Tick-box System Or Present System For Uk Visas?

[atlastaname]

After my partner was refused a settlement visa 2 years ago by the British Embassy in Bangkok, i started to take an interest in the whole process of making an application and looked at other peoples experiences and read up on the rules and tried to match those rules with how they are being dealt with in practise. Eventually after being forced apart for a year we now have a settlement visa and live together in the UK. However, unlike most people who conveniently forget all the heartache the fight to get a visa brings , i was unwilling to forgive or forget and decided i would do what i could to help other people coming after me .

The conclusion i came to was that the whole process of making an application to the BE Bangkok (which is the only post i have experience of) was a bit of a lottery in too many cases. One aspect in particular is that , in marginal cases (and a significant percentage are in this category as you can see from this forum) the whim and mood of the ECO on the day can be crucial in deciding the fate of the applicant and thus affect their whole future life. So many times we read here of people complaining about the attitude of the staff, how they shout at applicants, bully them , insult them and generally intimidate. I have seen this for myself whilst sitting in the embassy watching other people apply. This is against the guidelines that are given by the govt to the ECO's in interview technique.

So , and now finally to the point, i concluded that a fact based system where applicants would be told exactly what they need to do , clearly and with no room for doubt , and what documents they need to provide for any given visa , is a much much fairer system than the current one where 2 different ECO's could look at a case and 1 refuse and 1 approve.

So how would it work ? Well for a start you would have to obtain an application form , as now, and fill it in . With the form would come a separate sheet(s) which outlines clearly what the rules are for each type of visa and how the applicant goes about satisfying them. There should be no flexability (except where common sense dictates) and this would apply to both applicant and ECO. So if the rules are you provide 6 months bank statements then you do and the ECO can't say they want more.If the rules state you must show evidence of contact over 2 years by providing a selection of e-mails , dated photos and matching passport stamps spread over the 2 years then you do , and the ECO can't say they don't believe you . And so on and so on .

Its impossible to fully explain the system without discussion from other readers so i need some input here.

The basic theorey is that you are told exactly what you need to do for each type of visa, you provide exactly what you are told to and then you get the visa. Other posters here have suggested in the past that this rididity would lead to more refusals but i say it won't because no-one would apply until they can meet the criteria , which is fair enough , and no ECO could refuse because they are in a bad mood , prejudice (all human reactions after all.., we all have bad days) or are determined to pick fault . So there would be none of this "i don't believe you are in a genuine relationship " crap despite providing telephone book sized folders of proof . The govt would decide what documents costitute a genuine relationship and as long as you provide them you pass. Surely if the relationship is genuine then why can't the applicant provide the documents ?

Some people have said in the past that this takes away the ECO's discretion in marginal cases . Well there is nothing stopping a clause being inserted that allows for discretion to grant a visa where the ECO feels it would be unjust not to , where maybe a document has been mislaid and its proving impossible to get a replacement etc. Some common sense should be encouraged. It has been said before that this new system would stop some of the hopeless cases being granted visas but i have always countered by saying that the hopeless cases wouldn't get it anyway under the present system.

Really to progress this debate it needs examples , questions , theories to be put forward by the readers here. I am not claiming to have thought of everything , far from it , but i think a tick-box system would take away the lottery that applying for a UK Visa sometimes becomes.

What do readers of this forum think ?

[geoffphuket]

I went through this dreadfull process 10 years ago. It seems nothing has changed in that time and it's unllikely to, regardless of what's said or done....what's that old saying, "You can't beat City Hall" ?

Best of luck in your quest

[sua yai]

I was up at the Application Centre this morning with my Thai wife. She is applying for a visit visa (in fact the lady there got us to change the app form to family visit as we're married and hoping to go back for my brother's wedding in September).

As far as tick boxes are concerned, I know it's not exactly the same, but the clerk had a list that followed the checklist given on www.unvac-th.com

Everything was ticked off by her, except point 7 as my wife dosn't work or own property. So, to that extent, there are some quite concrete guidelines to work to.

I will say that I was pretty impressed with the Application place. We were in and out within 30 mins. Both checks, one whilst we were waiting and one by the clerk, seemed to be well done and useful advice given.

