you do anything once this is granted?

kaitlin
  • 131
  • 1
  • 4
  • 5
    I'm a bit confused that you wanted to stay for a whole month but paid $450 for one day hotel? I take it this was purely for "let's have some fun with the boyfriend for a night, away from everybody" and then you would spend most of the time at his house? – kiradotee May 27 '16 at 23:19
  • 3
    Has your boyfriend really never been to visit you in Canada in 8 years? – DJClayworth May 28 '16 at 02:54
  • 5
    If you paid $450 for one night's stay in a hotel, why did you expect them to believe that you could support yourself for a month even if you could document your $1500 in savings? Theres no reason to believe that he's going to support you if you paid for the room yourself. And how did you end up paying $450 for a room at a Novotel? It's a decent mid-range hotel, but I wouldn't pay $450 for a room, there, the most expensive room in May I could find there is $260 CAD. – Johnny May 28 '16 at 06:16
  • 2
    By the way, you could have done a better job of obscuring the names. – Anton Sherwood May 28 '16 at 07:50
  • 3
    You say you spent 1 months earnings on the trip, but you've spent the 1 month on a flight and ONE NIGHT in a cheapish hotel. The doubt I suspect would be that somone who has been disciplined enough to not spend 1 penny other than the bills for a year to save your money, then blows a third of your entire fund on 1 night in a primarily business traveller hotel. It's one thing if you had always wanted to stay at the Ritz and blew a large percentage of your fund to do so, but a Novotel? I can see why the suspicion. – The Wandering Dev Manager May 28 '16 at 09:52
  • @GayotFow: neither? I just read what was in the picture, I'm not sure how that's stalking... the point was to tell the OP that this is easy to read. – user541686 May 28 '16 at 10:15
  • 1
    @Mehrdad You do realise that your comment (unlike the content of the image) can be indexed by Google, connecting this person's name to this post, right? I have flagged your comment for removal. – Chris May 28 '16 at 12:58
  • 4
    I tried to remove all instances of personally identifiable information from the history, namely references to the insufficiently obscured images. These changes are waiting for another moderator's approval. Please let us know via flags if references to the original image are still in the history. – mindcorrosive May 28 '16 at 18:16
  • @GayotFow: "Doubtful"... as in you're calling me a liar? What do you think I'm lying about exactly? The fact that I read it from the picture, or the fact that my point was to show the OP this is easy to read? The comment before mine wasn't taken seriously, so I wrote the name to ring the alarm, and it worked. You don't have to believe me, but for someone with such a good history like you I expected much better than you personally attacking me and calling me a "stalker" (what?). If you're trying to be helpful, why didn't you fix it before I pointed it out instead of attacking me after? Sheesh – user541686 May 28 '16 at 18:24
  • @Chris: It didn't really ring that alarm for me, likely just because it was just a super generic name. Maybe it was a misjudgment on my part, and thanks for flagging my comment if it was. I literally didn't spend as much time thinking about this then as you seem to imagine I had; I had other things to do. I just wrote a short comment and just went on, and apparently the comment did do its job, which was to demonstrate it was readable so that it would get fixed ASAP. And your flag did its job too. I'm sorry it wasn't 100% optimal, but I had other things to do, and this did fix the problem. – user541686 May 28 '16 at 18:53
  • 1
    @GayotFow: I can't even begin to tell you how ironic it is that you say you were trying to "help [me] understand that a person's motives are not always as transparent as we would like them to be", when that's exactly the problem I'm having with your comments right here. If that was really your motivation, wouldn't there have been better ways of doing that than leaving a snarky comment calling me a stalker? (Perhaps like how I'm communicating that to you right here?) I can stand legitimate and constructive criticism, but calling me a stalker was neither. – user541686 May 28 '16 at 20:12
  • @Mehrdad you can use META http://meta.travel.stackexchange.com/questions if you think there's a larger issue to sort out – Gayot Fow May 28 '16 at 21:11
  • 2
    @kiradotee Probably staying one night to sort herself out before meeting up with the boyfriend at his place for the rest of the time (or perhaps they want to stay in London for a day and he lives elsewhere). I don't think people need to check into hotels to have sex anymore, she flew to the UK not to 1950. – Calchas May 29 '16 at 12:27
  • I see your update, does it mean you are back in Canada? You should probably come to the chat room so we can help put some shape on your situation. – Gayot Fow Jun 01 '16 at 04:54

3 Answers3

19

You failed your landing interview and got a Temporary Admission (TA) instead of "Leave to Enter". You were served a removal notice which says at the bottom "IS.82 No AR RLE" (No appeal rights, Refusal of Leave to Enter"...

