Thread: Issue with ICA
View Single Post
  #39  
Old 24-04-2010, 11:12 PM
SureScore's Avatar
SureScore SureScore is offline
Samster
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 5,977
My Reputation: Points: 19088 / Power: 19
SureScore has a reputation beyond reputeSureScore has a reputation beyond reputeSureScore has a reputation beyond reputeSureScore has a reputation beyond reputeSureScore has a reputation beyond reputeSureScore has a reputation beyond reputeSureScore has a reputation beyond reputeSureScore has a reputation beyond reputeSureScore has a reputation beyond reputeSureScore has a reputation beyond reputeSureScore has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Issue with ICA

Quote:
Originally Posted by koites View Post
As you can see, she was questioned in MArch. And from March till late June when we finally really settle in Singapore, she will be entering and leaving Singapore for another three times. There are many opportunities for her to be deported like TS's case.

Can brothers please advise? Our real wedding is in her home country in June. Should I kind of get a date with ROM (Singapore) somewhere in June and print out the confirmation slip in case the ICA tries to stop her from entering?

Should I get a date with ROM in May instead? This would be more prudent as we could apply for the pass earlier and kind of set in stone the nature of our r/ship. However, this would mean our "real" wedding isn't in June. It becomes May instead.

Sorry for the long reply. I really want to avoid any trouble. By the way, she gets 90day SVP each time she enters Singapore.
Best is to ROM in Singapore, then with the cert apply your wife for LTSVP and then apply PR together.

To get all these approved best to have at least 3 years of good CPF contribution.

Not sure how your gf can get SVP 90 days now?
__________________
Minimum 3 points to exchange. Sure return favour.

If any person upped me and I have yet to return please pm me with your lastest URL.
Clicking this will result in you ignoring ALL of this member's posts. Share on Twitter
Don't quote WHOLE POST unnecessarily