Settlement Refusal

[mikeybee]

Mikey,

Have you submitted the appeal form? If not, make sure you do that within 28 days of the decision to refuse.

With regard to your e-mails to the embassy, I'd keep chasing them. UK Visas complaints section undertake to respond within 20 working days; i.e. 4 weeks.

Scouse.

I have recieved all the original refusal and appeal forms now from my wife and ask,what additional evidence should i send with this to the appeal court,such as further letters from my mother and her partner of property details,employment status and a letter confirming why they have invited my wife and son to live at there property.etc

thanks for the help 21 DAYS REMAINING

mikeybee

Edited March 7, 2007 by mikeybee

[atlastaname]

There is a lot to read here and i may have missed it , but i can't see anyone has suggested you PHONE the ECM at the Embassy. You have e-mailed and they have had plenty of time to reply but seems they haven't. So why not call and ask to speak to the ECM? It won't slow down or hinder any of the other options open to you and whilst it may not be successful i don't see it can harm you. If possible note down all your points in advance and the replies you get to them . Record the conversation if you can as it could help your recall in the future. Be prepared to talk to a[n] officious person who won't care a bit about any injustice. It is hard to control your anger but you must.

If this does go to appeal it could be near the back end of this year before a judgement is made and she can join you . Terribly sad so do what you can.

Whilst we are waiting for an update from mikeybee , i would like to make one observation. I have read with amusement all the mud slinging between 2 posters and GU22 and whilst i don't want to get involved in it ,it does give rise to one question in my mind. Whether these 2 posts are "rants" as GU22 says or not , they both have a similar dim view of the staff at the BE. GU22 must therefore ask himself (he is a he BTW despite the gents assertions otherwise) as he stoicly defends them yet again , why do so many people regard them as rude [and] high handed if there is not some truth in it all? I mean everyone here has better things to do than make up stories about them .So there must be some truth in their observations. Can he not concede that ?

Edited March 7, 2007 by the scouser
Profanities removed.

[mikeybee]

This is first piece of feed back from the embassy:

Dear Mr. Michael xxxxxxxxx,

Your email dated 28 February 2007 has been received and the complaint therein well noted. I will first apologise for the mix up in names and reference numbers contained in the refusal notice issued to your wife, Kittima xxxxxxx. While there are no excuses for such errors, I am satisfied that this may be down to typographical error. However, the content of the refusal notice is applicable to your wife's application.

I must remind you that the refusal of a spouse visa for your wife attracts a right of appeal. In the light of your dissatisfaction following the reason for the refusal, I will suggest you put in writing, your appeal against the Officer's decision. The decision will then be reviewed.

Regards

xxxxxxxxxxxxx

ECO

Edited March 8, 2007 by mikeybee

[the scouser]

I'd keep on pursuing them. Point out that the decision is so fatally flawed, that you want some redress now, rather than have to wait six months or more for an appeal hearing. Also, try sending the e-mail to the person who responded. If you have their full name, you can work out the e-mail address: the chances are it'll be firstname(dot)[email protected]. Do make sure, however, that you also get the appeal form submitted within the 28 days. Do this now. It does not prevent you from otherwise seeking to get the decision overturned.

Scouse.

[GU22]

it does give rise to one question in my mind. Whether these 2 posts are "rants" as GU22 says or not , they both have a similar dim view of the staff at the BE. GU22 must therefore ask himself (he is a he BTW despite the gents assertions otherwise) as he stoicly defends them yet again , why do so many people regard them as rude [and] high handed if there is not some truth in it all?

1) if you care to read my posts in this thread you will see that I am not defending this decision, stoically or otherwise. Whenever there is a genuine reason for complaint I will be as vociferous as the next person in my condemnation.

2) Over 40,000 applications a year (over 35,000 of which are successful). Yet the number of new complaints on forums such as this each year barely makes it into double figures. Perhaps you should ponder that!

everyone here has better things to do than make up stories about them .

You'd think so, but who knows what goes on in the minds of a troll?

[Ollie]

Everyone is different and everyone's circumstances are different, but when I heard from my wife her latest difficulty with the visa process, albeit a visa not refused, but put on hold(?), I was on to them like a light - from the UK - the best 54pounds I ever spent!!!

Its got to be worth a try, especially in the circumstances.

[atlastaname]

it does give rise to one question in my mind. Whether these 2 posts are "rants" as GU22 says or not , they both have a similar dim view of the staff at the BE. GU22 must therefore ask himself (he is a he BTW despite the gents assertions otherwise) as he stoicly defends them yet again , why do so many people regard them as rude [and] high handed if there is not some truth in it all?

