UK Visit Visa Refusal for Nonsensical Reasons

[mnop]

Hi, is anyone able to advise me on how to best fix this situation? My visit visa was refused (after 37 working days) for reasons that seem to have ignored many aspects of my application, or misread it. 

 

The refusal reasons are as follows: 

 

"I note that you have provided your bank statements in which you have highlighted receipt of your salary, however, the last credit in your account was dated 28/02/2018 and your statements does not demonstrate that you continued to receive your salary, I am therefore not satisfied your circumstances are as you state."

 

The last credit in my bank statements is actually dated 31/06/2018. All the income for the previous months are both highlighted on my statements, and I provided an additional financial sheet stating all the dates which match these highlights. It seems like they were looking at the first credit on my statement, and not the last. 

 

Additionally, along with my bank statements, I also provided withdrawals from my account which I put into savings in my sponsor's bank account. My sponsor mentioned this in a letter, along with his own bank statements. Additionally, I said I would be on paid leave throughout my trip, and stated my expected income. On top of that, my sponsor agreed to cover my finances where needed. However, another refusal reason stated that my closing bank statement "does not demonstrate that you have sufficient funds to meet the reasonable costs of this visit." Earlier in the letter, they acknowledged "supporting documents from your UK sponsor demonstrating his willingness and ability to support you."

 

What do I do in this case? There are no grounds for appeal or administrative reviews. If I were to resubmit the application, I can't think of anything else I could do differently (except provide more recent bank statements of course). 

 

The letter is also riddled with spelling and grammatical errors. They made me wait 7 and a half weeks for this ridiculous response (almost 3 times the average time). 

 

Any advice is very much appreciated. Many thanks in advance! 

 

[Maradona 10]

Sorry to hear your news. I have said all along that the process is a farce and that the 96% approval rate is utter nonsense, which of course it is. As for the grammar and spelling errors..

 

I cannot help you and no-one on here will be able to either as you are clearly intelligent enough yourself to make the application and it seems that you did no wrong. 

 

The whole thing stinks.

[trigpoint]

same thing happened to me last year. Totally ignored my bank statements of over £85,000, income of £15,000 per year and my own house to  live in whilst there, had proof of our relationship of over 5 years etc etc.  In fact they totally ignored me as being her sponsor and said the only reason of her going to the UK was to work and not return to Thailand. Unfortunately this is home office policy now and is unlikely to change, best hope is a change of government. There's been a lot about this in the UK papers now. 

[mnop]

9 minutes ago, trigpoint said:

same thing happened to me last year. Totally ignored my bank statements of over £85,000, income of £15,000 per year and my own house to  live in whilst there, had proof of our relationship of over 5 years etc etc.  In fact they totally ignored me as being her sponsor and said the only reason of her going to the UK was to work and not return to Thailand. Unfortunately this is home office policy now and is unlikely to change, best hope is a change of government. There's been a lot about this in the UK papers now. 

 

Yes I have heard of some absolutely ridiculous cases! Sorry to hear about that. Did you manage to do anything to resolve it, or just give up altogether? 

 

[Maradona 10]

31 minutes ago, trigpoint said:

same thing happened to me last year. Totally ignored my bank statements of over £85,000, income of £15,000 per year and my own house to  live in whilst there, had proof of our relationship of over 5 years etc etc.  In fact they totally ignored me as being her sponsor and said the only reason of her going to the UK was to work and not return to Thailand. Unfortunately this is home office policy now and is unlikely to change, best hope is a change of government. There's been a lot about this in the UK papers now. 

According to folk on here the pass rate is 96%?

[theoldgit]

According to folk on here the pass rate is 96%?

Not only “the folk on here” but official statistics, I believe you were sent a link, but seem to have chosen to ignore.
Has it crossed your mind that applicants whose applications are successful don’t always post the results on forums like this.
Will you please let it drop now?

[darren1971]

System is an ass, it is set up so you have no other option but to reapply and pay again.... and hope.

 

People on here saying the system is fine need their heads reading.

 

You could contact your local MP.

[theoldgit]

11 minutes ago, darren1971 said:

System is an ass, it is set up so you have no other option but to reapply and pay again.... and hope.

People on here saying the system is fine need their heads reading.

You could contact your local MP.

