Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Deported grandmother : what is the government trying to prove

363 replies

alwaysprepare · 27/02/2017 11:31

There is a story of a woman originally from Singapore who lives here and has been married to a Brit for 27 years, they have 2 kids and a grandchild.
Her parents had been ill and she has spent the last few years going home to take care of them. They have now passed away. She had indefinite leave to remain which has been revoked and was apparently taken on a Sunday by authorities and sent to a detention centre before being put on a flight with £12 and the clothes on her back. Her husband is poorly after a heart bypass, I think it was.

You are not allowed to leave the country for a certain amount of time on the visa she has, but she probably needed to take care of ailing parents. Also Singapore does not Allow dual citizenship which maybe why she did not apply for UK passport as that probably would have been tricky for her parent emergencies etc.

We are no better than Trump.

Sorry cannot paste it right now, but it's on Google.

OP posts:
Leo5301 · 01/03/2017 17:16

Yes, ILR granted 1990, lapsed in 1992/3.

Returned in 1999 but we do not know under what status. Normally, she would have to apply for a "Return residence visa to settle" although she might have gone through the border without having to do that as Singaporean does not require visa to visit UK and controls were more lax back then.

If that was the case, she would have been admitted on a visitor visa (6 months - whether she knew that or not) and overstayed from end 1999-2001.

If she had applied for a returning residence visa, there must be interesting circumstances as to why that was not granted given her apparent connections to the UK. A report said she used the 'wrong form' - a bit suspicious about that.

So the puzzle remains.

Leo5301 · 01/03/2017 17:17

Above reply was made to Andylion

TheElementsSong · 01/03/2017 17:20

Is it possible she simply didn't realise that her ILR had lapsed and just came back thinking she was OK to stay? Then once she re-entered the UK, she was already in the "wrong" and was going to be in trouble with any applications made thereafter.

Andylion · 01/03/2017 18:06

Leo5301, thanks.

HelenaDove · 01/03/2017 18:15

IMO If £18"000 a year is what people need to earn so their spouses can come over then £18"000 a year is what the minimum wage should be.

Leo5301 · 01/03/2017 20:08

Sorry...correction.

Left for Singapore 1992, ILR probably lapsed 94/5 after >2 years of absense (not 92/3).

TheElementSong
Normally such overstayed would not have prevented family reunion ILR from being granted back then. Things got stricter over time and became really strict post 2012.

DickToPhone · 01/03/2017 22:30

"IMO If £18"000 a year is what people need to earn so their spouses can come over then £18"000 a year is what the minimum wage should be."

That's actually coming.

The NMW is going up to £9 in 2020, that's £18,720. It's rising 6% a year at present.

Leo5301 · 02/03/2017 09:09

www.buzzfeed.com/emilydugan/irene-clennell-exile-singapore

Buzzfeed has interviewed her in Singapore which gives more details about the timeline of the story. Still no explanation about on what term she returned in 1999 and why her 4 ILR (or FLR(M) or Returning residence) applications were rejected in 2003.

Note: Buzzfeed sometimes carry factually inaccurate articles but the interview appears reasonable though some questions remain unanswered.

DickToPhone · 03/03/2017 00:06

Interesting.

So she has an extended family in Singapore. So the 'caring for the parents' thing might be a load of crap.

"I don’t like going out here. I feel uncomfortable because every time I open my mouth people look at me strangely. My accent is different."

What a load of rubbish. Singapore is full of people of different backgrounds, nobody speaks English properly, and it's not a big deal.

"When she compares this with her life in Chester-le-Street, County Durham, where they brought up their two sons, John and Sonny,"

Um, I thought she was in Singapore most of the time they were growing up (some of it with them)?

"She says she’s never had such close friendships in Singapore and that in Britain “nobody has ever looked at me as someone different”."

Really? Is that why she left Britain, effectively permanently, in 1992?

"John received a letter from the government saying he was fit for work and would no longer get his employment support allowance (ESA)."

So the bit about her being his carer is grossly exaggerated. Clearly he has been ill, but he's not exactly about to be put in a nursing home is he.

