The Phoenix-hicks Report On Uk Visas

[Andrew Hicks]

A little while back, I put together some stuff on applying for British visas, mainly dry and factual but I hope quite useful.. There were some nice compliments but then it deteriorated into a flaming row in which participants slagged each other off rather than commenting usefully on the issues. As a result, the thread was closed, thus precluding further comment.

I have made some amendments to the report and now present it once again in the hope that it is useful and that I can learn something from the ensuing discussion about UK visas rather than about the strange quirks of human nature. So here goes...

Some Serious Thoughts on Immigration into the UK

These notes are based on my experience of having my Thai wife’s visit visa refused and I’d like to pass on the following info to help everyone to understand things better.

Applying for visas is always horrible but there are many features of the British system that are admirable… they have to give reasons for refusals, there’s a right of appeal if you’re married and principles of human rights incorporated into the law give you a right to a fair hearing and to family life (and hence to have your wife with you).

The process is as open as possible and thus there’s a huge amount of material in the public domain. Using the internet well can be crucial. Now for some specific points.

1. If married there’s a right of appeal, but not otherwise. Appeals take place in UK before an independent tribunal and many succeed. In the case of a visit visa, it’s probably better to make a fresh application focusing on the reasons for refusal, explaining the discrepancies or adding the information that was missing. They will consider the application afresh.

2. The Entry Clearance Officers have to follow the ‘Diplomatic Service Procedures’ which lay down procedures for applications. See www.ukvisas.gov.uk.

3. The DSP indicates to ECOs what sort of questions they should ask when interviewing the applicant. (see 8.13 and 13.15.)

4. Grounds for refusal are often that there are discrepancies or inconsistencies in the application, perhaps as between the sponsor’s supporting papers and the answers given by the applicant. Under the law, these issues must first be put to the applicant for an explanation before they rely on them for a refusal. When ECOs fail to do this, they are in breach of the law, giving grounds for appeal or a (futile) judicial review. DSP at 8.13 says, ‘You should put all negative factors that have arisen in the case to the applicant so that he or she has an opportunity to respond to them.’

5. ECO’s are obliged to keep notes of interviews which are especially relevant where there is a right of appeal. DSP says,’ If an applicant requests a copy of their interview notes, they should be supplied free of charge.’ Elsewhere it says notes should ideally be typed, so maybe they’ll send them to you late, though I see no reason why you cannot have a handwritten copy immediately on refusal at the interview.

6. Fees for consular services are set out in a statutory ‘fees order’. Very properly these appear on the wall in the consular section at the Embassy. There are some strange variations in charges for example if they certifying copy documents against originals produced by you and if they produce a certified copy from the original. The Embassy surprisingly has been running at a defecit and you should check with the fees order that you are being charged the correct amount.

7. It’s always difficult to know what supporting papers they want and they are admittedly coy about this as being too specific could be an invitation to concoct fake documents. Broadly they are looking for the following…for a visit (tourist) visa, that there is a good reason for traveling (ie a proven relationship over a reasonable period), that there are funds to support the visit and that the applicant will not overstay. As you are entitled to family life by law, a settlement visa should be granted if you are settled in UK, have a genuine (prospective) marital relationship and the accommodation and funds in UK to support your wife. While there is a clear discretion to refuse visit visas for all sorts of vague reasons, the Embassy can put you through the wringer when it comes to producing paperwork, but ultimately, if you’re genuine, you’ll get there.

8. Advice is available. The Office of the Immgration Services Commissioner has an ‘adviser finder’ on www.oisc.go.uk and the IAS, Immigration Advisory Service provides advice and representation for a fee.

9. There is also much scrutiny of the whole visa service. Apart from appeal to the AIT (Asylum and Immigration Tribunal), the National Audit Office has reported on the process, mainly as an efficiency survey but also commenting that the quality of decision making is questionable as it is not based on clear information about the level of over-staying and this point has been accepted by the Home Secretary. (In Bangkok, one farmer’s daughter looks much like the next one and frankly they’re stabbing in the dark.) Complaints can be sent to the Director at UKVisas who will not ignore it. And The Independent Monitor for Entry Clearance, based at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office writes an annual report on worldwide refusals where there is no right of appeal, based on selective visits to Embassies and scrutiny of sample files. (The last report attracted a major article in The Times of 8 August 2006, focusing on her criticism that the additional fee for processing applications has no statutory basis and is unlawfully charged. Also her concern that huge numbers of applicants are refused visas simply on grounds that they are poor which is not a lawful immigration consideration. Thus, reading between the lines, ECOs are just looking for some pretext to present as grounds for refusal.)