As an aside, you are likely to get mugged by a tout as you enter the building. We were shown to a "restaurant-like area" right next to the main office and having set off at 3am this morning, I was too tired to realise what was going on until we were sat at a table chatting to a Thai chap - obviously an agent. He was pressing how difficult it would be to get the VV -ie reason to return. All I could say was that we'd known each other and been together for 2.5 years (and can prove it). We've been married for a year (and can prove it) and I've been living here for 8 years (and can prove it). So, of course we're coming back. If we wanted to settle, my wife be be applying for a Settlemet Visa.

Again, sorry to digress a bit, but thought I'd tack that on as our experience today - only some 9 hours old. I'll probably drink myself to death over the next few days as we wait for the verdict. I'd give it 50/50.

[sua yai]

Sorry, wrong website www.ukvac-th.com

[Mossfinn]

Well thanks atlastaname you kicked one off, lets hope it is fruitful, personally I am going to sit on the fence at this time until there is sufficient input from the usual participantsand others, if they decide to register their advice and who have experience by the wheelbarrow.

Personally, I have nothing but support for the present system and the people who wield the yae or nay as I have never had any negative response from them.

This has included VV, settlement and all associated meetings and interviews as well as getting the visa for the daughter here as well, I was going to say appropriate visa but we actually received the wrong visa but thats another story.

No indication of rudeness or accusations at any time during the whole process and this included prompt response during e-mail correspondence.

But as for the reason of this debate I was under the impression it was going to be between Tick box and the present system, I believe you are proposing a similar system to what is already in place. Or am I misreading your post or the present system itself.

You ask for a set of requirements that can be 'ticked off', well I believe there are a set of guidelines that are best to supply, but agreed not a definitive list to supply.

Then you suggest there should be the use of discretion when certain criterion are not met, so we have a set of guidelines and discretion where appropriate.

By the way I am also under the impression that not only is there the safety net of discretion by the ECO there is direct reference to a 'discretionary clause' in the guidelines, I have been shown this on this forum.

I am under the impression that is what we already have.

It has worked for me, so until I can be shown differently I will go for the present system but will gladly change my mind if and when further info is posted, if I think necessary.

I used to be indecisive but I am really not so sure now!

Good Luck

Moss.

[atlastaname]

Thanks Mossfinn and the others who have responded so far. I will wait until a few more have given their opinions but , just a quickie to mossfinn, what i am proposing is not a set of guidelines like you are reading it as , we already have that , its a set of clear criteria to be met (with clear explanation of exactly what is required to meet that criteria). In other words you provide this , this , this and this ...specific.

It would stop the ECO's saying they don't believe a relationship is genuine for example . Takes away the subjectivity and thus the inconsistancy and potential unfairness.

Anyway , i will wait for a while yet to see what else people have to say .

[vinny]

The set of Immigration rules can be considered as logical system of complexity. To cover every possible situation within the rules would imply that the rules can be made to be complete. Unfortunately, the rules can never be complete, according to Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem.

[GU22]

My arguments against a "tick box" system have been outlined many times before, most recently in this thread. However, to save people jumping between threads I will reproduce them here.

Atlastaname argues, yet again, for a rigid set of rules. He wants a system whereby if you effectively tick all the boxes you get the visa, but if you miss a box you don't. He says this would be more fair.

I say that this is not so. The present system of guidelines rather than rules allows flexibility. Not everyone can fit themselves into a rigid set of rules.

For example; a rigid set of rules would doubtless set a minimum income figure for maintenance, yet as Diplomatic Service Procedures - Entry clearance Volume 1 - General instructions Chapter 9 – The maintenance and accommodation requirements says in 9.3 - Maintenance: General requirements

There is no prescribed minimum figure for what represents sufficient maintenance. Appeals Tribunals and the higher courts have consistently upheld the principle that the appropriate level of maintenance without recourse to public funds varies widely from case to case.

A rigid set of rules, as desired by Atlastaname, would do away with this flexibility and far more people would be refused on this factor alone than are at present.

