.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
Seekingasylum
-
Posts
323 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Downloads
Posts posted by Seekingasylum
-
-
The poor sap is probably still looking for the answer TonyM.
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
Surely, you cannot be that obtuse. My application has been refused ultra vires but the good news is I cannot appeal and just have to pay another £1000 for another shot at it which might be knocked back on slightly different grounds which would be as ultra vires as the previous decision.
Settlement applications cost over £900 but by the time one faffs about submitting it at Trendy it's a grand. By next year settlement visa applications will no longer attract a right of appeal-
3
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
Read the briefing paper.
63% of the successful appeals under the old system were allowed because the applicant submitted additional documentation.
They have the same option under the current regulations by submitting a new application.
I notice you refuse to accept there is such a thing as health tourism or abuse of family visit visas.
The briefing paper also reveals not surprisingly the main countries where family visit visas are refused.
Thailand does not get a mention and I suspect very few if any genuine applicants from the kingdom are rejected.
There you go again. Why would you wish to reference a briefing paper as if it were some inconvertible proof. That disingenuous piece of flummery is drafted for lay people like you but no lawyer or immigration practitioner worth their salt would regard it as anything other than smoke blown up their fundament.
The test to be applied by visa officers in considering an application is to weigh evidence on the balance of probabilities i.e. a thing is more likely than not. On many occasions officers fail to apply this test properly and refuse accordingly. They also may overreach themselves and refuse an application on mere suspicion alone.
The appellant cannot adduce fresh evidence in the appeal but he may quite legitimately submit further evidence related to matters that were discovered in the original application. Thus, in cases when documentary evidence or material pertaining to relationship were considered deficient by the visa officer which led to the refusal the appellant may well produce more of the same when his bundle is prepared for the hearing. Now, in his ruling the Judge may allow the appeal on whatever grounds stated but that does not licence the Home Office to glibly infer his determination was as a consequence of the additional evidence. It simply isn't the case. In many, many cases the additional evidence was quite redundant and added little to the application which was more often than not refused because the visa officer could not grasp the concept of the balance of probability.
Now, of course, the visa officer can do pretty much as he likes and at nest the applicant has to find another £1000 to satisfy his whim.
Incidentally,if you wish to start a thread on health tourism feel free-
3
-
As I surmised, all fresh air and bluster. Over and out, as they say.
-
Er, statistics seem to confuse you. In one post you reference the removal of family visit appeal rights will save the Exchequer £107 millions over the next 10 years yet you now purport to reference the alleged fact family visit appeals cost £52 millions per year?
Irrespective of this nonsense, you still have not dealt with the actuality in that it is the Home Office itself who are the architects of wasted public money, and not the applicant.
But still, last year there were 1.9 million visit visas issued, in addition to which there were over 38,000 family settlement visas issued and 60,000 in country extensions processed.
You are presumably aware of the fees schedule and so I shall let you do the maths. In addition of course you could also factor in points based applications etc.
Contrast that income with the piddling alleged savings of £10 million per year, at least 50%'of which is directly attributable to the Home Office"s poor decision making.
Your problem is that you have no perspective of your own and cannot analyse data without being spoon fed by manipulating political dogmatists pandering to the lumpen populist vote also incapable of thinking for themselves.-
1
-
-
The most important point is the appeals were costing the UK government money.
I quote again the Immigration Minister
'Family visitor appeals make up more than a third of all immigration appeals going through the system, with many applicants using it as an opportunity to submit information that should have been included in the first place.
Removing the right of appeal will save £107 million over the next decade, making the process faster and cheaper for applicants and allowing officials to focus on more complex cases, such as asylum claims and foreign criminal deportations.'
He stated there that many appeals were founded on incorrect original applications.
The visitor now has to submit a new application if they are rejected instead of wasting taxpayers money on appeals.
If they cannot afford the visa process then the answer is simple. Get on an aircraft and visit them instead.
Ahh, your gullibility in swallowing this disingenuous claptrap does you proud and perhaps explains just why you appear so obtuse.
The visa regime and allied in country extension system currently in place is the most expensive in the world and as a consequence is self financing netting central government a revenue stream that exceeds the costs of its implementation. The proposition that appeals were mounted in order to adduce further evidence omitted from an application is without any foundation whatsoever and the assertion that the costs arising to the Exchequer can be attributed to the appellant is equally specious. An analysis of family appeal decisions disclosed that in a greater proportion of cases the visa officer had, variously,overlooked submitted documents, had lost said documents, had failed to assess the significance of evidence with reference to current case law and the immigration rules or had simply wrongly applied the rules. Given that the Home Office lost over 50 % of their cases on such a basis it is therefore a corollary that they too bear responsibility for the expense of an appeals system which consistently exposed their incompetence, inefficiency and, on occasions, downright stupidity.
