What actually happens after you submit an appeal against the refusal of a settlement visa ? Well, in theory two things happen. Firstly, the appeals process begins. In reality, you are sent an acknowledgment that the appeal has been received, and then nothing happens for some time. Secondly, a process called the ECM review is supposed to happen, but does it ? I want to concentrate on the ECM review process.

An ECM review of the application and decision is mandatory in every settlement visa refusal. The term "ECM review " is slightly misleading, however, as ECMs rarely do the review themselves. They normally delegate it to an ECO, and they have the right to do so. The ECM must, however, sign off the review with a decision to either reverse the refusal decision or allow the decision to proceed to appeal. As some of us know, the decision from the ECM review, even if it reverses the original refusal decision, can take up to four months to happen

Now, the important part. There is guidance , in the public domain, regarding the ECM review. It can be found in the Entry Clearance Guidance on the UKVISAs website. That guidance states:

How should the ECM Appeal Review be conducted

On receipt of an appeal, the ECM must review the ECO decision taking into account the grounds of appeal and any additional supporting documentation. Documents supplied at the time of application should be available for consideration if required. The ECM must decide to maintain the ECO decision or concede in light of the grounds of appeal.

Where an appellant provides evidence which appears to discharge the burden of proof and satisfactorily addresses the reasons for refusal the decision should be overturned and a visa issued.

If a decision has been taken to overturn the refusal and issue the visa, Post should write to the appellant within 10 working days requesting submission of the passport. Proviso should be updated accordingly. This 10 day time-frame is intended to minimise delays for appellants who have satisfactorily addressed the reasons for refusal.

For me, there are two important points in this guidance. Firstly, in the first paragraph, it states " on receipt of an appeal……………….". It doesn't say, for instance, after the appeal has been received and when the ECM decides to do it, a review should be carried out. It specifically says " on receipt ". The second point is that there appears to be a specific time-frame in this guidance. The third paragraph states " If a decision has been taken to overturn the refusal and issue the visa, Post should write to the appellant within 10 working days " and "This 10 day time-frame is intended to minimise delays for appellants who have satisfactorily addressed the reasons for refusal. ".

Now I see the above as guidance to the ECM to review the refusal decision, and correct the decision if it is wrong, within 10 days of receiving the appeal. So why does it take four months for the ECM review to be carried out ? There are various reasons, of course. If you manage to get the Embassy to respond to an enquiry about the ECM review they will tell you that the delay is due to a shortage of resources. That is not entirely true. The Embassy has the resources but they are using them for what they consider to be more important tasks. They are prioritising. In reality, the Embassy considers that their actual responsibility finishes when the decision to issue or refuse is made (your application fee only covers the process up to the point of the decision, really ). Anything that happens after the decision is basically not covered by your visa fee, so it does not carry much urgency.

Another point to consider is that the Embassy, after refusing a settlement application, works to the appeals time-frame. This gives them 16 weeks to actually get the appeal papers to the UK. Knowing that the ECM review must be carried out before the appeal papers are sent off to the UK, it means that they can actually forget about the review until a couple of days before the 16 week deadline.

When questioned about the 10 day time-frame in the guidance for ECM reviews the Embassy is extremely reluctant to provide a response, if they ever do. They will quote resources. They might even say that the guidance is only guidance, and they don't have to adhere to it. As far as I can see, the guidance is in place for a purpose, and that is to right any wrongs in the decision making process. If the ECO made the wrong decision, then it should be righted within a reasonable time-frame. It is not right that an applicant should be disadvantaged for up to four months. Similarly, as the guidance states, if further documentary evidence has been produced that would cause the visa to be issued, it should be issued. The guidance was put in place to protect the applicant. This is called natural justice. If the Embassy is not adhering to this guidance, why not ? Are they saying that the guidance is wrong ? Are they misinterpreting the guidance ? Are they unaware of the guidance ? Are they just plain ignoring it ?

I believe that applicants who have been refused settlement visas are being wrongly treated by the Embassy in that the guidance to ECOs and ECMs is being ignored. I believe that natural justice dictates that a wrong decision should be speedily righted. I believe that is why the guidance is there. You may disagree with my interpretation of the guidance. If so, let's have your opinion and debate it. If you are caught in the time gap between submitting an appeal and the ECM review, then inform the Embassy that you believe the review should be carried out in a timely manner.