1) if you care to read my posts in this thread you will see that I am not defending this decision, stoically or otherwise. Whenever there is a genuine reason for complaint I will be as vociferous as the next person in my condemnation.

2) Over 40,000 applications a year (over 35,000 of which are successful). Yet the number of new complaints on forums such as this each year barely makes it into double figures. Perhaps you should ponder that!

everyone here has better things to do than make up stories about them .

You'd think so, but who knows what goes on in the minds of a troll?

You have avoided answering the point and nitpicked around the edges as usual.

Once again i ask you , can you not concede that the stories we often read here of the BE's rudeness are not all made up and that they are sometimes unnacceptably rude and high handed? Simple question.

[GU22]

Atlas, whilst we have often disagreed, I have also considered you to be a reasonably intelligent man. Therefore I am amazed that you cannot understand what I mean when I say "Whenever there is a genuine reason for complaint I will be as vociferous as the next person in my condemnation." To aid your understanding; yes, I do accept that sometimes embassy staff are rude, and I have often said here that this should not be tolerated.

One should bear in mind, though, the difference in cultures. What can appear to be rudeness to a Thai may often, to western eyes, merely be a certain brusqueness and a businesslike manner.

Many westerners, when faced with the Thai way of doing things, raise their eyes heavenward and exclaim "T.I.T.. Maybe Thais do something similar when faced with the Farang way?

(Third time of trying to respond, hopefully this time I wont suffer the connection problems which mean my reply disappears into cyberspace, never to be seen again!)

[atlastaname]

FINALLY...your answer to my simple question is ...YES.

Thats all i wanted to know ...thank you

[GU22]

Not finally, as I have often said as much in the past!

Perhaps now you will respond to my point:-

Over 40,000 applications a year (over 35,000 of which are successful). Yet the number of new complaints on forums such as this each year barely makes it into double figures. Perhaps you should ponder that!

If the staff are so rude, how come less than 0.0025% of applicants complain?

OK, you could say that people are so relived that they've got the visa they forget the rudeness. So, I'll make it easier. Approx 5,000 refusals p.a., approx 10 people p.a. complaining about rudeness. That's only 0.2%. If the staff are as habitually rude as you make out, how come it is so low?

[topfield]

This refusal is just so contrived it beggars belief.

It seems to me, and possibly any other normal sentient civilized being, that your wife has simply been refused because ' they ' thought they could rather than for any compelling reason that might justify the bankrupt notion the shiney arsed clerk of a visa officer is protecting the fabric of British society.

Any witless buffoon, even the dullest of dullbrained civil servants, realises that nobody under the age of 30 is living anywhere in Britain except with their parents not least because the housing market has become so bizarrely distorted. To gainsay what your parents have already vouchsafed in their correspondence supporting your wife's application by introducing a snide inference they failed to provide sufficient ' evidence ' of the available accommodation is beyond contempt not least because the whole process is based on the balance of probability and not some <deleted> surveyor's report supported by a sworn affidavit! Jesus H. Christ who in Britain gives a flying <deleted> if someone shares more than 1 room in a house anyway ?

Simply appeal the vacuous refusal and await the hearing. There is NO WAY this putrid, meanminded, stupid, ill founded, flawed ramblings of a decision will be sustained by an adjudicator.

The only real consequence of the idiot visa officer's decision is that your family's plan to settle in the UK has been delayed unnecessarily. Should you find yourself weakening in pursuing your fight just consider the fact that the gormless prat that has screwed your life is living the life of Riley in circumstances that he/she's own innate mediocrity could not possibly achieve otherwise, and all subsidised by the taxes you and your parents have paid over the years.

Christ, if this is the level of decision making in Wireless Rd then God help us. The truth of the matter probably lies in the fact that the arselicking lower middle management of the Foreign Office is only too happy to pick on easy, soft targets in order to meet some spurious performance indicator set by an equally sycophantic bean counter untrammelled by any conscience.

Nearly 2000 foreign ragbag convicts wander Blighty at will free to do as they wish and after all the hooha how many have been kicked out? Less than 200. But hey, the Home Office is getting tough, let's up the refusal quota and show just how ' robust ' Labour is on migration.

Go stick it to the tossers.

................................................................................

.............................................

My friend...of course you and the others criticising the decision are 100 percent right ! But none of you have considered THE MOTIVE for stupid officers to make such ridiculous judgements/decisions..

