You may recall the recent controversy over whether UKVI used algorithms in their visit visa decision making.  Of course not, they said. So, now we have a much "redacted" interim guidance for decision-makers. If you are interested, it's worth a read, as it contains some nuggets like this on "Person-centric attributes" :

 

Where Step 1 of the three step workflow routing process is not met and at least 3 of the 4 positive attributes are indicated on the Visa Application Form (VAF), the application is likely to be sufficiently straightforward that it can be routed as non-complex.
• previous compliant travel to or current residency in New Zealand, Australia, Canada, United States of America, Singapore, South Korea, Japan, United Kingdom, Ireland, Schengen or European Economic Area (EEA) countries during the 5 years prior to application – this is relevant to the customer’s own immigration history
• total cost of visit equates to no more than 10% of declared annual income from all sources – this includes those being sponsored by a spouse, other family members or other sponsor if the customer is unemployed or a student - in this case, income will be assessed in line with that of the financial sponsor as declared on the VAF
• the customer or their financial sponsor has been in continuous employment or self-employment for the last year - a customer’s income and financial circumstances, or that of their financial sponsor, are relevant to the affordability of the trip
• a stay of no longer than 1 calendar month is intended in the UK - the duration of stay is relevant to the customer’s financial circumstances or that of their financial sponsor for the affordability of the trip

 

If the customer declares on the VAF that they are unemployed or supported by another person, the VAF does not automatically generate a question about duration of employment, which means that the income questions may also be incomplete. In these cases, the attribute response will be ‘no’ which is highly likely to route the application as complex, because the decision-maker will need to analyse financial support from the evidence provided including that of a financial sponsor.

 

Each of the 4 attributes has been considered in an Equality Impact Assessment. It is important that Decision-Making Centres (DMCs) only use the agreed attributes and do not include any other attributes when assessing an application for the purposes of workflow routing – any other potential additional attributes will require a full Equality Impact Assessment before they can be considered for inclusion.

 

I think "an Equality Impact assessment" probably means that the UKVI should be seen to be treating all nationalities the same.  The devil will be in the redacted sections of the guidance, which we will not get to see.  Hmmmm.

interim-workflow-routing-visitor-v2.0ext.pdf

Looks like an algorithm and smells like an algorithm to me. Useful info for sure. Applicants take note.

 

Tony, it looks like the process will be carried out by admin grades, as asylum claims are, is this something new or I have I misread it?

 

I do note that administrative reviews still seem to be carried out by ECM's, who have held substantive rank for six months or  more, but apart from that I can find no mention of ECO's being IO's.

 

As you say much of the relevant information has been redacted, hopefull you'll get your hands on a full copy.

17 minutes ago, theoldgit said:

Tony, it looks like the process will be carried out by admin grades, as asylum claims are, is this something new or I have I misread it?

 

I do note that administrative reviews still seem to be carried out by ECM's, who have held substantive rank for six months or  more, but apart from that I can find no mention of ECO's being IO's.

 

As you say much of the relevant information has been redacted, hopefull you'll get your hands on a full copy.

This is a whole different problem, I think. At one time, all ECOs were Executive Officer grade. The overseas jobs were "shared" by immigration staff and FCO staff, often 50% of each in visa offices overseas.  Now we can see that the DMCs (decision making centres) have "ECOs" who are executive officer grade for complex decision-making and administrative officer grade for non-complex decision-making. In addition, times have changed and "ECOs" can be retired police officers, retired civil servants, etc, not necessarily with any immigration background. Of course, a decision-maker in, for instance, Delhi, may never have worked overseas previously, and probably has no local knowledge of the countries whose applications he is processing. 

 

UKVI have put into print (because they were forced to) some of the "guidance" that decision-makers work to, and they have sanitised it for general consumption. As soi3eddie has  pointed out, this is an algorithm, just as the UKVI were working to algorithms before.  It will be difficult to get the whole guidance. Previously, some of the risk factors involved in decision-making were printed out for individual use, and I did have a copy (for Thailand), but I'm sure the redacted sections of this interim guidance will not go into print.  The decision-makers will be aware that his/her job will be at stake if they whistleblow.