10. In this context, those who sponsor their Thai partners inevitable feel that the assumption is negative towards young Thai women. That of course will always be denied as the ECOs are merely applying the criteria of the Immigration Rules (that you can’t find anywhere!). The only corroboration of this suspicion would be if comparative figures could be found of refusals of say, Thais, Malaysians and Singaporeans, especially if this could be narrowed to young/females. I’ve just recommended the internet and the broader figures will be available somewhere. (The article in The Times reported visa refusals worldwide for 2004-05 at 19% and 9% for SE Asia. Sitting in the interview area some time ago watching the glum faces coming out, it looked more like a 100% refusal rate.)

I hope this information is useful and will benefit everyone on both sides of the visa process.

Andrew Hicks

[the gent]

I recall that you said you were a solicitor in which case one must assume that you have a fair grasp of what legislation entails and how it is meant to operate as opposed to the ' actualite '.

Immigration law differs from criminal/civil matters in that whereas the latter generally involves consideration of cases where something has taken place which breaches the penal code or occasions a dispute the former focuses on issues where one's " intention " is judged. Inevitably, a certain subjectivity may creep in but by and large applications are considered objectively on the fundamental basis that the official must be " satisfied " on the balance of probability that the requirements dictated by the Rules have been met before he is bound to issue.

In clear cut applications decisions go unchallenged but it is within the grey area that things get a little contentious. Unfortunately, adjudications by a higher authority do not always create definitive principles ,not least because the singularity of applications militates against consideration on any basis save that they will be decided on their own individual merits, and it's this lack of clarifying guidance that has led I suspect to your apparent deep dissatisfaction and obvious confusion.

The American approach to visa applications is different in that it is written into their legislation that all applicants are presumed to be permanent migrants until they demonstrate otherwise and arguably it is the better in that people generally know where they stand initially i.e. nowhere. This differs from the UK approach which dictates that one has simply to prove their intentions on the balance of probabilities but unfortunately the perception of what constitutes that balance is very much in the eye of the beholder and inevitably false hopes, so tantalisingly raised, can be dashed, seemingly quite cruelly.

But, you allude in your piece to some sort of comparative issue process in which the Thai are prejudiced and you cite Singaporeans as an example of folk who enjoy preferential treatment.

Previously, I described you as a naif and quite frankly it is this issue which exposes your innocence, quite charming I am sure if somewhat alarming in one whose profession has on occasion been likened to second hand car dealers and itinerant Albanian knife grinders.

The immigration rules are universally applied worldwide but as we all know one size definitely does not fit all.

But to apply them differently, even if it were to reflect a fairer balance, might risk a charge of discrimination so political correctness is inevitable. However, what cannot be ignored is the economic standing of the applicant and to an obvious degree those in Thailand do not generally enjoy the same living standards and economic prospects of those in Singapore. Consequently, the question of incentive to return is more easily resolved in favour of the Singaporean which accounts for the disparity in refusal rates that may exist between those countries. Hardly rocket science, is it?

Perhaps time perusing previous forum threads might provide useful insights although you may find some of the key posters no longer participating......

[Andrew Hicks]

I recall that you said you were a solicitor in which case one must assume that you have a fair grasp of what legislation entails and how it is meant to operate as opposed to the ' actualite '.

Immigration law differs from criminal/civil matters in that whereas the latter generally involves consideration of cases where something has taken place which breaches the penal code or occasions a dispute the former focuses on issues where one's " intention " is judged. Inevitably, a certain subjectivity may creep in but by and large applications are considered objectively on the fundamental basis that the official must be " satisfied " on the balance of probability that the requirements dictated by the Rules have been met before he is bound to issue.

In clear cut applications decisions go unchallenged but it is within the grey area that things get a little contentious. Unfortunately, adjudications by a higher authority do not always create definitive principles ,not least because the singularity of applications militates against consideration on any basis save that they will be decided on their own individual merits, and it's this lack of clarifying guidance that has led I suspect to your apparent deep dissatisfaction and obvious confusion.

The American approach to visa applications is different in that it is written into their legislation that all applicants are presumed to be permanent migrants until they demonstrate otherwise and arguably it is the better in that people generally know where they stand initially i.e. nowhere. This differs from the UK approach which dictates that one has simply to prove their intentions on the balance of probabilities but unfortunately the perception of what constitutes that balance is very much in the eye of the beholder and inevitably false hopes, so tantalisingly raised, can be dashed, seemingly quite cruelly.

But, you allude in your piece to some sort of comparative issue process in which the Thai are prejudiced and you cite Singaporeans as an example of folk who enjoy preferential treatment.