Are these real reasons under the immigration act?

They are absolutely real. They got you under Paragraph 320 of the rules, which itself is an extract of the Immigration Act 1971. Specifically Paragraph 320 sub paragraph 1

(1) the fact that entry is being sought for a purpose not covered by these Rules;

...which is pointed out to you near the bottom of your notice ("...you have not sought..."). It means what they decided you were really visiting for would violate the rules. You have a funds parking issue, and they didn't buy in to your story about having a bf. But you didn't totally blow it because you got a TA.

Is there any way someone with temporary admission and who only came as a visitor can fight against this?

Short of claiming asylum, there are no provisions in the rules to reverse this type of decision. An Immigration Officer has a mandate from the government to make this decision and to have the final word about it.

Is there a way I can apply for entry as a family vistor because we have been together for sooo long?

This would be a specious, outside-the-rules visa application and has the risk of attracting a full-on ban (in addition to an automatic refusal).

Even the guards said that to me and that the reason was weak for refusal.

They will say anything to contain the situation and keep things peaceful. Ignore this kind of chatter.

Can you do anything once this is granted is my question

No. The matter is closed and you need to get out before your TA expires. Don't waste your whole weekend surfing the net in manic-panic mode because at the end, there's nothing out there that can lead to extending your TA. Per the comment from Ismael Miguel (to whom thanks) don't overstay. Note that if you try meddling with your TA, they can 'up the ante' and give you an 'undesirable' rating like what happened here: Refused Entry and Removed from the UK; What are the Consequences?

Lots of times people in your situation get removed from port straight-away, so you are lucky to be able to spend some time with your bf. You can enjoy the weekend. When you return to Canada, you should apply for entry clearance using one of the Canadian VFS offices (Canadian applications are sent to NYC for processing).

The immediate corollary to your question is:

Are they going to hold this against me when I apply for entry clearance?

Yes, a little bit, but not as bad as an immediate removal from port, and certainly not the end of the world. Since they have issued you a removal notice, you should hang on to it and put the reference number down in the application...

enter image description here

When you get ready to apply for entry clearance you can check over the archives here for lots of useful information.

Community
  • 1
Gayot Fow
  • 85,024
  • 26
  • 229
  • 405
  • 2
    I know that this is implied, but, you should add that one must not over-stay. – Ismael Miguel May 28 '16 at 01:30
  • 3
    I know it's (also) implied, but you should possibly make it explicit that the advice being given is to apply for a visa(entry clearance) before making a future visit. – CMaster May 28 '16 at 08:27
  • 1
    @CMaster ". When you return to Canada, you should apply for entry clearance " – Gayot Fow May 28 '16 at 09:47
5

You appear to have committed the cardinal sin of over-answering immigration's first questions. Canadians visit the UK for several weeks all the time - you presented them with a story of someone likely to stay longer than they should.

You probably got those extra questions based on your initial presentation. Appearances can matter; the immigration officer at the airport will make some quick judgements, primarily based on your answers to some initial questions about your trip, but your clothing, bags, physical appearance, and in some countries, racial profiling, can all be factors when you first arrive at the checkpoint. After those initial questions revealed concerns about your finances, it is not surprising that you were referred for additional questioning, the answers to which ultimately led to your refusal.

The UK will cheerfully admit people of limited means if they have a local sponsor - also helps if the sponsor is waiting outside. Yours wasn't, which doesn't speak well of him as a sponsor (or a boyfriend - if I didn't pick up my GF at the airport she would go straight back home no matter what immigration said).

Since you now have multiple issues on file with UK Border, you have a problem. You can't give them the story they want because it conflicts with what they already know. If you really want to spend a month there, marry the BF and apply for a spouse visa.