"When she left them at the airport, the four security guards were headed to a hotel on Orchard Road for the night. “Places there are at least 300 dollars a night,” she says, marvelling at the cost of removing a grandmother from her home."

This is not true. In fact there are places under S$200 (£100) a night.

"Over the last three decades, she has built a life in Britain. "

Not exactly.

"In September 2001 she celebrated her elder son John’s 10th birthday in County Durham before heading to Singapore to sort out a flat she owned and rent it out. “I missed my kids but I was only planning to go for a short while and come back,” she says. It took longer than she expected sort to organise the rental and save enough money to fly back again

In 2003 she came back to the UK on a visitor visa"

Wait, so she was in England in September 2001, since when? It's not clear.

And if you were only planning to stay in Singapore a short time, why would you not buy a return ticket from England? It's much cheaper. It seems to me that the reality is she was already living there, and purchased a ticket Singapore - England - Singapore for her son's birthday.

"In 2003 she came back to the UK on a visitor visa and has been battling with the Home Office ever since to get a more permanent visa. Between 2003 and 2004 she put in four separate applications for leave to remain and they were all rejected because she had been out of the country for more than two years, invalidating her earlier leave to remain."

This is false. The reason the LTR applications were rejected was because she was on a visitor's visa. You cannot convert a visitor visa into a settlement visa. She would have to apply for a settlement visa from outside the UK. There is no reason to keep applying, because the application is wrong from the beginning.

"In 2007, two days before Christmas, she arrived in the UK but was refused leave to enter as a visitor. She showed her marriage certificate and the border official said they didn’t believe she was only visiting and put her on the next flight back to Singapore."

Well yes, they would do that. You can't enter as a visitor if your intent is to remain with your husband who is already a UK resident. You need a settlement visa for that.

"Finally, after eight long years locked out of Britain, she tried entering Britain on a visitor visa from India, where she had been working while trying to think of a way to get home. It was 2013 and she turned up at Heathrow airport and tried her luck. She recalls: “The border official said, ‘Why didn’t you see your kids for eight years?’ and I said, ‘Because I couldn’t get in.’” He took pity on her and gave her a six-month visitor visa."

Um, as a Singaporean citizen she would get a six month entry anyway: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visa_policy_of_the_United_Kingdom#Non-visa_nationals

So that story is bollocks.

"Her son John still hasn’t forgiven her for the eight years she was stuck outside the country while he and his brother were children. "

Yeah this is bollocks tbh. Where was his father during this process? At the point where the family wanted to reunite in the UK he should have been supporting his wife to make a settlement visa application. The entire process whereby she gets to live in the UK rests on the support of the British spouse. So he needs to move hell and high water to make it happen.

If they did have a genuine relationship throughout this process (and it's not clear that the marriage hadn't in fact broken down perhaps in 1998), then they need to prove that.

"Clennell gets upset remembering how long she was kept apart from her family. “The only reason I left my kids is that the UK government wouldn’t give me the right to stay and I couldn’t bring the kids here with me because John wouldn’t allow it. I think now I can say that my relationship with my kids was spoiled by the Home Office.”"

This is nonsensical. Our family was separated by the Home Office, briefly, in 2002, until we complied with the rules and got a settlement visa. Since then the Home Office hasn't bothered us in the slightest. I'm not clear at what point when you have repeatedly applied for leave to remain that could never be granted you give up and actually follow the fucking rules?

"Her sister-in-law Angela has been in touch overnight to say The Sun has written an article asking if the Home Office was right to deport her. She looks again and again at the story on a laptop. “It’s so frustrating when you read your story and it’s all wrong,” she says. “And it’s not just what the paper said, it’s the comments under the piece too.” Though she has never denied that she was out of the country for 15 years in total, she says The Sun’s timeline is mixed up and she’s upset by the way it tells the story."

