Immigrants To Be Charged For Appeals

[vinny]

Immigrants to be charged for appeals

Fees to lodge appeals on the way:

The Government intends to start charging fees to lodge immigration appeals, including asylum appeals. A 12 week public consultation has been launched. You can have your say and access the relevant documents here.

[elliss]

i hope the civilised UK . will learn from a third world country thailand , [ ha ha ha , ,,bad joke ]

approach to immigrants ,, if you cant pay ,, VISA / 800,000 bht , double pricing etc.

then leave the kingdom ,, rapido . :jap:

[Eff1n2ret]

There's a long list of exemptions, which rather takes the sting out of it. The charges, compared with those of the immigration lawyers who pursue these cases, are modest.

There is some merit in the idea of charging for all appeals, with a refund to those who succeed at the first level. That would discourage all those who automatically exercise their right to appeal as a means of prolonging their stay in the UK, whether their case has any merit or not (as with the majority of asylum and human rights appeals).

[the scouser]

Likewise, perhaps the notion of the UKBA paying costs for successful first-tier appeals could be introduced. This would perhaps focus some ECOs' decision-making.

At the moment ECOs are not individually accountable for their actions, and some rely upon the fact that if a given application is refused it can be appealed, and if successful, the visa issued. However, this does not take in to account the 7-8 month wait that the applicant has had to undergo to receive a visa that should have been issued at the time of application.

If the applicant is to be held responsible for appeal costs, so should the ECO/UKBA.

Scouse.

[7by7]

I don't see how the UKBA being liable for successful appeal costs would "focus some ECOs' decision-making" It wouldn't be the ECO's money.

Perhaps a fair way would be for the tribunal to decide who should cover the costs.

Obviously I am not an expert professional, but I have read many reports of successful appeals where the reason for the success was the production of extra evidence which the ECO was not privy to at the time of the original refusal.

Who is at fault in cases such as this; the ECO or the applicant?

[the scouser]

And likewise there are some appeals that are bound to be successful as the ECO's refusal is baseless in law. It is in those instances that the appellant's costs should be covered in order to go some way towards recompensing for a 7- to 8-month delay that should not have occurred in the first place.

Recent examples I've encountered are a child settlement visa application that was refused because no letter from the other parent consenting to the child's travel was adduced (not only is it not required, but if submitted, could be perceived as the other parent having a degree of responsibility for the child), and another child settlement case which was refused on the grounds of sole responsibility where such did not need to be demonstrated as both natural parents are in the UK with indefinite leave. In the first case, the appeal was allowed on the spot by the immigration judge and the second is awaiting a hearing.

To have the UKBA held responsible for costs in such cases would focus ECOs' decision-making, as it would soon become apparent which individual ECOs are costing the UKBA the most money. If a given ECO were to be top of the costs tree, one would hope that a manager would have a word in his ear and tell him to pull his socks up. Essentially, it would add an element of individual accountability that is currently not there.

Scouse.