Lost Family Visa Appeal

[chadstar]

hi all

we have just lost our appeal for my sister in law to visit us here in the UK.

even though there was no evidence sent from the bkk embassy only a phone transcript.

the visa was refused under section 320(7a)

as we compiled a employment letter in English ( the mistake) and got her boss to sign it

but the boss said on the phone to the ECO that she had never seen the letter or signed it( but she did)

we accept the lose but would like to know if the sister in law would still be able to reapply in the near future as the refusal also mentions

.you should note that because this application for entry clearance has been reused under paragraph 320(7a) of the immigration rules, any future applications MAY also be refused under paragraph 320(7b) or the immigration rule(subject to the requirements set out in paragraph 320(7C) )

.a refusal under paragraph 320(7b)or the immigrations rule attracts an automatic refusal period of up to 10 years.the period starts from the date of the previous event in which the deception or submission of falsified documents or info was employed .

any advice would be helpful as i cant get my head round the way things a legally written

[7by7]

So, from what you said here, she was originally refused because she submitted a leave of absence letter written in English and signed by her boss, but when the ECO phoned her boss to check s/he denied having ever seen such a letter, let alone signed it and also said that s/he cant speak or read English.

To support their decision, the ECO sent the tribunal a transcript of this phone call, which the tribunal accepted and so found no grounds for overturning the refusal.

BTW, I'm not a legal expert, but as I understand things it is not up to the ECO to provide evidence to the tribunal to support the original refusal; it is up to the appellant to provide evidence to show why it was wrong. What evidence did you provide the tribunal to show that the refusal was incorrect?

The actual wording of Paras 320(7a), (7b) and (7c)) can be found here.

(7a) is the para under which this application has been refused; i.e. using deception, a forged document.

(7b) says that because she used deception in this application, any future application may be refused for the next 10 years. May be, not definitely will be, but I suspect that it will.

(7c) lists the exceptions where (7b) doesn't apply, e.g. settlement.

I don't know if your sister-in-law can take this any further, but if she can and does she must provide evidence to show that the letter from her employer was/is genuine and that his/her denial of signing it was some sort of error on his/her part.

Those are my thoughts, hopefully one of the professionals will be able to advise you further.

[ThaiVisaExpress]

If you re apply ensure you cover the previous refusal. You must ensure you add further evidence to confirm a mistakehas been made. We had a client this year who had a refusal under paragraph 320(7a) they had used another company who failed to insert various documents. We applied again and the applicant got the visa issued .

Edited December 15, 2010 by ThaiVisaExpress

[hhgz]

You tried to game the system - heck, let's call it what is really is - you tried to deceive the UK government, you got caught, and now you're upset that you got caught?

I can't imagine why you'd lie.

[paully]

Unfortunately, I think it would be extremely difficult for her to successfully apply again. With all due respect to ThaiVisaExpress, apparent use of a forged letter in support - for that is effectively what it was held to be - is a very different matter from a failure to include documents in the application. You would certainly need, in my view, to include a sworn witness statement from the employer explaining the position fully and accounting for the phone transcript.

[7by7]

hhgz,

If you read chadstar's other thread, linked to above, you will see that this appears to be more a case of miscommunication rather than a deliberate attempt to obtain a visa by deception.

I, for one, am prepared to give chadstar and his sister-in-law the benefit of the doubt.

Members are reminded of the Forum Rules

1) To respect fellow members.

4) Not to flame fellow members.

Flaming will not be tolerated. 'Flaming' is defined as posting or responding to a message in a way clearly intended to incite useless arguments, to launch personal attacks, to insult, or to be hateful towards other members. This includes useless criticism, name-calling, swearing and any other comments meant to incite anger.

[chadstar]

hhgz,

If you read chadstar's other thread, linked to above, you will see that this appears to be more a case of miscommunication rather than a deliberate attempt to obtain a visa by deception.

I, for one, am prepared to give chadstar and his sister-in-law the benefit of the doubt.