Previously, I described you as a naif and quite frankly it is this issue which exposes your innocence, quite charming I am sure if somewhat alarming in one whose profession has on occasion been likened to second hand car dealers and itinerant Albanian knife grinders.

The immigration rules are universally applied worldwide but as we all know one size definitely does not fit all.

But to apply them differently, even if it were to reflect a fairer balance, might risk a charge of discrimination so political correctness is inevitable. However, what cannot be ignored is the economic standing of the applicant and to an obvious degree those in Thailand do not generally enjoy the same living standards and economic prospects of those in Singapore. Consequently, the question of incentive to return is more easily resolved in favour of the Singaporean which accounts for the disparity in refusal rates that may exist between those countries. Hardly rocket science, is it?

Perhaps time perusing previous forum threads might provide useful insights although you may find some of the key posters no longer participating......

Thank you for your comments... you're a real gent.

Yes, I'm sure I would learn a lot from reading previous posts, including about the quirks of particular contributirs, though it is the substance alone that interests me.

I am not sure what is your core point, though your comments prompt the following thoughts...

1. In UK as in the US immigration authorities have a discretion whether or not to grant visas, though in a genuine case of an application for settlement there is a right to family life and to have your wife with you. While the criminal burden of proof is 'beyond reasonable doubt', a visa applicant has to produce proof of 'compliance with the Immigration Rules' 'on the balance of probabilities'.

2. I appreciate that ECOs may think that a visit visa applicant who has no property or craeer in Thailand may tend to overstay and so will refuse the visa. They may look like an economic migrant seeking a better life. The question is whether this actually accords with evidence of such a tendency or with actual government policy. Is it a valid and legal immigration consideration?

3. In corresponance with me, an ECO has said that there is no policy to exclude poor visa applicants. I would quote the wording but I do not have it with me.

4. I mentioned that this is a point that has been strongly put by The Independent Monitor for Entry Clearance in her report published July 2006. I quote from the article in The Times that I referred to. 'Thousands of would-be visitors to the UK are being illegally turned down for visas simply because they are from poor and repressive countries, according to an official immigration watch dog.' This 'discrimination is unlawful because there are no ministerial authorisations allowing individuals from particular nationalities to be treated differently for entry clearance into the UK.' The report also states that there is no evidence that overstaying is worse from poor countries; indeed the worst offenders are Australian.

5. I am not sure of the relevance of 'the gent's' personal comments about my reference to Singapore. My simple point is that while Thai applicants feel that they are discriminated against, this is mere speculation and can only be proven by statistics. Comparative figures of refusals for (young female) Singaporeans would be highly instructive.

I am sure there is someone out there who can add to this debate and to substantiate whether Thai women do get a bad deal when it comes to visas with something more than anecdotal evidence.

I would also like to know what policy guidlines ECOs follow in considering applications. These must be highly specific and based on ministerial statements. We have the benefit of open government and so they must be in the public domain. The UK is not a fascist state so where are these policy guidelines?

Let's hear from all those experts out there and from anyone who can shed light on this matter!

Andrew

[the scouser]

I would also like to know what policy guidlines ECOs follow in considering applications. These must be highly specific and based on ministerial statements. We have the benefit of open government and so they must be in the public domain. The UK is not a fascist state so where are these policy guidelines?

The policy instructions are published on the UK Visas website:-

Diplomatic Service Procedures

See also:

Immigration Directorate Instructions.

Scouse.

[the gent]

The OP has already been told but clearly chooses to ignore the advice given.

In view of his evident monotheme and oddly dogmatic approach, one must conclude that he is either yet another eccentric or somewhat obtuse or indeed his ' exposition ' is a bizarrely elaborate charade. In any event his grasp of the issues is evidently so tenuous that one wonders what the point of any future debate might be.

In the context of current immigration abuse in the UK, the idiotic contention that Aussies are the primary offenders perhaps provides sufficient insight into the OP's fundamental ignorance and evident foolishness.

Come back Les, all is forgiven!

[Andrew Hicks]

I would also like to know what policy guidlines ECOs follow in considering applications. These must be highly specific and based on ministerial statements. We have the benefit of open government and so they must be in the public domain. The UK is not a fascist state so where are these policy guidelines?

The policy instructions are published on the UK Visas website:-

Diplomatic Service Procedures

See also:

Immigration Directorate Instructions.

Scouse.

Thanks for that, Scouse.

I drew a few points from the Diplomatic Service Procedures in my 'report' but did not mention the Immigration Directorate Instructions. These are of course key sources but they are procedural rather than substantive and give little away about how ECO's actually exercise their discretion (other of course than throwing out applications that have not been properly put together).