The story www.thesun.co.uk/news/2979351/singapore-gran-deported-for-spending-too-long-with-dying-parents-spent-15-years-of-27-year-marriage-to-brit-abroad-say-officials/ is rather better than the 'gofundme' www.gofundme.com/bringirenehome, which - still - claims "For 30 years, my sister-in-law Irene has lived in Britain "

The key question is - since 1994 when her ILR expired, apparently not once has she applied for a settlement visa, which would have allowed her to lawfully enter the UK to apply with her family. Why the fuck not? At what point does she take responsibility for her own actions???

" She is desperate to come home and knows that if she doesn’t successfully launch a new legal case in the next 28 days, she will be barred from re-entering the UK for 10 years and is likely to struggle to get a visa after that."

Well yes, this is not exactly rocket science. You have a very clear choice, following an overstay (which she clearly committed).

(a) leave voluntarily - 1 year ban
(b) leave at expense of state - 5 year ban
(c) deportation - 10 year ban

She chose to remain even when this was clearly spelled out long before the deportation! Her overstay started in 2013. At what point does she take responsibility for her own actions?!

"When Lily collected Clennell at the airport she was shocked at how different she looked to the last time she dropped her there in 2013. “I took her to the airport when she was going back to London,” Lily says. “She was well dressed with good luggage. Coming back, looking at her I was very sad. Very sad. The way that she looked, the bag that she carried. That bag, in Singapore it only costs a dollar. Coming back from London carrying a bag like that. It was very hurting to look at her that way.”"

Wait what????

Scroll up:

"“So from 2010 to 2013 I was in India working as a forex trader.”
Finally, after eight long years locked out of Britain, she tried entering Britain on a visitor visa from India, where she had been working while trying to think of a way to get home. It was 2013""

How did her Singaporean sister drop her off at the airport when she was at that time in India?

"Having worked as a gas engineer and paid taxes, John is livid at the treatment of his wife. "

How about he takes responsibility for his own treatment of her rather than blaming the government for enforcing the law. Why, in TWENTY YEARS, was he not sponsoring a single settlement visa application for her? It makes no sense.

"Now she just wants to be back home with John. She says it should be simple: “People get married for a reason: because they want to be with their husband and family for the rest of their life.”"

Well maybe, so in that case why did you leave them 20 years ago? You have THREE sisters in Singapore, the 'care giver' argument makes no sense.

HelenaDove · 03/03/2017 00:18

Yes DICK Because no one has ever been found fit to work when they are not

DickToPhone · 03/03/2017 00:29

I'm not saying he's fit to work, I'm just saying that this is just more evidence that her story is exaggerated in practically every possible respect.

It was being portrayed that he needs a full-time carer at taxpayer's expense if she's not here. That does not seem to be likely.

Leo5301 · 03/03/2017 09:23

DickToPhone

I remain neutral on the case as not all facts are known.

"Care for parents"
It would not be a total fabrication. A total fabrication does not make a good story. There are some truth in that, but there are more truth that are not told.

" Is that why she left Britain, effectively permanently, in 1992?"

The family moved to Singapore. It is common for such family to return during Christmas or so. So, another puzzle why they did not return at all for 6 years but again without more facts, it is unfair for you to conclude that it was their intention to leave 'permanently'. Also, in 1992, Britain was in a deep recession so seeking work in Singapore was not an unreasonable thing to do.

"You cannot convert a visitor visa into a settlement visa."

It is true that you cannot do that today but you could do that (switch) in 2003/04. If they were a proper family, ECHR Acticle 8 challenge would also have succeeded.

I note that Gofund me takes 5% of the donated amount + a 2.9% (normal ecoomerce processing is now sub 2%) + 30 cent per transaction processing fee.

Note:
" In fact there are places under S$200 (£100) a night."

It is probably a bit pedantic to object on this isn't it? To be pedantic, may I also point out that the current exchange rate is 1.77 not 2.0? I am surprised that 4 HO contractors were needed to accompany her.

TheElementsSong · 03/03/2017 10:05

" In fact there are places under S$200 (£100) a night."

It is probably a bit pedantic to object on this isn't it?

Well, I suppose it's not pedantic if for some no doubt utterly compelling reason one is hugely overinvested in trashing this woman and her family.

New posts on this thread. Refresh page
Swipe left for the next trending thread