I could fill several pages with other examples where the current flexibility works to the benefit of applicants, but that would be tiresome for me and boring for everyone else.

It can, with some justification, be argued that the result of an application is subject to the whim and mood of the ECO. But bear in mind that most applications, certainly spouse, fiance, unmarried partners, proposed civil partners etc., are subject firstly to review by the ECM and then, if necessary, an independent appeal. Those applications that do not have a right of appeal must be reviewed within 24 hours by the ECM and may also be reviewed by an independent monitor, who reports directly to the Secretary of State. Any ECO who habitually refuse applications without a real reason would not be an ECO for very long.

(atlastaname @ 2006-08-01 18:18:22)

GU22 gives an example of minimum income requirements leading to wholesale refusals. Of course thats not true. A fair minimum income could be set, well whats wrong with that.? I don't know anyone who couldn't meet a fair minimum income level , otherwise how do they expect to live in the UK anyway?

Quite often, on this and similar forums, people have posted that they wish to return to the UK with their partner but will not have a job or income to go back to. At present people in this position can rely on support from friends or family, and this is enough to satisfy the requirements. If there were a minimum income requirement then people in this situation would have to separate while the UK partner returned to the UK to seek employment.

Also, where would you set the limit? Wages and the cost of living vary widely throughout the UK. Set the limit too high and people from areas with lower average wages would struggle to meet it. Set it too low and people from areas with a high cost of living may well be able to meet the income requirement, but in reality not have sufficient income to cover their living costs.

Atlastaname, yo may very well think that this doesn't matter, that, as you put it " I don't know anyone who couldn't meet a fair minimum income level , otherwise how do they expect to live in the UK anyway?" So, lets look at a situation more relevant to you.

Currently, each application is judged on it's merits. Even if an applicant has previously been in breach of the Immigration Rules, they may still get another visa if they show that they are genuine. It is likely that with a rigid system anyone who had previously broken the immigration rules in some way would be automatically refused. If that were the case, your boyfriend wouldn't now be in the UK, would he?!

Atlastaname, once again you rant that the ECOs kept you and your boyfriend apart, yet once again you fail to admit that the real cause of your difficulties were his previous breaches of the immigration rules.

It is good to see, though, that you have taken my previous arguments on board and are now suggesting some flexibility and discretion in the system. Which is precisely what happens at the moment!

Finally, you say

Other posters here have suggested in the past that this rididity would lead to more refusals but i say it won't because no-one would apply until they can meet the criteria

So you are basically saying that under your proposed system, the many marginal cases who currently apply and are often approved shouldn't even bother to apply! How is that more fair? Edited August 3, 2006 by GU22

[todster]

Although I am going off at a tangent a bit here this is a subject close to my heart as my gf has been turned down for 2 VVs recently (not bothering to apply again) but I cannot understand why this process is so difficult anyway. Ok immigration is a hot topic and certain formalities are required but the country is so full of illegals anyway, which the government make no attempt to remove, SO WHAT if a few thai visitors abused their visas, its a drop in the ocean anyway but they punish all the genuine applicants instead. The fact is that if you want to bring someone into the country for underhand purposes it isnt difficult which is why its become a multi million pound industry Ive even been offered the services of a local vietnamese gang to resolve my situation!! I know it will not happen but I think its about time the ECO's take the approach that if you actually bother to apply for a visitor visa then its probably genuine rather than making couples spend up to a year or more apart before they can prove the relationship causing nothing but misery to everyone involved.

[GU22]

Without knowing the full details, it is impossible to comment on an individual case. However reading posts from people who have had a VV refused on this and other forums one can see a common thread, with two main factors showing up again and again.

1) An unrealistic application.

Boy meets girl, and a few weeks later girl applies for a visa to visit boy in UK. Girl has no 'proper' job, no land, no real reason to return.

Many people have successfully obtained a visa to visit their boy/girlfriend in the UK when they have had no concrete reason to return. This is because the ECO has been satisfied that on the balance of probabilities the relationship is genuine and so the reason for visiting the UK is genuine. Therefore the applicant would not want to jeopardise any future settlement visa application by overstaying or otherwise breaking the conditions of a visit visa.