Trawling through the IDI, there are a few gems, though they do not take my 'report' much further.

Under HC395 Part 2 para 41, Visitors, an officer must ensure that a visa applicant is giving a true account of what he intends to do during his stay, must be satisfied he does not do anything there he is not allowed to do (like work) and that he has funds for his stay and onward journey. All obvious enough.

Annex A, General guidance on whether a person qualifies as a visitor. Under the heading, 'Credibility', they look for discrepancies between what the applicant and the sponsor say when the sponsor should reasonably be expected to know the facts. Again obvious.

More interesting at IDI Ch 9 Sect 1, Adverse decisions. It says that the onus is on the applicant to establish a case for a visa but if there are reasons for refusal other than failure to produce the required evidence (for example, reason to believe he/she has no intention to leave), the onus is then usually on the immigration officer to show that refusal is justified. (paraphrased). However, I now quote...

"The refusal must show that the immigration officer was acting reasonably in deciding that he was not satisfied." And what's more, "It must be emphasised that it will NEVER be appropriate to refuse an application where there is no evidence to support the decision other than an officer's 'suspicions'."

Do I hear hollow laughter?

My point remains that we still do not really know on what policy basis so many applications are refused or what goes on behind closed doors. I am personally aware of refusals that breach all the known guidelines but then the disappointed applicant never dares complain because they'll later want to try again. The last person to confront the system is a Thai.

I make no claim to being an immigration specialist and I am daunted when I look at these official documents, but hope some of this is helpful, though having swum through soup, I always feel I've got little further.

Andrew

[atlastaname]

I would also like to know what policy guidlines ECOs follow in considering applications. These must be highly specific and based on ministerial statements. We have the benefit of open government and so they must be in the public domain. The UK is not a fascist state so where are these policy guidelines?

The policy instructions are published on the UK Visas website:-

Diplomatic Service Procedures

See also:

Immigration Directorate Instructions.

Scouse.

Quote "the UK is not a fascist state..." ... it is fast heading that way.!!

commenting on the Scouse's post guiding you to the DSP , which make lengthy reading ..... the trouble with these guidelines is that they are just that ...guidelines . Like everything in our vague visa system ,in the end it is all up to how a individual official (ECO) CHOOSES to interpret the rules and guidelines. The deliberate lack of precision in the visa rules means that too much rests with the ECO's interpretation on a given day , which could very well differ from anothers on exactly the same case. So whilst the DSP is a must to read, it is unfortunately not going to help you if an ECO sets his or her mind to a refusal for their own personal reasons.

[Andrew Hicks]

I would also like to know what policy guidlines ECOs follow in considering applications. These must be highly specific and based on ministerial statements. We have the benefit of open government and so they must be in the public domain. The UK is not a fascist state so where are these policy guidelines?

The policy instructions are published on the UK Visas website:-

Diplomatic Service Procedures

See also:

Immigration Directorate Instructions.

Scouse.

Quote "the UK is not a fascist state..." ... it is fast heading that way.!!

commenting on the Scouse's post guiding you to the DSP , which make lengthy reading ..... the trouble with these guidelines is that they are just that ...guidelines . Like everything in our vague visa system ,in the end it is all up to how a individual official (ECO) CHOOSES to interpret the rules and guidelines. The deliberate lack of precision in the visa rules means that too much rests with the ECO's interpretation on a given day , which could very well differ from anothers on exactly the same case. So whilst the DSP is a must to read, it is unfortunately not going to help you if an ECO sets his or her mind to a refusal for their own personal reasons.

I endorse everything you say. These are procedural rules which do not address the uderlying policy on which ECOs base the exercise of their discretion.

Is it policy for example to refuse as many visit visas as possible for young Thai women as they are presumed likely to abscond in UK and to work as prostitutes? Is it policy to equally to refuse such visas where possible to former bar girls?

There has to be detailed policy and assumptions of some sort behind the workings of entry clearance, even though it has no basis on predictive statistics of overstaying etc.. Where is such policy to be found or is it in the shadows and so not susceptible to the Freedom of Information Act?

IDI Ch 9 Section 1. that I quote above is however highly significant (if I am reading it correctly)... that visas cannot be refused on the grounds of mere suspicion.

They are refused for this reason, so ECOs have to come up with some discrepancy or other reason to justify refusal; eg 'the references were not of good quality'. There's a mere suspicion if ever I saw one.

