Heard that one today.

I'm sure you'll get over it

atleast you dont have to worry about seymore next year as he wont be here

I'm thinking that too. The new, unintelligible, Appendix FM suggests that it will be refused too, as nottinghamtiger suggests, as the conviction was for more than 12 months.

If he's currently on a working (Tier 2) visa that runs to next year with Cas, he won't get a right of appeal either.

I'm wondering what the problems with the transfer of the work visa are. The conviction is a huge factor, but conduct since, community work and his right to family life would suggest that a refusal, while possible, could be pragmatically avoided (he's hardly a threat to immigration control, is he?)

He's not going anywhere if they refuse, as he can stay at Cas. If they wanted to deport him, they could refuse him entry when he comes back from Catalans. The sensible approach would be to approve the work visa transfer and focus the limited resources on the really dodgy cases.

All this is speculation though, as no one knows his visa situation.

If his conviction were grounds for being [iremoved[/i from the UK he'd be gone already.

And you're the one fixated on his GBH conviction. There is currently zero evidence that it's an issue. The stumbling block has been the rule change on 9th July - for Family Settlement it extend the qualifying period for a partnership to be considered permanent and added a few other conditions.

Did you cop a ban ?..

Never said it did. It's just one route for an application and you have to meet the rules in force when you apply.


It's to do with length of sentence. The new rules that seem to have caught the club out are in Appendix FM and basically say what you said. If you've got a conviction with a sentence of over 4 years, forget it, but if it's over 12 months too, you can forget it. Section S-LTR 1.4

How can willie mason get over here but we maybe cant get one for chase??

Also a dobbins fan said today, richard horne could be heading for them, anyone heard this to back it up?? Could go with us getting a FB maybe??

I'm thinking it may not even got as far as assessing his conviction under Appendix FM as I don't think he qualifies under the new length of relationship criteria. And possibly one or two others. If the GBH conviction had triggered the problem then why the reference to Human Rights challenges?

My gut feeling is that sorting this out will take too long and at some point we'll call it a day and move on.

You mean we aint gonna Seemore of him?

Deportation is completely different from an exclusion for a visa or any kind, completely and utterly not linked. Unfortunately it is the conviction for GBH that is the crux of the problem - as by the criteria it rules him out of being allowed a visa, even using the Family Settlement route. I can do no more than actually quote the criteria, and believe me I want Chase to get a visa or Cas may lose a major asset for nothing!

That's an odd section, isn't it? The only way that both 1.3 and 1.4 make sense if is there are some guidelines somewhere that state that assessment against 1.4 is more lenient than against 1.3 - otherwise 1.4 is redundant.

Not quite correct. As Chris28 pointed out, if they were that bothered they could have refused him entry at the border any time he tried to return to the UK after travelling abroad.

As I've put elsewhere, I don't think the GBH issue has even been tested yet.