But expecting anyone to feel that this is the case when the couple have only known each other a few weeks is, as I said, unrealistic.

2) Thinking that something about an applicants past or the circumstances of the first meeting between applicant and sponsor may prejudice the ECO against them. Usually the fact that the applicant is a bar girl and met her sponsor 'professionally.' Therefore they try to hide the truth, to be blunt; they lie.

How applicant and sponsor met and the applicant's previous profession are of no concern to the ECO. Provided the ECO is satisfied that the relationship is genuine. Being an ex-bargirl wont cause the visa to be refused, but lying about it will.

In an ideal world there would be no need for border controls, for immigration controls, for customs controls. Unfortunately we do not live in an ideal world.

At this point, Atlastaname usually asks why it matters if a few Thai Toms go on the game in London. At the end of the day, it doesn't. But increasingly these days it is not young girls who willingly travel to the West that concerns the authorities, but those who are tricked or forced into it.

Human Trafficking & Modern-day Slavery

Freedom for Thai sex slave women

[atlastaname]

Dissapointing that more people didn't contribute , but thanks again to those who did especially GU22 who went to a lot of trouble to defend his corner.

I will , once again, ignore his personal insults although i would like to say that i don't see why minor (or come to that major) previous breaches in immigration rules (ours were minor)has any bearing on if you are a genuine couple or not . If you are genuine then there should be no way immigration can force you apart whatever your past history is. Its like saying to 2 people "ooh you can't get married because you've had 250 parking tickets in the past" what has that got to do with if you are a genuine couple or not ? So if someone had worked instead of studying on a student visa for example in the past , the ECO by refusing a settlement visa at a later date is just being spiteful . They are saying genuine couples who have committed past breaches cannot be together but genuine couples who haven't can . IS THAT RIGHT? Incidently he has today received notice that his FLR in the UK for 2 years has been approved. Whilst its another thing off our minds i am not going to swoon in gratitude because the Home Office has given us something to which , as a genuine couple , we are ENTITLED to.

I still believe a clear and fair tick-box system would work better for most people . Most people who are refused do qualify , its the interpretation by the ECO that leads to refusals. A tick -box system would remove their ability to refuse genuine applicants based on their subjective interpretation of the evidence. Their purpose should be limited to detecting fraud through fake passports and documentation , not to refusing settlement applications because both your names are not on the council tax (which the Home Office has confirmed is NOT required) as they did previously in my partners case.

Don't forget another advantage would be that , as genuine couples and applications would not be refused (because they couldn't be if all boxes are ticked), then the huge backlog of appleals would disappear overnight with the resultant savings of our taxpayers money , which the government could then spend on giving parents who are perfectly able to afford it , even more child benefit to lavish on their kids.

[GU22]

I will , once again, ignore his personal insults

What personal insults? I challenge you to find a single personal insult in anything I have posted in this thread.

Then, when you have failed, I trust you will have the grace to apologise.

You have ignored an important question, maybe now you will answer it.

So you are basically saying that under your proposed system, the many marginal cases who currently apply and are often approved shouldn't even bother to apply! How is that more fair?

[Mossfinn]

I said I would sit on the fence on this one until all posted views were stated, I would suggest this is now.

After reading through the posts, I still can't see a major mainstream of difference between what atlastaname wants and what is currently in place.

Alright substitute a set of guidelines for a rigid tick-box system that enables you to qualify or not, but then have an element of discretion, this is really a counterweight to the rigidity of a tick-box system.

There is already discretion in todays practices, in a tick-box system, you either qualify or you don't, this can't be reasonable, so intrduce a discretionary element, so whats the difference?

Guidelines with discretion or rigid tick-box with discretion?

I think GU22 argues the point successfully for why the guidelines with discretion is far more appropriate.

atlastaname argues against the mood swings of particular ECO's on any particular day acting against individual cases, well it would be inconceivable for me to suggest that ECO's do not have bad days, but to suggest that it is widespread is almost as inconceivable.