Generally they find and cite discrepancies in the evidence, but the illegality lies in not putting the negative implications of such discrepancy to the applicant for an explanation, thus denying her the right to a fair hearing. Stating in the notes of the interview that the discrepancy was put to the applicant but that she was unable to explain it, would tend to make the refusal appeal-proof.

No systems are perfect and the entry clearance process asks ECOs to make distinctions that simply do not exist. Words like, farce, charade, lottery spring to mind.

[atlastaname]

A lot of sense in what you say Andrew. Unfortunately this forum is populated by mostly staunch defenders of the current system. Quite why they seek to defend it so robustly i cannot begin to understand , but they do nonethe less. No doubt they all have their own individual reasons for supporting it and i doubt we will ever know the truth.

You and I and a few others here with the ability to see through the charade we call a visa system , know that in truth the whole system is built around officially pretending to welcome people to the UK whilst behind the scenes there is a policy of keeping out undesirables , undesirable that is by the governments definition. Now i don't disagree that we need to keep out the wrong people but ... who are the wrong people?

The govt is obsessed by young people of both sexes coming here and working as prostituites. Now to be clear i have no vested interest in this at all , as all my previous relationships have been with much more HiSo Thais. However i cannot for the life of me see why this is a problem . So they come here and work as prostitutes....SO WHAT?? Does the world stop spinning ?

Unfortunately (does anyone know why BTW?) this is a subject that is banned from discussion on this forum , so none of you are allowed to reply , which is a shame.

But in my opinion undesireables are terrorists , not prostitutes.

[Auntymarybrown]

A lot of sense in what you say Andrew. Unfortunately this forum is populated by mostly staunch defenders of the current system. Quite why they seek to defend it so robustly i cannot begin to understand , but they do nonethe less. No doubt they all have their own individual reasons for supporting it and i doubt we will ever know the truth.

You and I and a few others here with the ability to see through the charade we call a visa system , know that in truth the whole system is built around officially pretending to welcome people to the UK whilst behind the scenes there is a policy of keeping out undesirables , undesirable that is by the governments definition. Now i don't disagree that we need to keep out the wrong people but ... who are the wrong people?

The govt is obsessed by young people of both sexes coming here and working as prostituites. Now to be clear i have no vested interest in this at all , as all my previous relationships have been with much more HiSo Thais. However i cannot for the life of me see why this is a problem . So they come here and work as prostitutes....SO WHAT?? Does the world stop spinning ?

Unfortunately (does anyone know why BTW?) this is a subject that is banned from discussion on this forum , so none of you are allowed to reply , which is a shame.

But in my opinion undesireables are terrorists , not prostitutes.

Please read about :

The Independant Monitor for Entry Clearance the address for which is :

http://www.ukvisas.gov.uk/servlet/Front?pa...d=1006977150169

and for a critical analysis of of Entry Clearance work at Embassies around the world her latest report presented to Parliament in January 2007

http://www.fco.gov.uk/Files/kfile/Independ...rReport2005.pdf

where you will read from a senior , independant and much respected appointed Official that the current system leaves much to be desired ,to say the least.

[the scouser]

If you wish your viewpoint to carry any gravitas, please at least spell "independent" correctly. Your failure to do so makes you appear to be an illiterate, and detracts from your perhaps otherwise valid perspective. Not so much top o' the form, but Topfield?

Scouse.

[mikethevigoman]

A little while back, I put together some stuff on applying for British visas, mainly dry and factual but I hope quite useful.. There were some nice compliments but then it deteriorated into a flaming row in which participants slagged each other off rather than commenting usefully on the issues. As a result, the thread was closed, thus precluding further comment.

I have made some amendments to the report and now present it once again in the hope that it is useful and that I can learn something from the ensuing discussion about UK visas rather than about the strange quirks of human nature. So here goes...

Some Serious Thoughts on Immigration into the UK

These notes are based on my experience of having my Thai wife's visit visa refused and I'd like to pass on the following info to help everyone to understand things better.

Applying for visas is always horrible but there are many features of the British system that are admirable… they have to give reasons for refusals, there's a right of appeal if you're married and principles of human rights incorporated into the law give you a right to a fair hearing and to family life (and hence to have your wife with you).

The process is as open as possible and thus there's a huge amount of material in the public domain. Using the internet well can be crucial. Now for some specific points.

1. If married there's a right of appeal, but not otherwise. Appeals take place in UK before an independent tribunal and many succeed. In the case of a visit visa, it's probably better to make a fresh application focusing on the reasons for refusal, explaining the discrepancies or adding the information that was missing. They will consider the application afresh.

2. The Entry Clearance Officers have to follow the 'Diplomatic Service Procedures' which lay down procedures for applications. See www.ukvisas.gov.uk.