I don't think anybody on here is saying the system is fine, there is certainly a lot wrong with it, but the fact remains that the vast majority of applications are successful, mistakes do get made and the fact that applicants can't easily correct those mistakes is wrong, ECO's, like all Government employees should be accountable for their actions and complaints and or appeals about their work should be an integral part of their performance assessment 

My partner has made four applications over the years, two for six months and one for two years as my girlfriend and one for five years as my wife, all were successful, whilst that will be of no comfort for those whose applications are refused for no apparent reason, it's indicative of the fact that many applications are successful. 

[darren1971]

10 minutes ago, theoldgit said:

I don't think anybody on here is saying the system is fine, there is certainly a lot wrong with it, but the fact remains that the vast majority of applications are successful, mistakes do get made and the fact that applicants can't easily correct those mistakes is wrong, ECO's, like all Government employees should be accountable for their actions and complaints and or appeals about their work should be an integral part of their performance assessment 

My partner has made four applications over the years, two for six months and one for two years as my girlfriend and one for five years as my wife, all were successful, whilst that will be of no comfort for those whose applications are refused for no apparent reason, it's indicative of the fact that many applications are successful. 

The fact your wife got all 4 granted means nothing, it's a small sample. It's called confirmation bias

 

Here's some of what was said in parliament last week

 

"In 2011, the chief inspector of borders and immigration looked at the New York visa section. One would not think that was a particularly difficult area, but he found that 26% of the cases did not meet the quality markers for decision making. Officers were often misinterpreting documents and were making inconsistent decisions. Although his 2012 report showed some improvement, he said there was a long way to go. In his 2014 report, he looked at various visa sections and found that 30% of decisions did not meet the quality markers. Again, officers were making very inconsistent decisions."

 

"Some 63% of the appeals that succeeded had introduced new information, leaving 37% where there was no new information and the appeal still succeeded. To me, that says there is poor decision making. Worse than that, new information is often introduced on appeal because the grounds for refusal are so vague that people do not know what information they have to provide until they get to appeal.

 

The chief inspector has commented on cases where appeals are refused because the applicant did not provide particular information, had no way of knowing they needed to provide it and were not asked to provide it. He said that was unfair. He looked at recent cases. He pointed out that in 13% of cases where visas were turned down and 56% of cases where visas were allowed, there was not enough information on file for a proper audit of those decisions to be made. If that is the case, something is going very wrong. One of our petitions asks for appeals to be reinstated precisely because of that poor decision making.

 

We conducted some public engagement with surveys of people who had signed petitions about visas. We got more than 2,000 responses and we heard the same stories again and again: mothers unable to come to a daughter’s wedding; nieces not able to come and be bridesmaids; and parents who could not come to help with a new baby—sometimes even a premature baby. Some of the stories we heard verged on the bizarre and seemed to indicate to me that the more honest people were, the more likely they were to be rejected. My general view is that villains know how to manipulate the system."

[theoldgit]

mnop said:

Hi, is anyone able to advise me on how to best fix this situation? My visit visa was refused (after 37 working days) for reasons that seem to have ignored many aspects of my application, or misread it.

 

You do have the option of a Judicial Review, but that is time consuming and very expensive and the UKVI know that.

It's a disgrace that you've had to wait 37 working days for a decision, did they give a reason for the delay?
As you say there is no right of appeal or the avenue for an admistrative review for a visit visa refusal, that in itself is wrong as it makes the ECO's unaccountable for their actions.

If you have evidence that relevent documentation was submitted, the evidence would be the Doument Check List from VFS, and the refusal notice suggests the evidence was missed, you could lodge a complaint via the UKVI Contact Centre,  https://www.gov.uk/contact-ukvi-inside-outside-uk, again there's a cost I'm afraid.

In theory if you have submitted evidence and have no specific evidence, you could still register a complaint, bit it isn't as easy.
Whilst the vast majority of applications are successful that will be of little comfort the people in your position, the removal of the right of appeal or for an administrative review was a callous move by the Home Office one which makes its staff less accountble for their mistakes.
If you were to re-apply you should address the reasons for the refusal, and that would include pointing out that some of the "missing evidence" was in fact previously supplied.

Good luck 

[puchooay]

2 hours ago, mnop said:

 

Yes I have heard of some absolutely ridiculous cases! Sorry to hear about that. Did you manage to do anything to resolve it, or just give up altogether? 