Members are reminded of the Forum Rules

1) To respect fellow members.

4) Not to flame fellow members.

Flaming will not be tolerated. 'Flaming' is defined as posting or responding to a message in a way clearly intended to incite useless arguments, to launch personal attacks, to insult, or to be hateful towards other members. This includes useless criticism, name-calling, swearing and any other comments meant to incite anger.

hhgz ive posted on here for help

i have no reason to cheat

was just trying to let my sister in law see where and how her sister lives her life

[ThaiVisaExpress]

If you satisfy the ECO a mistake has been made I see no reason why you cannot get a visa.

[the scouser]

The problem the OP's sister-in-law faces is that in dismissing the appeal the immigration judge may well have found as fact that a shonky letter was supplied with the original application. The ECO can then simply rely upon that finding in consideration of all subsequent applications. In other words, she's not now having to address only an ECO's opinion, but the judge's too. In such a situation, I would suggest that it's highly likely that another application will be refused under 320(7B).

Paully's advice is spot on. Armed with a witness statement from the employer and other evidence of employment, the sister-in-law could submit representations to the ECM seeking an assurance that 320(7B) will not be applied in relation to a fresh application. If given, that then paves the way for the new application to be submitted and considered on the actual facts rather than refused by cursory reference to 320(7B). The alternative is to seek a judicial review of the immigration judge's decision to dismiss the appeal, but that is the more costly route.

Scouse.

[ThaiVisaExpress]

Covering the ECO concerns would include further evidence from her employer etc.

But why would the boss refuse to confirm that they signed the letter ?

Did you ask for a record of the conversation between the ECO & the applicant ?

[paully]

Covering the ECO concerns would include further evidence from her employer etc.

But why would the boss refuse to confirm that they signed the letter ?

Yes - but a 'letter' in support from the employer has already been tried by the OP - and found wanting. So a witness statement is a logical next step. There are lots of reasons why an employer might refuse to confirm they had signed a letter, more difficult to refuse to confirm that he/she signed a witness statement (the original could be in Thai and then translated) and had it sworn in front of someone else. The second reason for a witness statement is that if a second application has to go to an appeal after initial refusal the statement can easily be adduced into evidence at the appeal tribunal as if the employer had been present at the hearing.

Edited December 16, 2010 by paully

[chadstar]

Covering the ECO concerns would include further evidence from her employer etc.

But why would the boss refuse to confirm that they signed the letter ?

Did you ask for a record of the conversation between the ECO & the applicant ?

i have the record of the conversation, its not good her boss for some reason as lied

about nearly everything she was answered.

telling the ECO

her time keeping was bad so we sack her for 6 months but now she come work little while(false she as never been sacked from there and as worked there for nearly 4 years)

when asked about did she know about the application she said yes i know she will go live in england(false she was coming on holiday)

was asked if she signed it and answered no(false she signed and we have other document to prove its her signature)

the judge was not bothered about the signatures matching other documents, all he was interesting in was the fact that i had written it and then got it signed .

we only got this record about 5 minutes before the case was dismissed

i really cant get my head round why her boss would do such a thing , i told the judge she must be jealous or something witch was properly not the best thing to say .

should we ask her boss to retract the lies she as told in writing and have a lawyer to witness it being signed?

[chadstar]

The problem the OP's sister-in-law faces is that in dismissing the appeal the immigration judge may well have found as fact that a shonky letter was supplied with the original application. The ECO can then simply rely upon that finding in consideration of all subsequent applications. In other words, she's not now having to address only an ECO's opinion, but the judge's too. In such a situation, I would suggest that it's highly likely that another application will be refused under 320(7B).

Paully's advice is spot on. Armed with a witness statement from the employer and other evidence of employment, the sister-in-law could submit representations to the ECM seeking an assurance that 320(7B) will not be applied in relation to a fresh application. If given, that then paves the way for the new application to be submitted and considered on the actual facts rather than refused by cursory reference to 320(7B). The alternative is to seek a judicial review of the immigration judge's decision to dismiss the appeal, but that is the more costly route.

