FREE CHAPTER from ‘A Practical Guide to UK Partner Route Visa for Immigration Lawyers’ by Tamana Aziz

CHAPTER ONE – THE IMMIGRATION RULES AND REALITIES

In UK immigration Rules Appendix FM, a ‘partner’ is a person applying to join a British citizen or settled person in the UK, defined as a spouse, civil partner, or an unmarried partner in a relationship similar to marriage/civil partnership for at least two years, with recent changes clarifying the ‘unmarried partner’ criteria to focus on the relationship’s nature rather than strict cohabitation. The rules (Appendix FM) detail requirements for family visas, covering financial, relationship, and suitability aspects for partners to join their sponsor in the UK. The rules are governed under “Appendix FM partner” introduced in July 2012, in essence it refers to someone seeking a family visa to join their partner (spouse, Civil partner or long term unmarried partner) under specific detailed immigration rules.

The part of the rules that applicants need to navigate are “Appendix FM ^[1]” (FM stands for family members) and “Appendix FM SE ^[2]. The rules are not easy to read, you need to navigate through them thoroughly the paragraphs are not numbered and somehow confusing.

For the practitioner, navigating spouse visa applications is not merely about form-filling; it’s about strategic navigation within a complex, adversarial system. This chapter establishes the foundational map. We move beyond the public-facing ‘Guidance’ to examine the operative architecture: the Immigration Rules, their hidden tripwires, the caseworker culture that applies them, and the legal principles that govern them. Mastery here is the difference between a procedurally correct application and a strategically robust one.

Appendix FM (Family Members): This is the substantive rulebook. Section E-ECP (Entry Clearance as a Partner) and Section R-LTRP (Requirements for Leave to Remain as a Partner) contain the mandatory eligibility rules for the relationship, financial, accommodation, and language requirements. Know them verbatim. This can easily be divided into two parts suitability “criteria” and “eligibility criteria”. Suitability looks at your client’s character to assess if there are reasons why they should not be admitted to or allowed to remain in the UK. There are mandatory and discretionary grounds to refuse applications for suitability reasons. Mandatory grounds mean that Home Office officials must reject the visa application for this reason. Discretionary grounds mean that they “will normally” or “may” reject the application but may choose not to. In some instances it is very likely that they will, in others less so. The main reasons why an application will be refused concern criminality, such as being the subject of a deportation order, or having been convicted of an offence and sentenced to a period of imprisonment of at least four years.

In case of sentences between one and four years, the application will be refused unless a period of ten years has passed from the end of the sentence. For sentences of less than 12 months, the person will need to wait for five years before applying.^[3]

Even in the absence of any conviction, there are circumstances that will lead to a refusal if the Home Office is satisfied that the exclusion of the applicant is “conducive to the public good”. This wording is in paragraph S-EC1.5, which says that an example of what is not conducive to the public good is where the applicant’s

“character, associations, or other reasons, make it undesirable to grant them entry clearance”

In UK Immigration law, Paragraph S-EC1.5 of Appendix FM to the Immigration Rules is a mandatory ground for refusal of an application for entry clearance (EC).

It states that the exclusion of an applicant from the UK is conducive to the public good because, for example, the applicant’s:

conduct (including convictions that do not fall within the scope of more serious mandatory refusal grounds)
character
associations
or other reasons

…make it undesirable to grant them entry clearance. This is a discretionary power used by the Entry Clearance Officer (ECO) or Secretary of State to refuse a visa even if specific, serious criminality thresholds are not met. This was covered under part 9.^[4] Grounds for refusal which was a gate keeper. the relevant paragraphs in Part 9 of the main Immigration Rules are paragraphs 320(7A) and 7(B) for entry clearance, as well as paragraph 322(1A) for leave to remain applications.

Paragraphs 320(7A) and 322(1A) have the effect of causing any application in which deception is used to be refused. Paragraph 320(7B)(d) combined with (ii) causes future entry clearance applications to be refused for ten years.

In particular, paragraph 320(7A) states that an application is to be refused:

where false representations have been made or false documents or information have been submitted (whether or not material to the application, and whether or not to the applicant’s knowledge), or material facts have not been disclosed, in relation to the application or in order to obtain documents from the Secretary of State or a third party required in support of the application.

Example:- Alex has submitted an application for leave to enter the UK as an unmarried partner of a British citizen. He submitted an English certificate which turns out to be counterfeit. Alex explains that his application was submitted through an agent and he did not know that the document was counterfeit. Even if the entry clearance officer believes Alex, they will have to refuse the application under paragraph 320 7 (A) on the basis that a false document was submitted.

Discretionary Refusals

As a well as the automatic or mandatory refusals on deception grounds there are a number of provisions which permit an entry clearance officer or Home Office official to refuse an application for current or past deception. It should not be assumed that there is any reluctance to exercise these powers; the wording of many of these rules is that entry clearance “should normally be refused”. This means there is a presumption that the application will be refused.

Paragraph 320(11) of the Immigration Rules is one example of this type of rule. It says an application should normally be refused:

(11) where the applicant has previously contrived in a significant way to frustrate the intentions of the Rules by:

[…](iv) using deception in an application for entry clearance, leave to enter or remain or in order to obtain documents from the Secretary of State or a third party required in support of the application (whether successful or not); and there are other aggravating circumstances, such as absconding, not meeting temporary admission/reporting restrictions or bail conditions, using an assumed identity or multiple identities, switching nationality, making frivolous applications or not complying with the re-documentation process.