3. The DSP indicates to ECOs what sort of questions they should ask when interviewing the applicant. (see 8.13 and 13.15.)

4. Grounds for refusal are often that there are discrepancies or inconsistencies in the application, perhaps as between the sponsor's supporting papers and the answers given by the applicant. Under the law, these issues must first be put to the applicant for an explanation before they rely on them for a refusal. When ECOs fail to do this, they are in breach of the law, giving grounds for appeal or a (futile) judicial review. DSP at 8.13 says, 'You should put all negative factors that have arisen in the case to the applicant so that he or she has an opportunity to respond to them.'

5. ECO's are obliged to keep notes of interviews which are especially relevant where there is a right of appeal. DSP says,' If an applicant requests a copy of their interview notes, they should be supplied free of charge.' Elsewhere it says notes should ideally be typed, so maybe they'll send them to you late, though I see no reason why you cannot have a handwritten copy immediately on refusal at the interview.

6. Fees for consular services are set out in a statutory 'fees order'. Very properly these appear on the wall in the consular section at the Embassy. There are some strange variations in charges for example if they certifying copy documents against originals produced by you and if they produce a certified copy from the original. The Embassy surprisingly has been running at a defecit and you should check with the fees order that you are being charged the correct amount.

7. It's always difficult to know what supporting papers they want and they are admittedly coy about this as being too specific could be an invitation to concoct fake documents. Broadly they are looking for the following…for a visit (tourist) visa, that there is a good reason for traveling (ie a proven relationship over a reasonable period), that there are funds to support the visit and that the applicant will not overstay. As you are entitled to family life by law, a settlement visa should be granted if you are settled in UK, have a genuine (prospective) marital relationship and the accommodation and funds in UK to support your wife. While there is a clear discretion to refuse visit visas for all sorts of vague reasons, the Embassy can put you through the wringer when it comes to producing paperwork, but ultimately, if you're genuine, you'll get there.

8. Advice is available. The Office of the Immgration Services Commissioner has an 'adviser finder' on www.oisc.go.uk and the IAS, Immigration Advisory Service provides advice and representation for a fee.

9. There is also much scrutiny of the whole visa service. Apart from appeal to the AIT (Asylum and Immigration Tribunal), the National Audit Office has reported on the process, mainly as an efficiency survey but also commenting that the quality of decision making is questionable as it is not based on clear information about the level of over-staying and this point has been accepted by the Home Secretary. (In Bangkok, one farmer's daughter looks much like the next one and frankly they're stabbing in the dark.) Complaints can be sent to the Director at UKVisas who will not ignore it. And The Independent Monitor for Entry Clearance, based at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office writes an annual report on worldwide refusals where there is no right of appeal, based on selective visits to Embassies and scrutiny of sample files. (The last report attracted a major article in The Times of 8 August 2006, focusing on her criticism that the additional fee for processing applications has no statutory basis and is unlawfully charged. Also her concern that huge numbers of applicants are refused visas simply on grounds that they are poor which is not a lawful immigration consideration. Thus, reading between the lines, ECOs are just looking for some pretext to present as grounds for refusal.)

10. In this context, those who sponsor their Thai partners inevitable feel that the assumption is negative towards young Thai women. That of course will always be denied as the ECOs are merely applying the criteria of the Immigration Rules (that you can't find anywhere!). The only corroboration of this suspicion would be if comparative figures could be found of refusals of say, Thais, Malaysians and Singaporeans, especially if this could be narrowed to young/females. I've just recommended the internet and the broader figures will be available somewhere. (The article in The Times reported visa refusals worldwide for 2004-05 at 19% and 9% for SE Asia. Sitting in the interview area some time ago watching the glum faces coming out, it looked more like a 100% refusal rate.)

I hope this information is useful and will benefit everyone on both sides of the visa process.

Andrew Hicks

Hi andrew,. i have been successful on both atempts, however my friend was refused twice, they wouldnt tell him in plain english why ,just that the paperwork was not complete or correct ( that is not the actual words ) ,. he later found out from a friend that knew an employee at the embassy the real reason was that his intended wife was married ( still ) to a thai, hence the refusal,this is true as when checked she admitted the oversight,. she divorced and now they reside in the uk,. of course he couldnt run in the embassy and say "why didnt you tell me she was married " ,. this is probably a rare example but i can sort of see the embassy would have to be careful telling an applicant, go and get a single woman, this ones not !,..Ultimatly it was the womans fault for concealing /not mentioning she was married . So i would suggest getting someone to check the paperwork over before submitting the app,. i never used a visa company and im not considered a bright scholar ! .common sense should prevail ,mike

[Andrew Hicks]

A lot of sense in what you say Andrew. Unfortunately this forum is populated by mostly staunch defenders of the current system. Quite why they seek to defend it so robustly i cannot begin to understand , but they do nonethe less. No doubt they all have their own individual reasons for supporting it and i doubt we will ever know the truth.