Zach Lipton
  • 86,274
  • 13
  • 271
  • 325
peter
  • 75
  • 1
  • 18
    I have to take objection to the phrasing of "You say you are a Canadian citizen - do you look like one?" While I'm not Canadian, I know that Canadians come in a full range of colors, shapes, and sizes and try to avoid thinking someone must look like a stereotypical Canadian. I don't doubt that profiling can sometimes play a role at the border, but perhaps there's a better way to phrase your point? – Zach Lipton May 28 '16 at 03:42
  • I didn't realize the UK wouldn't let you in if you have too many earrings. – Azor Ahai -him- May 28 '16 at 04:04
  • 1
    @ZachLipton - if you don't doubt that racial profiling can play a role, then why do you object to him pointing out that racial profiling can play a role? – Johnny May 28 '16 at 05:58
  • 4
    @Johnny I object to the idea that a Canadian citizen inherently looks a certain way or the implication that certain people who immigrated to Canada and gained citizenship as quickly as possible are up to no good. It's possible that the OP's initial presentation led the officer to ask something in the first place, but it's not really central to what happened here, nor can we speculate. The fact is, given the OP's story and background, a simple question about funds or purpose of visit or the OP's job or income could easily lead to red flags and further questions without any sort of profiling. – Zach Lipton May 28 '16 at 07:07
  • 1
    I don't think the not waiting at the airport is a big deal - this is London, so it's an unecessary expense and public transport journey to come to the airport. At the end, the refusal is almost entirely on finanaical grounds - they didn't think she could pay for the trip she described herself, nor did it look like the boyfriend was going to. If she was staying with him, things may have all gone differently. – CMaster May 28 '16 at 08:25
  • 1
    Per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visible_minority "Over five million Canadians identified as a member of a visible minority group in the 2006 Census". Also, the last time someone tried to judge a Canadian by their T-shirt led to Pink Shirt Day. Just... don't. Do not even try. We are Canadians (I am one for 52 days now! It's not like I am counting.), we are tolerant of skin color, hair color and T-shirt color equally. Now your hockey team, that's a whole another matter ;) –  May 28 '16 at 08:51
  • 3
    The suggestion, as I read it, was not in any way that Canadians are intolerant or racist, but that UK Immigration might not be completely colour-blind. I couldn't possibly comment on that, but anyone wanting to defend HMG in this regard might want to read Refusal Shoes first. – MadHatter May 28 '16 at 09:37
  • @CMaster "I don't think the not waiting at the airport is a big deal". That's a great tips-and-techniques question! – Gayot Fow May 28 '16 at 14:22
  • 1
    @ZachLipton - I understand your objection to racial profiling, since, as you say, you can't identify a Canadian by his race, yet you agree that border racial profiling does exist so you seem to be objecting to peter mentioning that fact rather than objecting to the profiling itself. If it's true that racial profiling at the border can make a difference in treatment (and I really don't know if that's true, but you seem to agree that it is), it's reasonable to say so. – Johnny May 28 '16 at 15:13
  • 1
    @ZachLipton: There's a saying for this. "Don't shoot the messenger." The point here was to give realistic advice for those reading this question, not to make them feel good. All peter said was that looks can matter, and he gave concrete examples to help whom it might apply to. That's useful information. – user541686 May 28 '16 at 18:57
  • 1
    @Mehrdad Again, I'm not denying that looks can matter. I'm just saying that "You say you are a Canadian citizen - do you look like one?" implies that Canadian citizens are supposed to look a certain way. If the OP is standing there holding a Canadian passport, I'd say she looks like a Canadian citizen. There are better ways to phrase the idea that looks can mater without insulting people. – Zach Lipton May 28 '16 at 19:49
  • 2
    @ZachLipton: No one is insulting anyone though. If by "supposed" you mean the definition I see online -- "generally assumed or believed to be the case, but not necessarily so" -- then actually, Canadians are "supposed" to look a certain way, e.g. maybe look white. That doesn't mean they "should" be white (that'd be ridiculous), but it means people merely expect them to be white. Kind of like how you would expect females to have longer hair than males. That's just a statement of an observed fact, not an opinion or an insult. – user541686 May 28 '16 at 20:00
  • 5
    In Canada we have a word for Asians who immigrate to Canada and get a passport as soon as they can. We call them 'Canadian citizens'. – DJClayworth May 29 '16 at 03:25
  • 4
    @DJClayworth That's two words. ;) – Calchas May 29 '16 at 12:31
2

Are these real reasons under the immigration act?

This question absolutely boggles the mind. Are you saying an immigration officer just dreamed up something because, I dunno, they didn't like your hair? Of course it is! The rule of law in the UK is reasonably strong (some consider the Magna Carta from 800 years ago establishing it). This is not a hut in the desert on the border between Inner and Outer Camelstan where the officer wants baksheesh to let you in and refuses you because you didn't pay.