 

I hate to split hairs but in another thread you said you applied on 28/6. Here you say your statements were dated 31/6. BTW there are only 30 days in June.

[TommyUK1960]

What I don't like about the settlement visa process is you can't talk to anyone dealing with the application. UKgov website is a complete nightmare to use and that's not just settlement visas.

[BKKBike09]

OP - roughly how much do you earn, and how much do you have in savings? Assuming that you work in Thailand, how long have you worked in your current job? You say you would be taking unpaid leave: are you able to provide a letter from your employer confirming this to be the case and that you will be expected back at work on xxxx date? How long is your planned visit to the UK: 'unpaid leave' suggests it may be for a relatively long period. How long have you known your sponsor and what is the nature of your relationship? If your sponsor is a romantic partner with whom you, demonstrably, you have been involved for many years, then that is one thing; if your sponsor is, say, a former work colleague, that is different. Would you be staying with your sponsor or is your sponsor simply stating that he will be responsible for your expenses if necessary?

 

I sympathise with your situation. Unfortunately individual ECOs have very little time (minutes) to process an application so the decision as to whether to approve / reject may indeed be arbitrary and possibly unfair. It is also a disgrace that there's no easy means of pointing out an apparent error in the decision making process. But that's the system. If it were me, I'd re-submit, and provide as much evidence as possible to remove any possible misconceptions.

 

Good luck.

[Maradona 10]

Old git - You didn't answer my question earlier....does an applicant have to convince or satisfy the ECO? Which one is it?

[bobrussell]

Unless things have changed you can ask for a review of the decision.

https://www.gov.uk/ask-for-a-visa-administrative-review

 

This is worth doing if you have provided information and you believe the ECO has made a mistake.

If you provided the information then this s worth a try.

 

I have not seen anyone that appears to be saying the system is OK.

In principle it probably is but it is almost completely unaccountable. The Chief Inspector of Borders does not seem to believe it is OK. It is probably fine much of the time but wrong too much of the time. I do wonder if they allow too many dodgy ones through. 

 

Spelling and grammatical errors do nothing to inspire confidence and I would suggest a formal complaint once you have sorted your visa.

 

Assuming what you have said is accurate (not accusing you of anything but frustration and anger can cloud minds) then I would reapply and make it clear where you believe the ECO missed things. Don't get aggressive as the next ECO will probably not be the same one and it was not them at fault. Don't get backs up until you have got what you want.

 

The system does not stink in my opinion but having experienced the complaints process a number of times, the unaccountably of the individual ECO is where the faults generally lie.

[Maradona 10]

5 minutes ago, bobrussell said:

Unless things have changed you can ask for a review of the decision.

https://www.gov.uk/ask-for-a-visa-administrative-review

 

This is worth doing if you have provided information and you believe the ECO has made a mistake.

If you provided the information then this s worth a try.

 

I have not seen anyone that appears to be saying the system is OK.

In principle it probably is but it is almost completely unaccountable. The Chief Inspector of Borders does not seem to believe it is OK. It is probably fine much of the time but wrong too much of the time. I do wonder if they allow too many dodgy ones through. 

 

Spelling and grammatical errors do nothing to inspire confidence and I would suggest a formal complaint once you have sorted your visa.

 

Assuming what you have said is accurate (not accusing you of anything but frustration and anger can cloud minds) then I would reapply and make it clear where you believe the ECO missed things. Don't get aggressive as the next ECO will probably not be the same one and it was not them at fault. Don't get backs up until you have got what you want.

 

The system does not stink in my opinion but having experienced the complaints process a number of times, the unaccountably of the individual ECO is where the faults generally lie.

 

''I have not seen anyone that appears to be saying the system is OK''

 

Erh, old git and jip99 swear by it. They won't have a single word said against their beloved ECO's.

[bobrussell]

Really?

[puchooay]

34 minutes ago, Maradona 10 said:

 

''I have not seen anyone that appears to be saying the system is OK''

 

Erh, old git and jip99 swear by it. They won't have a single word said against their beloved ECO's.

You appear to be suffering from selective reading syndrome. 

[thonglorjimmy]

48 minutes ago, Maradona 10 said:

''I have not seen anyone that appears to be saying the system is OK''

 

Erh, old git and jip99 swear by it. They won't have a single word said against their beloved ECO's.