GU22, in previous posts, I will show my discretion and relate to them here, has stated % figures of failed applications this would suggest a greater number of pass rates, a figure that ECO's even on bad days do not fail applications for the sake of failing.

In my opinion GU22's arguement is far more compelling than atlastaname's.

However, I can't help but feel that the forum as a whole is a great learning curve, on this thread we have had reference to 'Godels Incompleteness Theory', a previous post to 'Occam's Razor', but I much prefer, 'Finagles Law', Anything that can go wrong will-at the worst possible moment.

So my advice, read the guides and prepare, cover the bases and work on the discretionary rules if you need to and try and make sure Finagle doesn't come back to haunt you.

Thanks for participating.

Good Luck

Moss Finn

Edited August 5, 2006 by Mossfinn

[the scouser]

I, too, favour a system which enables the visa officer to exercise their own judgment.

You are always going to have genuine applicants who, for whatever reason, don't fit in to nice neat little boxes which can then be ticked, and it's grossly unfair to say that they should not, therefore, have the same opportunities.

It's also inaccurate to depict all visa officers as petty tyrants who derive a perverse pleasure from refusing visa applicants: this is simply not the case. Many visas, which would otherwise be refused, are issued based on a visa officer's visceral instinct.

The unfortunate thing is that they don't want staff who can think for themselves: they want automata who will do what they're told. As this ethos becomes more prevalent, and the ECO's job is "dumbed-down", we are moving more towards a tick-box system.

Scouse.

[atlastaname]

Thanks again to all who participated.

Seems like there may be some benefit from both systems , as although a few here have argued that the ECO's are not all petty tyrants the fact is i think all of you acknowledge that some are on some days. That leads to unfairness which CAN'T be right can it? Somehow a system that does away with their moods and interpretation would be ideal . Maybe there is no right answer , but for sure the present system needs some improvements.

To GU22 who's participation is always welcome i would say that i found your personalising my case with your usual remark a tad insulting but if you didn't intend it to be so then maybe a half apology to you can be given.

Thanks again

[GU22]

To GU22 who's participation is always welcome i would say that i found your personalising my case with your usual remark a tad insulting but if you didn't intend it to be so then maybe a half apology to you can be given.

You personalised this in your OP

.... after being forced apart for a year we now have a settlement visa and live together in the UK. However, unlike most people who conveniently forget all the heartache the fight to get a visa brings , i was unwilling to forgive or forget....

I felt it would be helpful to others if they knew the reasons behind your difficulties.

To say that doing so is insulting???????

Any chance of an answer to my question? Reproduced once more here:-

So you are basically saying that under your proposed system, the many marginal cases who currently apply and are often approved shouldn't even bother to apply! How is that more fair?

[atlastaname]

To GU22,

In my original post i simply said that my partner had been refused as a way of introducing why i was interested in improving the process. I said nothing in my OP about past breaches , you brought that up unneccessarily i thought. Hence me taking a little offence as it detracted from what the post was really about. Thats all.

You might give your opinion on whether , if a genuine couple have breached the rules in the past, they should be permanently refused leave to live together in the country of their choice. Or whether the relationship should take precedence over past breaches ? what is your opinion? Personally i can't see why someone working instead of studying on a student visa should then be refused as a punishment for this , and spurious reasons like not having both names on your council tax used . No doubt you will but i will let you put your opinion yourself if you choose to.

Regarding your question , i think we have discussed this on other threads but to be clear ...i have often said that i don't believe "reason to return" should be part of the criteria. The criteria should be that the applicant or sponser can afford it and that they have somewhere to stay. I have previously said that if they are first time applicants with no previous bad immigration history then that should be it . Visa granted . So its clear what the criteria are and no-one would apply until they can meet them (not difficult are they!!). MOST of the marginal cases here are regarding the reason to return not the financial and accomodation bit . And even then the (few) cases where the finances are a problem can always get help from relatives or friends. Not much money is going to be expected to be shown for a 2/3 week holiday . You labour the point about how these few cases will be automatically refused by a tick box system (is there anyone who can't get enough money together to sponser someone?I doubt it) but don't see the opposite side which is that the ECO's will not be able to refuse the many genuine cases they currently do because they can simply say they don't believe the applicant / relationship is genuine even when it is . My system would stop them doing this .