You and I and a few others here with the ability to see through the charade we call a visa system , know that in truth the whole system is built around officially pretending to welcome people to the UK whilst behind the scenes there is a policy of keeping out undesirables , undesirable that is by the governments definition. Now i don't disagree that we need to keep out the wrong people but ... who are the wrong people?

The govt is obsessed by young people of both sexes coming here and working as prostituites. Now to be clear i have no vested interest in this at all , as all my previous relationships have been with much more HiSo Thais. However i cannot for the life of me see why this is a problem . So they come here and work as prostitutes....SO WHAT?? Does the world stop spinning ?

Unfortunately (does anyone know why BTW?) this is a subject that is banned from discussion on this forum , so none of you are allowed to reply , which is a shame.

But in my opinion undesireables are terrorists , not prostitutes.

Thanks for all that.

Of course immigration is an immensely difficult issue for any government but I think that the relaxed attitude of the UK in the past has now got us into trouble. The reality is that if a visitor is admitted, it is very easy to disappear and to overstay.

There are no penalties imposed on sponsors if this happens (?), we have no system of national identity cards and there are no consistent checks of visa holders as they leave the country. As a result if someone overstays, the authorities don't even know and so can't follow it up. Furthermore, as a result they have no decent info on who the overstayers are as a basis for future visa approvals. (They sometimes say such exit checks will be implemented but are they really?)

It's all about money and they have no funds to police overstaying in UK. There is money provided however by the visa applicant to enable a thorough scrutiny and this is the only time that controls really bite. The only effective way to stop overstayers is thus to stop them ever coming into the country. It is my impression that this is therefore what ECOs are trying to do, to refuse a visa to Thai women whenever they have the slightest pretext.

Is this the case anywhere or does this negative attitude principally apply towards Thai women? I have no idea.

Having said all this, I have some bizarre sympathy with those who are trying to make the system work. For the politicians it's a poisoned chalice and for the embassies a never-ending nightmare. I am sure they operate the system honestly and to the best of their abilities.

Nonetheless, I fear there is insufficient openness about the policy behind the high refusal rate of visas here. My anecdotal impression is that visas are regularly refused on the basis of mere suspicion and wafer thin 'discrepancies' that unlawfully are not put to the applicant for explanation.

Incidentally, what is it that we are 'banned' from discussing on this fine forum about visas?

Keep posting,

Andrew

[A_Traveller]

Incidentally, what is it that we are 'banned' from discussing on this fine forum about visas?

Apart from items within the forum rules, which I'm sure you have read, the commonest issue is where the posters become personally antagonistic, in other words shooting the messenger rather then the message. This problem is exacerbated by the tendency for individuals to make grandiloquent claims about their existence in the analogue. There was a bizarre example in, I think, the business forum where it became handbags at dawn because someone would not accept what they were being told {drawn from authoritative legal docs}.

Regards

PS In other words try keep it clinical, factual {do as type not as I do, sometimes }or specify when it's an opinion, which should be subject to independent clarification/ further analysis.

[Andrew Hicks]

Incidentally, what is it that we are 'banned' from discussing on this fine forum about visas?

Apart from items within the forum rules, which I'm sure you have read, the commonest issue is where the posters become personally antagonistic, in other words shooting the messenger rather then the message. This problem is exacerbated by the tendency for individuals to make grandiloquent claims about their existence in the analogue. There was a bizarre example in, I think, the business forum where it became handbags at dawn because someone would not accept what they were being told {drawn from authoritative legal docs}.

Regards

PS In other words try keep it clinical, factual {do as type not as I do, sometimes }or specify when it's an opinion, which should be subject to independent clarification/ further analysis.

1. Yes, it is sad that there is so much flaming and negative personal comment on this otherwise excellent Forum. My 'report' was deliberately dry and factual as I thought that would be most useful to readers as a source of information. (As it has not been 'pinned', it will soon disappear from the top of the topic listings.) In my replies I have tried to ignore elements of flaming as they are irrelevant to these important issues.

2. Thanks to Auntymarybrown for the links to the new report of the Independent Monitor for Entry Clearance which I shall read with interest (particularly as to whether the Monitor visited and reviewed the Bangkok visa operation).

