east hull FC fan wrote:Just a quick question - Apart from his impending court case has bird been convicted of anything else? just that if he hasn't, surely they can't of refused him a visa on the grounds that he may of committed a crime.
I agree not guilty until proven guilty etc...however sometimes there are bail conditions.. strange stiuation
berrigans bitch wrote:I agree not guilty until proven guilty etc...however sometimes there are bail conditions.. strange stiuation
he must have unconditional bail terms or else leaving oz wouldn't of been an option to him. I'm speculating on the fact that nobody knows the reason for anyones rejection or refusal of a visa.
Joined: Jul 31 2003 Posts: 36786 Location: Leafy Worcester, home of the Black Pear
SmokeyTA wrote:yes they are general rules that take in to account how, where and why (among other things) a person wishes to enter the uk,
the how, where and why of Birds wishes to enter the country are different for his application for Bradford and Les Catalans
Bird's wishes are essentially the same - to earn a living playing RL.
SmokeyTA wrote:for some reason you have decided that because there are 'general rules' that apply to all applications and that you need to be given permission to enter the country whether that is through a visa or at the border that this means you only need go focus on the reasons he failed changing and as those havent, his application will be identical to all intents and purposes as before, which isnt correct
it is my contention that even though the reasons he failed havent changed it doesnt follow that he has to fail again, there are other circumstances which have changed, and though they are irrelevant to the reasons he failed, it isnt irrelevant to the reasons he may succeed
So, let me get this straight...
You think that some trivial changes to his circumstances that are, by your own admission, completely unrelated to the reason he was originally rejected will somehow make the UKBA change their minds?
Yeah - I can see how that would work...
The only significant difference between his original application and any future attempt that takes place before his trial is resolved is continuity of time spent in the UK. If the reason for his rejection is actually as has been suspected, that shouldn't make any difference.
I still think that, on the balance of probabilities, he is likely to be turned away at the port of entry.
Hold on to me baby, his bony hands will do you no harm It said in the cards, we lost our souls to the Nameless One
To be honest I have no knowledge of immigration law and don't particularly want any but can someone explain to me what he difference is in this case to numerous actors and sportsmen with various convictions coming over here to ply their trade, someone mentioned Britanny Spears and there are any number of others. Didn't Mike Tyson come over for some reason not so long back.
I appreciate things have been tightened up recently and if this is the reason behind the arguement that Bird shouldn't be let in fair enough but other than the "its not fair" factor I don't see the difference.
This is a genuine query seeking a laymans answer please don't start a tirade of vitriol or a 2000 word essay on imigration law - thanks
How come Greg Birds visa application was accepted so quickly for his new club, Catalan? Michael Crocker had submitted his 2nd application before Greg Bird was even denied for Bradford, yet Crocker is still waiting his outcome. I can only assume the French are more efficient, or more lax, they're certainly more accepting!
Joined: Oct 19 2003 Posts: 17898 Location: Packed like sardines, in a tin
Beanman wrote:To be honest I have no knowledge of immigration law and don't particularly want any but can someone explain to me what he difference is in this case to numerous actors and sportsmen with various convictions coming over here to ply their trade, someone mentioned Britanny Spears and there are any number of others. Didn't Mike Tyson come over for some reason not so long back. I appreciate things have been tightened up recently and if this is the reason behind the arguement that Bird shouldn't be let in fair enough but other than the "its not fair" factor I don't see the difference. This is a genuine query seeking a laymans answer please don't start a tirade of vitriol or a 2000 word essay on imigration law - thanks
On the basis of the tightening up, and appied fairly, Tyson and Spears would not get in now.
Quote:On the basis of the tightening up, and appied fairly, Tyson and Spears would not get in now.
Fair enough as you say as long as its applied fairly
Presumably that means we have seen the last of Jonathon Ross etc. interviewing "hell raising US actor ...." but somehow I just can't see it happening that way
Joined: Oct 19 2003 Posts: 17898 Location: Packed like sardines, in a tin
east hull FC fan wrote:Just a quick question - Apart from his impending court case has bird been convicted of anything else? just that if he hasn't, surely they can't of refused him a visa on the grounds that he may of committed a crime.
Do you know, I think I'm going to link to the general rules again.
Now, based on my experience of immigration law and practice, I think Crocker was refused under paragraph 320 (18). This should be applied every time he tries to enter until the conviction is spent. I think Bird could have been refused under 320 (19) or (7A0, (7B) (11) or (15). Again each of these (except (19) if he is acquitted) could be applied if he tries to enter the UK in future.
These rules require a refusal of entry clearance or entry if they are not met, regardless of the reason for seeking entry.
east hull FC fan wrote:Just a quick question - Apart from his impending court case has bird been convicted of anything else? just that if he hasn't, surely they can't of refused him a visa on the grounds that he may of committed a crime.
Do you know, I think I'm going to link to the general rules again.
Now, based on my experience of immigration law and practice, I think Crocker was refused under paragraph 320 (18). This should be applied every time he tries to enter until the conviction is spent. I think Bird could have been refused under 320 (19) or (7A0, (7B) (11) or (15). Again each of these (except (19) if he is acquitted) could be applied if he tries to enter the UK in future.
These rules require a refusal of entry clearance or entry if they are not met, regardless of the reason for seeking entry.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