How many threads have we had on here from someone who has been in a relationship with a Thai with stacks of proof of this and then been refused because the Thai was not great at interview and didn't know how to counter the ECO shouting abuse at them ? Can you address that point for me ?

Previously you have answered this by stating that there is always the appeal to the ECM to look at it again. I have had experience of the ECM looking at it and concluded , as others have , that it is a farce where they will back up their staff rather than see justice done. Then you say, like it was some magnanimous gesture, there is always the appeal process. That can take many many months to address an injustice at huge expence to the applicant/sponser but that seems fine with you rather than tackle the original problem by preventing the moods of the ECO from influencing the outcome of the application.

My system would remove the ability of the ECO to refuse an otherwise genuine application because they feel like it . You are happy that they can continue to do this (as numerous threads here have shown) .

Now how is that fair?

[GU22]

Atlastaname, I am going to answer you by using quotes to identify the point I am addressing

In my original post i simply said that my partner had been refused as a way of introducing why i was interested in improving the process.

No, you didn't. You said "after being forced apart for a year" in an obvious attempt to lay all the blame on an unreasonable, vindictive ECO. As in the vast majority of cases, there was a reason for your boyfriend's difficulties; his being in the UK in breach of the Immigration Rules and his visa conditions.

You might give your opinion on whether , if a genuine couple have breached the rules in the past, they should be permanently refused leave to live together in the country of their choice.

I can see no reason why previous breaches of the rules should automatically prohibit someone from receiving a future visa, which it probably would do under a "tick box" system. But, I can see why, and agree, that applications from such persons should be treated with more caution. Would you employ a convicted thief to house sit while you were away without questioning whether he was now trustworthy? You and your boyfriend tried to bend the rules and it didn't work. However, when you applied properly he got his visa without an interview.

This amply demonstrates the benefits of the current system, which allows flexibility and discretion. Your system wouldn't.

Regarding your question , i think we have discussed this on other threads but to be clear.....

We have discussed this whole issue at length on other threads, but you have always dodged this question. At least, eventually, you have made an attempt to answer it this time.

MOST of the marginal cases here are regarding the reason to return not the financial and accommodation bit .

True; and most of those come from the "I barfined her for a couple of weeks and now she wants me to get her a visa" brigade.

As I have said many times before; if the ECO is satisfied that, on the balance of probabilities, the relationship is genuine and so the reason for the visit is genuine then they will also feel that the applicant would not want to jeopardise any future settlement application by overstaying a visit. So they visit visa will be issued, even though there is no concrete reason to return. Even if there is some lingering doubt in the ECOs mind, they will still issue the visa, but limited to a single entry and with a signed undertaking to return.

You wish to remove this flexibility and discretion.

You labour the point about how these few cases will be automatically refused by a tick box system (is there anyone who can't get enough money together to sponsor someone?I doubt it) but don't see the opposite side which is that the ECO's will not be able to refuse the many genuine cases they currently do because they can simply say they don't believe the applicant / relationship is genuine even when it is .

Point taken on the finance side, it is what already happens.

What proof do you have that the ECOs arbitrarily refuse " many genuine cases"? I know you don't believe the entry clearance facts and figures, but they do show that well over 90% of applications to the Bangkok embassy are approved. In fact, the number of applications is steadily rising each year, but the number of refusals is falling.

How many threads have we had on here from someone who has been in a relationship with a Thai with stacks of proof of this and then been refused because the Thai was not great at interview and didn't know how to counter the ECO shouting abuse at them ? Can you address that point for me ?

As far as I can remember, every time someone has posted about a refusal, further questioning has shown that although they may very well have had "stacks of proof" they haven't presented all of that proof! Or, even worse, they admit to following the 'advice' of an agency and lying, usually about how they met.

Previously you have answered this by stating that there is always the appeal to the ECM to look at it again. I have had experience of the ECM looking at it and concluded , as others have , that it is a farce where they will back up their staff rather than see justice done.

I know of several refusals to be overturned by the ECM.