3. Atlastaname on Post 9 said, 'Unfortunately (does anyone know why BTW?) this is a subject that is banned from discussion on this forum, so none of you are allowed to reply which is a shame.' He was not referring to flaming, and my question was simply to ask what ban he was referring to.

Andrew

[Andrew Hicks]

A lot of sense in what you say Andrew. Unfortunately this forum is populated by mostly staunch defenders of the current system. Quite why they seek to defend it so robustly i cannot begin to understand , but they do nonethe less. No doubt they all have their own individual reasons for supporting it and i doubt we will ever know the truth.

You and I and a few others here with the ability to see through the charade we call a visa system , know that in truth the whole system is built around officially pretending to welcome people to the UK whilst behind the scenes there is a policy of keeping out undesirables , undesirable that is by the governments definition. Now i don't disagree that we need to keep out the wrong people but ... who are the wrong people?

The govt is obsessed by young people of both sexes coming here and working as prostituites. Now to be clear i have no vested interest in this at all , as all my previous relationships have been with much more HiSo Thais. However i cannot for the life of me see why this is a problem . So they come here and work as prostitutes....SO WHAT?? Does the world stop spinning ?

Unfortunately (does anyone know why BTW?) this is a subject that is banned from discussion on this forum , so none of you are allowed to reply , which is a shame.

But in my opinion undesireables are terrorists , not prostitutes.

Please read about :

The Independant Monitor for Entry Clearance the address for which is :

http://www.ukvisas.gov.uk/servlet/Front?pa...d=1006977150169

and for a critical analysis of of Entry Clearance work at Embassies around the world her latest report presented to Parliament in January 2007

http://www.fco.gov.uk/Files/kfile/Independ...rReport2005.pdf

where you will read from a senior , independant and much respected appointed Official that the current system leaves much to be desired ,to say the least.

Yes, indeed, having had a scan down the report of the Independent Monitor, there are some major criticisms.

Eg at para 39. To achieve consistency, ECOs must have clear and accurate policy and practice guidance. This is not currently available and "guidance is contradictory, incomplete and difficult to access". And ECOs have only a basic three week training course.

UKvisas provides guidance by emailed AECIPs (All Entry Clearance Posts) which don't always arrive and are 'badly written'. Are these and the Best Practice manual referred to in the public domain?

There is criticism of inadequate time and attention being given to reviewing applications that had been refused... para 30.

The onus is very much on the ECO to prove that documents are forged and in the absence of proof, they should be accepted at face value... Para 110.

'Young single females' apply for visas in Bangkok but age and marital status alone are irrelevant... para 147 (though taken with other factors etc).

There should be a notice posted advising applicants about complaints procedures... para 163.

Of applications with limited right of appeal, overall 8% of the total were refused visas. It might be a little higher in Bangkok perhaps!

And finally, she quotes some reasons for refusal that are just plain silly. Eg "I do not find it credible that a visitor would wish to spend a one week holiday in such a place [Gateshead]"

The report is a remarkable piece of work and a credit to its author.

As an appendix she also extracts the paragraphs of the Immigration Rules that are releveant to visit visas.

Why is there no handbook for people applying for visas? I once wrote one for Filipina maids dealing with the bureaucracy in Hong Kong and it sold three thousand copies in a few months.

Andrew

[Andrew Hicks]

A lot of sense in what you say Andrew. Unfortunately this forum is populated by mostly staunch defenders of the current system. Quite why they seek to defend it so robustly i cannot begin to understand , but they do nonethe less. No doubt they all have their own individual reasons for supporting it and i doubt we will ever know the truth.

You and I and a few others here with the ability to see through the charade we call a visa system , know that in truth the whole system is built around officially pretending to welcome people to the UK whilst behind the scenes there is a policy of keeping out undesirables , undesirable that is by the governments definition. Now i don't disagree that we need to keep out the wrong people but ... who are the wrong people?

The govt is obsessed by young people of both sexes coming here and working as prostituites. Now to be clear i have no vested interest in this at all , as all my previous relationships have been with much more HiSo Thais. However i cannot for the life of me see why this is a problem . So they come here and work as prostitutes....SO WHAT?? Does the world stop spinning ?

Unfortunately (does anyone know why BTW?) this is a subject that is banned from discussion on this forum , so none of you are allowed to reply , which is a shame.

But in my opinion undesireables are terrorists , not prostitutes.

May I say thanks again for your intervention and take this opportunity to wish you and all civilised persons contributing to this forum a very Happy New Year.

Sawadee bee mai!

Andrew Hicks

...who is still precisely who he says he is and still adding to his blog on Thaivisa.