I have often wondered who actually believes the rhetoric and propaganda spewed out by May and her apparatchiks. I think I have my answer now.-
2
-
-
It wasn't a lack of manpower at all that prevented the Home Office from attending appeal hearings. They were more than content to leave the matter to the Judge on papers alone. In most instances, particularly those in-country appeals, the Home Office were simply refusing applicants without proper consideration and leaving it to the Judge as the caseworker of last resort. If you were involved you would know that but you were not, hence the rubbish you continue to spout. No appeal was allowed by default, as you stupidly term it, they were lost by the Home Office on the grounds that the evidence put forward by the appellant was persuasive and compelling on the facts and the law.
The fact that you equate an appeal process to a loophole indicates the impoverishment of your intellectual acuity and is probably sufficient to render your contribution here as utterly valueless, as indeed is your equally stupid presumption that you know what the people of Britain are thinking.-
1
-
-
I suspect more confidence on the part of ECO's knowing the applicant can no longer appeal and cost the service money defending the decision.
To get the figures in context 75% of applications are approved.
Incidentally Anotherone what about the USA and it's refusal rate?
The ignorance of the subject upon which you would wish to express an opinion is evidently as profound as your arrogance. Quite why you wish to troll is a matter for you but really, you add little.
Historically, 3 - 6%, was the refusal rate for many posts outside the subcontinent and West Africa. The statistics revealed a trend which demonstrated most applications were well founded and quite legitimate. Of those refused at least half won appeals. Thai have not figured significantly in enforcement statistics for nigh on 30 years. There is no perceived problem with Thai in immigration terms other than they contribute to legitimate migration in the numbers that reflect the British association with the Kingdom.
The increase in refusal rate is simply that. It does not reflect anything other than that. Any post that demonstrates such an increase, from 3 - 6% to 25% would suggest an attack upon the system or some increased imperative to migrate because of other reasons. Neither pertain presently in Thailand since forgeries, impersonations and fraudulent applications founded on bogus sponsorships have not been detected as a trend. The increase is simply attributable to a covert policy of refusal whenever possible by a system which now rewards such performance on political grounds disassociated from the merits of any particular claim.
It is really quite cynical and, in immigration terms, without parallel.
You are evidently a lay person and not particularly intelligent or informed. As others have said, why can't you troll elsewhere? -
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
Your analysis is somewhat crude and, evidently, ill informed.The current system places the onus on the applicant to satisfy entry requirements and if the fail they can submit a further application having attended to points raised in the first refusal.
Much cheaper and more efficient for the system to work that way.
I have my car tested every year and I am at the mercy of the examiner working for the garage. If it fails I get it fixed instead of going to appeal which is available.
The ECO simply interprets the rules and makes a judgement based on how the application may or may not meet the requirements, in his assessment.
To imply infallibility on his part is quite absurd given the wealth of case law that has arisen from decisions that have been successfully challenged over the past 40 years. The reason why we now will no longer have an appeal system is solely based upon the inescapable fact that the Home Office have consistently lost 50 - 70% of those cases which went to appeal.
To accept a decision simply because it has been made may well be the new reality but to then argue that one must address an alleged failing in order to submit another application even though there has been no such inadequacy, in law, in the first application is a perversion verging upon the idiotic.
To pursue your analogy, would you replace your tyres simply because the tester said so even though the remaining tread met legal requirements? Of course not, you would seek a second opinion and go elsewhere.
JR is the only course of action dealing with this dreadful aberration in our legal system. To give a person the right of appeal against an adverse planning decision but to deny him the right to challenge a decision preventing him from living with his wife is nothing more than an obscenity.-
3
-
Legal aid is not available to the immigration cases we are concerned with.
Your point is otiose. -
The real absurdity of TB testing is the idiotic notion that somehow the UK will be a safer place if those who intend a stay of more than 6 months are to be screened. So, by dint of what logic would one consider the self same people who may arrive as visitors for 6 months or less to be that much safer that they do not need screening?
-
1
-
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
All quite predictable. One can only heap opprobrium upon them whenever the occasion arises. British sponsors should write to their MPs in strong terms and demand a meeting, their right, in order to present their case. MPs are lazy these days and accept any piffling letter from the Home Office correspondence unit in a mealy mouthed manner, often dispatching the constituent's complaint with the response " there is nothing I can do ". Make it quite clear you are not going away and stick to your guns like a barnacle to a rock. In the end the MP will up his game and actually address the matter properly.
Apathy is the Home Office's friend.-
6
-
But you just said earlier that you didn't wish to spend two months inThailand. You wanted the year O - A visa. In any event, have you researched what effect your new found residence in Thailand will have on your MYS .