Then you say, like it was some magnanimous gesture, there is always the appeal process. That can take many many months to address an injustice at huge expence to the applicant/sponsor but that seems fine with you rather than tackle the original problem by preventing the moods of the ECO from influencing the outcome of the application.

I accept that sometimes the ECO gets it wrong. This is why I place emphasis on the appeals system. It is heart rending, I'm sure, to have to go through the appeals system. But with it in place at least genuine applicants will get their visa eventually.

For refusals that do not have the right of an appeal there is the the independent monitor. I have mentioned this before, but you have chosen to ignore it.

Your system would do away with these safeguards.

My system would remove the ability of the ECO to refuse an otherwise genuine application because they feel like it .

ECOs have to keep a record of why they have refused. A transcript of the interview is available to any applicant on request. Any ECO who consistently refused applicants because they felt like it, any ECO who was consistently rude and abusive to applicants would not remain an ECO for very long.

You are happy that they can continue to do this

I would not be happy at all if these allegations had any real substance to them. So far you have only offered your prejudiced opinion. Where is your proof?

(as numerous threads here have shown)

No, they haven't See above.

Now how is that fair?

If the current system were as you describe, it wouldn't be fair. But it is not as you describe.

In effect, the system is already much as you desire it. Most applicants complete the form and submit it and then a few days later collect their visa without ever seeing an ECO. However, if the documentary evidence does not satisfy the ECO then they have the option of interviewing the applicant. This allows them to question the applicant on the areas of doubt, and if the answers are satisfactory then the visa is issued.

You suggested system would remove this flexibility and discretion. Anyone who didn't have cast iron documents would be automatically refused.

So, to return the question to you, how is that fairer?

(The quote facility doesn't seem to be working ???)

[atlastaname]

Thanks for the reply , and i managed to fight my way through the not working quote facility to understand the points you are making.

We'll just have to agree to disagree . Maybe when we read other people's posts we simply interpret them in different ways. I'm glad you accept that ECO's get it wrong .. but shouldn't something be done to stop it happening at all ? If the system's not perect why not look at whats wrong and improve it ? Is it really that difficult to do ?

[GU22]

I'm glad you accept that ECO's get it wrong

No, i acknowledge that, being human, ECOs are capable of error and so may sometimes get it wrong.

but shouldn't something be done to stop it happening at all ?

There are already mechanisms in place to correct this, as described by me ad nauseum.

If the system's not perfect why not look at whats wrong and improve it ? Is it really that difficult to do ?

No system is perfect. The present system employs humans using their discretion and making judgements, and being humans they are capable of error. Your suggested system would remove the human element do, of course, remove the chance of human error. But it would also remove the flexibility and the discretion. Result? Fewer visas issued, and if you come from low down on the social scale don't even bother to apply.

Maybe when we read other people's posts we simply interpret them in different ways

Obviously. When I see a post asking about an application problem or refusal I try to find out all the details so I can advise the best way to proceed. If the fault lies with the ECO I will say so and try to advise on what to do next. Ditto if the fault lies with the applicant or sponsor.

You, not always but usually, automatically assume the poster is the victim of a vindictive ECO.

We'll just have to agree to disagree

Quite.

[atlastaname]

The only point i want to take issue with you on in particular is your support and approval of the mechanisms that you point out are in place. The mechanisms you are referring to are presumably the immediate appeal to the ECM to look at the case which rarely works and then the long winded appeal.

The point i was making is a way must be found to stop mistakes being made by ECO's not just your response which is to shrug your shoulders and say "well there are mechanisms in place " to address this. That is not acceptable to genuine couples refused. Your attitude is consistantly one of saying "well if you are genuine it will be overturned on appeal "as if somehow those months being forced apart are just a trivial inconvenience.If you are genuine it shouldn't be refused in the first place. !! Your indifferace to their mistakes and the suffering caused is consistant and callous. And you have no wish to see it changed which is worse.

It is not difficult to make improvements . However i know we will agree to disagee

[GU22]

You are correct, if mistakes were never made there would be no need for reviews by the ECM; no need for the AIT, no need for the independent monitor.