Scouse.

sorry about this but what is the ECM ?

[the scouser]

Oh dear! It sounds like a right SNAFU. I'm not laying any blame here, but the circumstances you've subsequently described do not indicate an easy resolution to your sister-in-law's case.

A perceived deception does not necessarily have to have been perpetrated by the visa applicant: it only has to be material to the application, which it indisputably is. The employer's denial of the letter is sufficient to constitute 3rd party deception, and legally speaking, justify the refusal in the eyes of both the ECO and immigration judge.

Consequently, the employer's credibility is shot to such an extent that even a sworn witness statement could be perceived to be self-serving. In other words, the ECO would comment that one minute the employer is saying one thing, and something different the next, leading to the conclusion that someone is telling porkies.

The matter has already been placed before the courts, and it's been found that a deception has occurred. That is really going to be hard to overcome. In the greater scheme of things, a judge's say-so is "bigger" than an ECO's, so in relation to a future application, the ECO simply needs to comment, "Judge so-and-so found deception to have occurred, so who am I to disagree? 10-year ban!".

In such a situation, it might be that your sister-in-law's only recourse is to judicial review.

The "ECM" is the Entry Clearance Manager; i.e. the person immediately responsible for the visa section at the embassy in Bangkok.

Scouse.

[paully]

should we ask her boss to retract the lies she as told in writing and have a lawyer to witness it being signed?

Good luck with that! I fear any further application is doomed. Sorry to hear that the boss was so nasty.

[bangkockney]

Sounds like you need to bring a defamation suit against your sister-in-law's boss before doing anything else. Not just to deal with the 320 refusal, but to protect your sister-in-law's reputation.

Having a judgement in her favour against her boss will be one of only a small number of ways to overturn the statements he made during the telephone call with the ECO. No further submissions from the employer would be useful, as covered in other replies. You could consider overwhelming documentary evidence to discredit the statements made by the boss, but the biggest hurdle is the denial of all knowledge of the letter.

If it were me, I'd be suing the boss post-haste.

[chadstar]

Sounds like you need to bring a defamation suit against your sister-in-law's boss before doing anything else. Not just to deal with the 320 refusal, but to protect your sister-in-law's reputation.

Having a judgement in her favour against her boss will be one of only a small number of ways to overturn the statements he made during the telephone call with the ECO. No further submissions from the employer would be useful, as covered in other replies. You could consider overwhelming documentary evidence to discredit the statements made by the boss, but the biggest hurdle is the denial of all knowledge of the letter.

If it were me, I'd be suing the boss post-haste.

this is something we have thought about as the appilacants brother is a policeman and he is all for us taking the boss to court.

i did not really want to go down these lines for what i thought would be a simple holiday visa

my sister in law as left this company already and got a job with another motor company (honda franchise)as she could not take the bosses little smiles and questions of when she would visit the uk

[bobrussell]

It seems to me that you need to prove that the employer has behaved with malice before any further action can be taken. Not at all easy!

If you have a record of wage payments during the period the employer said she was sacked this would start to cast doubt on the credibility of any of the comments made.

I suspect the only way to move things forward would be to produce evidence of this malice and link it with the problem of knowing about the details of the conversation only minutes before the case was heard. I suspect this would involve judicial review i.e going even higher up the legal chain.

I would suggest (if you wish to persevere) that specialist legal advice is sought before going on!

Not a nice situation (I have seen some evidence of this sort of spiteful, jealous behaviour so I do not doubt the validity of your case).

[chadstar]

thanks all for your reply's

we have talked to a lawyer in bangkok and am waiting for letter to comfirm the dismissal and the reasons then we shall be first calling the thai police to question the boss and her lies and taking here to court in thailand for slander ,if we get any where with that we we summit this to the ECO.

PS NOBODY LIKES TO LOSE FACE including falangs