-
Incidentally, if you want the O-A visa you will have to go back to the UK. Penang was visa runner central for years and its consulate's options have been curtailed by the MFA in Bangkok. This is a bugger for you since it is common practice to apply for such visas in either your country of nationality or residence and so you should be permitted to submit it. If I were you I'd pop down to KL and see what they say. It is the embassy and may have more discretion. Still, I think you are wasting your time unnecessarily with all this.
-
What a bizarre thread. Just rent your place in Hat Yai and carry on as usual. If they refuse you then think again but given your MYS residence status there's no way they're going to knock you back. If on the rare occasion you need to stay longer than 30 days just apply for the new 30 day extension which has just become available.
Talk about crossing bridges before one meets them........
-
Where are you? Location is all in the UK.
Since the crash and recession there was a dearth of part time work when a significant proportion of indigenous folk returned to the work sector in order to bolster family finances being squeezed by Osborne's austerity measures. Up North jobs were much sought after, as indeed in pockets of the West Midlands, Wales and other less advantaged economic areas of Britain. With the rise in zero hour contracts part time work has become even harder to find.
The Sourh/Sourh East is different of course and most Thai would have no difficulty in finding work of some nature or other.
-
1
-
-
So ridiculous and unacceptable to ask people to report when they have already submitted so many documents to get the visa...
[/quote
Why would anyone even consider not reporting. Its a condition of the visa and a painless 5 minute process as long as you go at the right time of day. I have always found 14.30 just right, the early morning and afternoon rush has finished. Anyone who doesnt want to do this should not get this type of visa
Fine of you live in Jomtien but not 5 minutes if one lives in Bangkok and has to trail all the way up to Chaengwattana to sit for an hour and then head back through the traffic. Pain in the arse and serves no useful purpose whatsoever and as stupid as afternoon prohibition on buying alcohol between 2 and 5.
Only the Thai could indulge in such stupidity for no gain.
-
2
-
-
The Kingdom may be under threat from all those foreign grunters whose subversive tendencies are foiled by the need to report every 90 days, a well known public safety measure that only the Thai security chaps know about. Mum's the word.......
-
I'm not sure what the form is now for appealing to the Supreme Court. In the old days a decision by the Court of Appeal could only be challenged at the House of Lords if in arriving at their determination the Appeal judges agreed to certify that a point of law was a core issue upon which the appellants could seek relief.
The Appeal Court have found unanimously that Blake J was in error on the facts. I haven't read the judgement but that is the crux and no issue of law requires resolution so I doubt any certificate was issued.
However, the respondents could now take the matter to Europe but a ruling might be expected to be delivered in 3 years plus.
-
When you say your wife has permission to reside in Germany while you are " here ", where is " here "?
-
And other folk blandly state it's only a matter of form filling?
I suggest you read the requirements of the Immigration Rules as set out in Appendix FM - SE. The UKVI have this on their website.
-
How many decades ago was that?I can't believe that this sort of thing happens in the UK. I admit that I am a bit out of touch. But I would just like to tell my story.
I met my Thai wife in South Malaysia. We got married there on a Saturday. Two days later we went to The British High Commission in Singapore and my wife applied for British Citizenship. She had to swear allengence to "The Queen". She managed in spite of not being able to speak English, We got her citizenship paper and went to the consular section to apply for a passport. It was ready a week later!! When her UK passport expired. She did not renew it. But instead got her Thai password stamped with "right of abode in the UK" She could then use her Thai passport to go to UK whenever we went and stay as long as she wanted without any visa!
I am old now and when I read the post I thought to myself how glad I am to have lived in better times. Many years ago I got permanent residence very easily. It makes me sad to see everything changing.
Section 6(2) Nationality Act 1948 permitted women who married Citizens of the UK & Colonies to register as CUKCs.
The gentleman is certainly doing well.
Different world then, only the rich or those on government service could afford air travel. Most travelled by sea and even then it was for the chosen few ( or on an assisted passage ).
If the jet engine hadn't been invented we'd still be in those days now.
-
1
-
-
Which bit of visit visa did this man not understand?
What worries me is that he is apparently an oil rig worker, a dangerous occupation In a difficult environment in which one would hope one's colleagues were all compos mentis and had their heads screwed on facing the right direction.
And that dreadful,self pitying whining now that reality has impinged on their lives? Quite repulsive really.
-
Incidentally, TonyM, as I understand it caseworkers are most likely to be working under policy instructions to knock back child cases if there is one sniff of daddy still being on the scene. Cynical and shallow but the game is all about getting those numbers down. Chap really needs to get a decent brief.
Refusal rate for UK family visit visas after appeals abolished
in Visas and migration to other countries
Posted · Edited by Seekingasylum