 

Excuse me but didn't the OG just say "I don't think anybody on here is saying the system is fine, there is certainly a lot wrong with it, but the fact remains that the vast majority of applications are successful, mistakes do get made and the fact that applicants can't easily correct those mistakes is wrong, ECO's, like all Government employees should be accountable for their actions and complaints and or appeals about their work should be an integral part of their performance assessment"?

 

Hardly think that's swearing by it.

[Elad]

The first V V application is always the toughest, I've seen some good solid application been refused and weaker ones granted, i think sometimes it depends on gut instincts from the ECO. I helped a friend last year with application for his girlfriend to visit the UK, she has no job in Thailand, no land/houses, she was adopted as a child and both her adoptive parents are dead, she was granted the visa with basically no reasons to return to Thailand.  She is a very nice lady and would never break the rules and i think the ECO picked up on that.

[mnop]

2 hours ago, puchooay said:

I hate to split hairs but in another thread you said you applied on 28/6. Here you say your statements were dated 31/6. BTW there are only 30 days in June.

 

Yes, you are right - apologies but I did not have the printed statements on hand at the time of posting (and what Thai bank would think of logically providing you digital copies...). 

 

The first income dates 29/12/2017 and the last one 31/05/18. The fact that they picked a random figure in between is completely absurd. I had all incomes & withdrawals for savings highlighted and recorded on another sheet for clarity. 

 

 

4 hours ago, theoldgit said:

It's a disgrace that you've had to wait 37 working days for a decision, did they give a reason for the delay?

 

 

 

They gave no reason for delay. My many communication attempts were entirely unhelpful. There were cases where support staff gave me contradictory and unhelpful advice, as well as wasting my time and money over the phone (e.g. over hesitation and thick foreign accents).  

 

My case was also re-escalated on the same day that this outcome was made, giving me the impression that they were perhaps under pressure to make a decision and decided to wing it under some made-up terms. 

 

2 hours ago, BKKBike09 said:

OP - roughly how much do you earn, and how much do you have in savings? Assuming that you work in Thailand, how long have you worked in your current job? You say you would be taking unpaid leave: are you able to provide a letter from your employer confirming this to be the case and that you will be expected back at work on xxxx date? How long is your planned visit to the UK: 'unpaid leave' suggests it may be for a relatively long period. How long have you known your sponsor and what is the nature of your relationship? If your sponsor is a romantic partner with whom you, demonstrably, you have been involved for many years, then that is one thing; if your sponsor is, say, a former work colleague, that is different. Would you be staying with your sponsor or is your sponsor simply stating that he will be responsible for your expenses if necessary?

 

I earn enough, and have enough in savings, to correspond to my stated planned expenses. My employers are a well-reputable global company who agreed on 'paid leave' (which might sound unusual but they value their employees and I had replacement arrangements in place), and provided a letter outlining these terms as well as my expectancy to return to work after two months, upon my planned return, along with evidence that I have been working with them for a year (the refusal letter acknowledged this). This was further evidenced by freelance employers who said the same (plus cash-paid invoices). My sponsor is a very close friend, evidenced by photographs of our extensive travel together and letters. Both our letters stated I would be staying with him (supported with proof of residence & his bank statements), as well as the fact that he would cover basic household costs, including food etc, significantly cutting down my travel costs.  

 

To add to the absurdity of the refusal letter; the beginning states that I have not satisfied two sections of the immigration rules, yet it concludes by stating that I didn't satisfy only one of them. Confusing. 

 

It's not so much that I wasn't granted the visa that this is the most upsetting part, but more so that it leaves a refusal mark on my immigration record that will certainly leave a stain on future attempts. Additionally, the refusal reasons are matters that easily could have been sorted out within the expected time frame... not 7.5 weeks later. While I will attempt (with great resilience) to retain an objective and calm attitude to dealing with this, I can't help but ponder that this is a situation where the case officer was pressured into not meeting the time frame (making a decision on the same day it was re-escalated for the second time) and making a hurried and inaccurate decision as a result. 

 

Thank you all for the support and advice (and unnerving debate). Contacting the MP and considering a judicial review may be a way to go from here. As for reapplying based on pure luck of getting a more reasonable case officer; the last thing I need is yet another refusal added onto the record. 