But the system employs humans beings, so some mistakes are inevitable.

Often these mistakes are made by the applicant/sponsor. Remember, the appellant is allowed to present new evidence to the AIT. Most do, certainly in every appeal case I have come across, they have. I wonder how many successful appeals would have been so if the AIT relied solely on the evidence presented with the original application. Very few, I bet.

Sometimes these mistakes are made by the ECO and the ECM. The review and appeals system are there to address and correct these errors. I'm not saying the system is perfect, far from it. But it's better than any alternative.

The rigid system you prefer would leave no room for error, true. But it would also leave no room for flexibility, no room for discretion and no room for appeals.

I think it was Churchill who said:

"Democracy is the worst form of government; apart from all the others."

The same can be said, IMHO, about the UK visa system.

[atlastaname]

As he likes to have the last word i will let GU22 have it

[Mossfinn]

As he likes to have the last word i will let GU22 have it

Does this mean this thread is now

Moss

[fisherd3]

To talk seriously about the British system of granting Visas is a joke in itself.

The Home office is in total disarray, the Home Secretary has described it's standards in the lowest possible terms (Quote:"Dysfunctional") for a government ministry.

This is all characterised by the fact that he is the third Home secretary in about a year the other two having resigned because of their corrupt tenures. One for fast tracking his maids visa!! and various shenanigans at Lunar house probably the premier Visa office in the Uk, where ECOs have been meeting applicants outside business hours (according to governmnet enquiry), I wonder what for?

I really don't know how GU22 and Scouser himself can completely ignore this tragic state of affairs at the ministry and this must give some clue to their true ability or will to provide truthful and valid real world assistance to the members of the board as a whole , (as opposed to the 'lottery' winners), which they no doubt own.

The only recourse for the UK taxpayer who is provided with such a well documented poor standard of service by the people whose wages he pays, is to involve his member of Parliament from day one for any serious visa application as he at least will be very aware of the poor quality of service and lack of sufficient direction in this Government Ministry.

Edited August 9, 2006 by fisherd3

[GU22]

I really don't know how GU22 and Scouser himself can completely ignore this tragic state of affairs at the ministry and this must give some clue to their true ability or will to provide truthful and valid real world assistance to the members of the board as a whole , (as opposed to the 'lottery' winners), which they no doubt own.

I can't speak for Scouse, but if you care to look back through the archives you will see that I have commented on the various 'scandals' and been critical of the IND and immigration rules.

You seem to be saying that the chances of getting a UK visa are the same as the chances of winning the lottery. Perhaps you could tell me which lottery gives you a 95% chance of winning first prize, as I want to buy a ticket!

It is up to those who post questions to decide if they follow the advice I give. I hope they find it helpful.

I have no connection with the owners of this board, I am simply a member.

[the scouser]

I really don't know how GU22 and Scouser himself can completely ignore this tragic state of affairs...

Just because I choose not to comment publicly upon it, doesn't mean that I ignore it. Sometimes silence can speak louder than words.

Scouse.

[Mossfinn]

I really don't know how GU22 and Scouser himself can completely ignore this tragic state of affairs at the ministry and this must give some clue to their true ability or will to provide truthful and valid real world assistance to the members of the board as a whole , (as opposed to the 'lottery' winners), which they no doubt own.

I cannot quite grasp here what you are trying to say?

Are you suggesting that incompetence in the 'ministry', has a reflection on their ability to provide truthful advice.

I suggest you take time out and trawl through the many responses these two have provided over a long period of time and perhaps you might get a better insight to their advice.

Their advice niether has to be heeded or acted upon but is for the individual to administer as they see fit, ignore even if they wish.

As for condoning the malasise that is obviously inherent in certain parts of the 'ministry' it has been commented on, including by myself, using the 'not fit for purpose' jibe by John Reid many times before but as for casting aspersions at characters who are providing advice in good faith, is plain daft.

According to your statement, guilt by association, in this case giving advice on an independent forum, perhaps should be descibed as mis-informed, lacking in clarity and should really be treated with the contempt it deserves.

Have a good day.

Mossfinn