This rule applied to Appendix FM as well as to other types of application and is sometimes used to refuse applicants with a very poor immigration history in the UK.

Practitioners must try to avoid mistakes that can be interpreted as deception, it can be a small mistake such as ticking a box incorrectly on the application form or forgetting to mention previous immigration history. The main type of accidental “deception” I have come across in my line of work are:-

Failure to mention previous marriage and or minor conviction
Wrong answers about previous refusals
Allegation of use of False document

It is important to understand that any conviction be it small such as driving offences, cautions are still a criminal conviction. It is important not to associate a conviction to merely a criminal sentence.

Sometimes your client’s applications can be refused when the Entry clearance officer or home Office alleges that a false document has been used in their applications, the first step as practitioner should take is to request a document verification report (DVR)^[5] from the decision maker. A DVR is a document which can be produced by the person verifying a document. A DVR should give a better idea of what the allegation is and whether there was a misunderstanding. It also makes it clearer what kind of evidence should be gathered to rebut the allegation that a document was false. Take an example of a refusal which is based on submissions of wrong tax returns where a DVR showed that the national insurance number did not match those of the sponsor.

Deception has to be deliberate. The court of appeal has held that a deliberate intention to deceive is needed when refusing under paragraph 322 (1A) of the immigration rules.

In the case of R (Agha) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (False document) [2017] UKUT 121(IAC)^[6], the Upper Tribunal found that:-

For a document to be a false document under the provision of the Immigration Rules at V3.6(a) of Appendix V I find, relying on AA (Nigeria), there must have been an element of dishonesty in its creation and if this is not immediately obvious in a case of an inaccurate document then that element must be engaged with in any refusal.

When immigration officers want to refuse the application also on the basis that the applicant used deception, therefore imposing a ten-year re-entry ban, deception must come from the applicant. The immigration tribunal has addressed the issue in many cases, generally interpreting the mandatory refusal grounds in an appropriately restrictive way given their draconian consequences.

In the case of Ozhogina and Tarasova (deception within para 320(7B) – nannies) Russia [2011] UKUT 197 (IAC)^[7], Mr Justice Burton also concluded that:-

[…] for the purpose of qualifying for the ten year treatment under paragraph 320(7B) the nannies must be shown to have made the false statements with the deliberate intent of securing advantage in immigration terms.

As a practitioner you must takes step and avoid bans based on deception this means:

Double checking application forms before they are submitted; many clients will tell you that their applications were submitted through agents. This is never a valid reason to submit false or inaccurate information, and the Home Office will always hold them responsible for any information contained in the form, as they did, at the end of the day, sign the form.
Paying close attention to potential problem questions, like previous convictions and previous immigration history (see above). If in doubt as to whether an issue that arose in the past will be considered a conviction, it would be a good idea to raise it in the application. It is often better to disclose more than less.
Checking passports to make sure the applicant has not forgotten anything and has given correct dates in relation to past travel history.
Telling the truth!

Nevertheless, accidents happen and sometimes applicants are refused for deception either because of a mistake or a misunderstanding. In these cases, the applicants can (and should be encouraged to) challenge the refusal by submitting new evidence explaining why and how a mistake was made. Applicants should be particularly encouraged to challenge decisions when these attract a ten-year re-entry ban.

There is also this common sense guidance to immigration officials, thanks to a Freedom of Information Request:-

The ECO needs to be satisfied that deception has been employed and/or the applicant intended to deceive the ECO. The majority of cases where this requires the ECOs judgement will relate to how an applicant has completed the VAF, most usually in relation to the questions about previous visa refusals or the grant or refusal of Leave to Remain (LTR). A prime example of this is when an applicant ticks the wrong box on the VAF in answer to the question ‘have you previously been refused a visa’ – e.g. an applicant has ticked that they have not previously been refused a UK visa, but has presented a passport containing a refusal stamp and/or a previous refusal notice. This should not be considered to be deception – therefore paragraph 320 7 (a) should not apply.

The source is OPI 177 issued in 2009,^[8] released under Freedom of Information request 19343/20435/23557 by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

Part 9 of the Immigration Rules, which previously contained the general grounds for refusal, has undergone significant changes. As of 11 November 2025, Part Suitability replaced Part 9 and now applies to most immigration routes, including Appendix FM applications. This marks a shift from the previous position where Appendix FM had its own suitability requirements, which were, in some cases, more lenient than those under Part 9.

It is important to note that the suitability requirements under Appendix FM do not adopt all the provisions of Part 9. For instance, paragraph A320 of the Immigration Rules explicitly excludes the application of certain provisions of Part 9 to Appendix FM applications, reflecting Parliament’s intention to maintain distinct and not incorporate all the grounds for refusal under part 9. Specific provisions under Appendix FM (suitability) continue to apply to these applications which will be explored further in this book.

It is crucial to approach every case with a dual lens such as the compliance lens (checking every box in Appendix FM) and the adversarial lens (anticipating how a pressured caseworker might misread or doubt your evidence). Your role is to build a bridge between your client’s circumstances and the Immigration Rules so robust that the only possible outcome is a grant.