Of course...how are you to know ? How is anyone to know ? !

Well the Summer before last , when in the UK, not being able to sleep being 3am in the night, I switched to the Parliament Channel which I don't normally watch.. What a shame I did not record the programme and place the video or transcript thereof on this forum.

What I was watching was a Parliamentary Audit Comittee questioning and indeed interrogating the following civil servants. 1. The Director of UK Visas 2. Person in Charge of Immigration at the Home office 3. The Head of the Visa section at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office ! Yes ALL three bigwigs sitting side by side.

Astonishing what was said and too long to report here but one example that stood out was an MP questioning them about the danger of foreign criminals obtaining visas to enter the UK. 'Nothing to worry about 'said one of the officials..'before a visa is granted we check each applicant to see if he or she has a criminal record' !!! LIE LIE LIE ! I thought to myself.

When questioned further about this by the MP, the official 'clarified' the matter : "We have" he said "a list of all known dangerous criminals which we keep at our Embassies and High Commissions and all applicants' names are cross checked against this list !!! ...finally the truth, but only under cross examination by the alert MP

The MP's then went on about the efficiency or otherwise of the work done by these three bigwigs. It then came out that large bonuses were paid to staff who show exceptional efficiency in their work .

Further questioning then revealed the truth...these officials receive their bonuses by proving their diligence and worth by spotting false and dubious applications AND TURNING DOWN APPLICANTS.

Get the point now , friends ??? THEY ARE PAID FOR TURNING DOWN APPLICANTS !!

A final note....dont be too shocked ...the police have always been rewarded for their success in catching "criminals" and obtaining convictions with rewards and promotion. Why should Embassy staff be any different ?

[markr]

these officials receive their bonuses by proving their diligence and worth by spotting false and dubious applications AND TURNING DOWN APPLICANTS.

Get the point now , friends ??? THEY ARE PAID FOR TURNING DOWN APPLICANTS !!

Thats quite a big statement topfield, can anyone else add to this? or are you simply stirring the <deleted>?

Mark

Edited March 12, 2007 by markr

[topfield]

these officials receive their bonuses by proving their diligence and worth by spotting false and dubious applications AND TURNING DOWN APPLICANTS.

Get the point now , friends ??? THEY ARE PAID FOR TURNING DOWN APPLICANTS !!

Thats quite a big statement topfield, can anyone else add to this?

Mark

Yes indeed it is, but this was NOT an opinion but based on the fact that bonuses are paid for diligent work and what other sanction do visa officers have other than turning down applicants ? They can't arrest and charge applicants for perjury/forgery can they ...not in Thailand anyway.?

Also its a generally known and accepted fact that the police will often do just about anything to get a conviction with not only a promotion on offer but spending the rest of their career on the beat if targets are not met. As mentioned why should visa staff be any different ?

[GU22]

I suspect that this accusation is as true as all his other posts.

As I said when this ridiculous accusation was made before, if true how come over 80% of applications worldwide are successful (over 90% in Bangkok)? (source) These ECOs are not very good at getting their bonus, are they?

I am sure that they do have targets, but they relate to the number of applications processed, not the result. In which case, as an acceptance requires less work than a refusal, this would encourage them to accept, not refuse.

Edited March 12, 2007 by GU22

[the gent]

.........and of course in maintaining that rate an average of refusal decisions is arrived at by which each ECO may well be measured in assessing their efficiency and effectiveness.

I think it would be somewhat crude to suggest that a quota has to be met but I am sure that an ECO is conscious that in certain applications a refusal can be manufactured which may well ensure that he or she is operating in accordance with their peers. This peer group pressure can easily be manipulated by any institution's management and I suspect that the visa section is no exception. Certainly, in the case of this OP there can be no other rational explanation.

Cling to those illusions, GU22, by all means but it is in the cracks of the system that one finds the truth about human nature which generally, in my experience, proves somewhat unedifying.

[GU22]

So, if things are as you suggest, how come the acceptance rate is so high?

[topfield]

I suspect that this accusation is as true as all his other posts.

As I said when this ridiculous accusation was made before, if true how come over 80% of applications worldwide are successful (over 90% in Bangkok)? (source) These ECOs are not very good at getting their bonus, are they?

I am sure that they do have targets, but they relate to the number of applications processed, not the result. In which case, as an acceptance requires less work than a refusal, this would encourage them to accept, not refuse.

Again our resident visa guru refuses to look at the facts and decries every posting even though honest and truthful and written by someone with far more practical visa experience than that he has admitted . Were the writer to say two and two were four he would even dispute that from past experience.