 

[theoldgit]

I wouldn't want to advise you against contacting an MP, nor would I want to get your hopes up if you decided on that approach, but MP's have very little sway with the UKVI, they would probably only get some sort of result if there was a clear breach of Immigration Rules, and as badly as your case seems to have been handled, a breach of the rules might be difficult to prove.

 

A JR would be very time consuming and could run into thousands, of Pounds not Baht.

 

As a matter of interest are you the applicant or the sponsor, talking about an MP suggests you might be the sponsor?

[mnop]

Applicant here, the sponsor is happy to do that on his own accord. 

 

I've read through the immigration rules thoroughly but, last I checked, separating 'truth' from the 'untruth' seems to be an assumed convention. Bureaucratically, yeah - probably difficult to prove indeed. 

 

Logically? I'm still banging my head against the wall.  

[darren1971]

3 hours ago, thonglorjimmy said:

 

Excuse me but didn't the OG just say "I don't think anybody on here is saying the system is fine, there is certainly a lot wrong with it, but the fact remains that the vast majority of applications are successful, mistakes do get made and the fact that applicants can't easily correct those mistakes is wrong, ECO's, like all Government employees should be accountable for their actions and complaints and or appeals about their work should be an integral part of their performance assessment"?

 

Hardly think that's swearing by it.

No, that wasn't the OG... stop skimming threads

[rasg]

It has been known for VFS to remove documents that they don't deem necessary so it is possible that the ECO didn't see the whole of the application.

 

 

[cornishcarlos]

3 hours ago, darren1971 said:

No, that wasn't the OG... stop skimming threads

 

Yes it was... OG = Old Git

 

Touché

[BKKBike09]

9 hours ago, mnop said:

I earn enough, and have enough in savings, to correspond to my stated planned expenses. My employers are a well-reputable global company who agreed on 'paid leave' (which might sound unusual but they value their employees and I had replacement arrangements in place), and provided a letter outlining these terms as well as my expectancy to return to work after two months, upon my planned return, along with evidence that I have been working with them for a year (the refusal letter acknowledged this). This was further evidenced by freelance employers who said the same (plus cash-paid invoices). My sponsor is a very close friend, evidenced by photographs of our extensive travel together and letters. Both our letters stated I would be staying with him (supported with proof of residence & his bank statements), as well as the fact that he would cover basic household costs, including food etc, significantly cutting down my travel costs.  

This all sounds like it should be fine. However, two months is a fairly long time to be visiting. Absolutely no reason why you shouldn't be entitled to visit for that period of time, but I suspect that this may automatically mean that your application is subject to closer scrutiny. Would you consider visiting for a shorter period, say 3-4 weeks? You say you've been working for your current employer for a year; presumably that's a legal job, ie you have a work permit, and you provided a copy of that with your application. If however you're working freelance, or on an overseas-issued contract and being paid offshore, that may be regarded differently because it would suggest that you have no specific need to return to Thailand. "I earn enough, and have enough in savings, to correspond to my stated planned expenses" - with respect, your interpretation of "enough" may differ from that of the ECO. If you earn 250,000 baht a month and have 500,000 baht demonstrably accumulated in savings, that is different from earning 75,000 baht a month and having 200,000 in savings. Please don't take offence - I'm simply playing devil's advocate here in the absence of hard data. No-one wants a refusal on file but seeing as how you've been refused, I don't see you have much to lose by reapplying. In fact you have much to gain. 

[mnop]

Is it possible to ask VFS to send you an electronic copy of all the documents they submitted? It just dawned on me that while they were scanning my documents, all the papers went flying from the machine about halfway through the pile (this was in the first week they implemented in the new scanning system...). That might explain a lot. 

[theoldgit]

Is it possible to ask VFS to send you an electronic copy of all the documents they submitted? It just dawned on me that while they were scanning my documents, all the papers went flying from the machine about halfway through the pile (this was in the first week they implemented in the new scanning system...). That might explain a lot. 

I don’t know, but I’d certainly ask them.

[trigpoint]

On 8/20/2018 at 11:21 AM, mnop said:

 

Yes I have heard of some absolutely ridiculous cases! Sorry to hear about that. Did you manage to do anything to resolve it, or just give up altogether? 

 

we gave up,  decided not to  reapply as our circumstances did not change, we still live together in Thailand and I go back to the UK every year on my own and return. my wife was so angry at being called a liar about making a fraudulant application for a visitor visa, when they said it was her sole intention to go and work in the UK and not return to Thailand.