OK, I agree ; my wording was wrong ; of course payment is not made for refusals. I'll therefore reword : "bonuses are paid for dilligent work and meeting targets " In practice however this is what happens and the meaning is the same only worded differently..

Is this guru saying no bonuses are paid or is he saying they are paid for other reasons ?

Let him answer .....and we will get the facts directly from the relevant government departments ..but due to the lengthy work that may be involved will do this only if this guru is prepared to admit he is wrong when the bonuses are confirmed in writing as they will be.

I have a feeling nevertheless that even with confirmation of bonuses in writing in front of him he will claim they are not relevant or a forgery !!

Anyhow the only other explanation for the visa officer's decision in the above case according to the facts presented above can be that he or she is an imbecile and /or of extremely low intelligence ...is that what he is saying or implying ?

In the final analysis readers must decide themselves how and for what possible reason a visa officer can conceivably deal with an application in the atrocious way described in the above posting (which we have to assume is true and accurate). Is the visa officer a fool or just after a bonus and promotion ? It clearly by common consent has to be the one or the other.

[GU22]

Again our resident visa guru refuses to look at the facts and decries every posting even though honest and truthful and written by someone with far more practical visa experience than that he has admitted.

Whenever I am corrected by someone with the attributes you describe, such as the Scouser, I am happy to admit my error. I am only an amateur, after all. But no one with those attributes has yet challenged what I have said on this subject.

Is this guru saying no bonuses are paid or is he saying they are paid for other reasons ?

Let him answer .....and we will get the facts directly from the relevant government departments ..but due to the lengthy work that may be involved will do this only if this guru is prepared to admit he is wrong when the bonuses are confirmed in writing as they will be.

I have already answered, in my post of 23:32:10. However, for the benefit of those too feeble minded to have read it, if any, I will repeat;

I am sure that they do have targets, but they relate to the number of applications processed, not the result. In which case, as an acceptance requires less work than a refusal, this would encourage them to accept, not refuse.So I will not have to admit to being wrong, as I agree that bonuses are paid.

However, what I will not accept is a statement by you to the effect that you have proof. You have made wild claims before, but have never provided a link to any document to back up your claims. Yet another post by you saying that you have proof will not do; if you have proof, show us that proof. Put up, or shut up.

As to the performance of the particular ECO in this case, I have to admit to being baffled. Inexperience? Misunderstanding of the rules? Possibly either, both or something else. What I am certain of is that it was not due to a desire to increase their bonus!

Finally, topfield, I ask again; if things are as you suggest, how come the acceptance rate is so high?

Edited March 12, 2007 by GU22

[the gent]

So, if things are as you suggest, how come the acceptance rate is so high?

Er, possibly because an overwhelming proportion of applications demonstrably meet the requirements of the rules.

Bangkok is a very busy visa section but unique in the world in that the vast majority of sponsors are indigenous British nationals who have no axe to grind in facilitating immigration abuse and generally have no motive other than the genuine in supporting applications made by girlfriends/wives/partners/step children etc.,etc.

Doubtless, refusals are hard to come by but when they do it may not always be because the ECO genuinely believes the application is flawed but simply because they are able to construct a refusal. I thought my previous post made the point quite adequately.

Give it up man and accept the reality. I don't have a down on the system per se but I do abhor injustice and recent cases suggest a pattern emerging that reflects badly upon the system.

[GU22]

So, if things are as you suggest, how come the acceptance rate is so high?

Er, possibly because an overwhelming proportion of applications demonstrably meet the requirements of the rules.

Which is exactly what I have always maintained; show that you meet the criteria for the visa you have applied for and you will get the visa. Happy to see that you now agree with me.

I have always accepted that perverse decisions can and do occur, but they are rare.

Gent, accusations that ECOs will, whenever possible, manufacture a refusal are ridiculous and not supported by the facts. You now seem to be acknowledging that.

Bangkok is a very busy visa section but unique in the world in that the vast majority of sponsors are indigenous British nationals who have no axe to grind in facilitating immigration abuse and generally have no motive other than the genuine in supporting applications made by girlfriends/wives/partners/step children etc.,etc.

Most spouse, fiance etc. applications are sponsored by indigenous British nationals, especially those made to embassies on the Indian sub-continent, the visa sections of which are far busier than that in Bangkok! Edited March 12, 2007 by GU22

[the gent]

Grief, GU@@, it seems you've been watching those Les Dawson videos again............

Try as I might, I have led you to the trough but, bugger me, will you drink from it ??

Not worth bothering about really. Quite simply, you are just too stupid.

But ponder this, whereas you witter on in the abstract the OP has to deal with the reality your myopia seems to prevent you from recognising but I'm sure your insufferable smugness will continue to deny any insight into what I fear may be a terminal condition.

Toodle pip.

[Ollie]

Topfield,

Sometimes your posts are logical, at other times, not.

There is more to getting promotion in the civil service than meeting, what judging by your views's, is an easy target and one, which if not correct can lead to more work and expense through the appeal process.

It beggers all belief to say that there is a target to reject x% of visas, for what purpose? Wouldn't it make more sense to just announce a quota system?

And where did the (incorrect) rant about the Police come from?

Having a bad day? You should have seen mine - I spent it on a training course with a bunch of lawyers!!

I won't tell you what it was about.

Apologies to the OP, as his thread has well and truly gone AWOL.

Edited March 12, 2007 by Ollie

[topfield]

Topfield,

Sometimes your posts are logical, at other times, not.

There is more to getting promotion in the civil service than meeting, what judging by your views's, is an easy target and one, which if not correct can lead to more work and expense through the appeal process.

It beggers all belief to say that there is a target to reject x% of visas, for what purpose? Wouldn't it make more sense to just announce a quota system?

And where did the (incorrect) rant about the Police come from?

Having a bad day? You should have seen mine - I spent it on a training course with a bunch of lawyers!!

I won't tell you what it was about.

Apologies to the OP, as his thread has well and truly gone AWOL.

Many thanks for your views . May I be permitted to offer my response please :

1."There is more to getting promotion in the civil service"

Please read the facts of the posting. The issue raised by the parliamentary committee was bonuses not promotion. It has now been admitted by all that these are paid to staff . The disagreement is what they were paid for. One person suggested they were for the number of applications processed . Really ? Any fool at the Embassy can grant a visa....a dozen in 10 minutes and there is no obvious comeback and no appeal against the issue by the other side.

Once a visa is granted thats it.

A refusal on the other hand is a different matter. The applicant will be agrieved if refused ...and this grievance will soon be greatly magnified when fees payable for settlement approach the six hundred pound mark and applicants are turned down find their fees were wasted

Visa staff therefore have to take care to justify their refusals both to their ECM and later to the Adjudicator . Therefore since granting visas is so easy it is MOST UNLIKELY staff would be given bonuses for this. Refusals are a different matter as diligence is needed to justify refusals and to show the staff are doing their job properly.

2. "Would it not make more sense to announce a quota system "

What an amazing statement. How could the FCO justify such a system ? Impossible ! The whole point of targets and bonuses is that they can be kept secret and confidential by the FCO staff Hence MP'S raising the issue at the Parliamentary Audit Committee where all must be revealed.

3. "And where did the (incorrect) rant about the Police come from?"

What rant ? Just about everyone knows about the targets set for the police and their promotion or demotion depending on results. Have you not seen "the Bill " or practically any police series. ? The serge is often seen warning his officers that they will be back on the beat if they dont come up will the goods. Every criminal lawyer is aware of 'verballing' and other police tactics to obtain a conviction. Please dont pretend to be so naive on this issue.

4."Having a bad day? "

Certainly . The rules of this forum state clearly "No flaming of fellow members!"

The definition of flaming is : the act of sending or posting messages that are deliberately hostile and insulting, usually in the social context of a discussion board on the Internet.

For someone with over 20 years experience with the Embassy and its numerous Visa Managers each with their own slant on things, having dealt with many hundreds of applications ( most of which were successfull I might add ) and having legal qualifications to boot, having someone like the person above in this thread be he man or even woman as has been suggested , who clearly has not the slightest qualification and by his own admission reading his postings ,very few years of practical experience, dealing with the Embassy , not you Ollie but the other person severely criticised above by gent and others , continually breaking forum rules and the Administration not wishing to take action to bar this extremely rude and bad mannered person from the forum is indeed ............having a bad day.

[Ollie]

Thanks Topfeld,

I will now treat all of your posts with the humour in which they are clearly intended!

The Bill indeed! I thought episodes were used in training for examples of how not to do things?

The last time I saw the bill was when half the cast attended the Christmas party of Shepherds Bush Police station, when they - the Police - were allowed to have proper parties!

Thats all from me.

[the scouser]

Mikeybee,

Feel free to start another thread if you so wish, but the usual suspects have hijacked this one.

Closed.

Scouse.