Edited December 18, 201015 yr by VisasPlus

A very interesting and well written article Visa Plus, thank you very much for taking the time to write and post it, do we take it you didn't sleep very night

I for one will add to the debate, when I have fully woken up and re-read it.

Thanks again.

TVP - A very interesting and informative post

RAZZ

This seems to suggest that contrary to what I believed a visa is a favour granted by a country and not a right

This seems to suggest that contrary to what I believed a visa is a favour granted by a country and not a right

I'm not sure what you mean by a visa being a favour ? Can you explain further ?

VP, very interesting, I was unaware of the 10 day 'limit' on the ECM review and thought that it just had to be done within the 16 weeks and before the papers were sent to the tribunals.

From your experience, would you say that this delay is a problem peculiar to Bangkok, or is it common in other embassies?

I'd like to say, though, that whenever I have quoted the guidance to support a particular argument in this forum, some members always point out that guidance is just guidance, not rules, and so is flexible and can be interpreted differently in different situations; the "no more than 6 months out of 12" guidance for visits springs to mind.

VP, very interesting, I was unaware of the 10 day 'limit' on the ECM review and thought that it just had to be done within the 16 weeks and before the papers were sent to the tribunals.

From your experience, would you say that this delay is a problem peculiar to Bangkok, or is it common in other embassies?

I'd like to say, though, that whenever I have quoted the guidance to support a particular argument in this forum, some members always point out that guidance is just guidance, not rules, and so is flexible and can be interpreted differently in different situations; the "no more than 6 months out of 12" guidance for visits springs to mind.

I have no idea if the delay problem is elsewhere. I am hoping to find out ( see next paragraph ). One ECM that I spoke with recently ( in another country) about this matter claimed that he didn't even know about the guidance. Does that mean that when an ECM does the ECM course, on being posted overseas, that the guidance is never mentioned ?

I have sent a Freedom Of Information Request to UKBA for time-frames for the Bangkok Embassy and other South - East Asia Embassies in carrying out ECM reviews. It will be interesting to see if UKBA produce any figures.

I agree with your comment about " guidance". It is guidance, but the way that I read it is that it is designed to bring natural justice to a visa applicant who has been wrongly refused or can show, by producing further documentation, that the visa should be issued. It is also obviously designed to prevent the applicant being disadvantaged by up to four months by a bad decision. It seems that visa section(s) are using the " guidance" to their own advantage, and not considering a wronged applicant. This in itself is wrong, and certainly not best practice. I have asked UKBA why the guidance is not a service standard ( as I believe it should be ), but have received no response.

Is it in " Pirates of the Carribean" where they are talking about the " Pirates Code " ? Someone says something like - " well, it's not actually a Code, more like guidelines ".

Is it in " Pirates of the Carribean" where they are talking about the " Pirates Code " ? Someone says something like - " well, it's not actually a Code, more like guidelines ".

RAZZ

I feel they are rather heavy handed and if they were accountable, then they would be brought to book for their actions. For instance, a visitor visa refusal was issued stating that it had been refused on the basis that there was a pending appeal for a settlement visa. That logic is simply wrong, probably illegal and if I can summon the will to fight it, I shall, because the actions of these people raises significant financial costs for the sponsors as well as the emotional trauma.

We have a settlement visa, obtained by jumping through hoops, simply because of what I feel is a wrong decision on the original visa. Despite having a settlement visa at the second attempt, I will appeal the original decision which is still months away and if I win, I will go after them for the costs of the second visa and associated expense, irrespective of the law, to raise the profile, drag those responsible as far as I can to accountability and simply force them to explain their actions.

I would not be surprised that a freedom of information request does not provide some statistics which shows a desired level of refusals, as a revenue generator, where the law is pushed to one side. If anyone wishes to put forward their case, I will happily take PMs.

I will await the response from the Embassy if you manage to get one .

I will await the response from the Embassy if you manage to get one .

They have to reply, as you know. The service standard for a reply is 20 working days, a month by any other name ! The Embassy has, however, mastered the art of procrastination. Their " correspondence team " manages to reply to a query or complaint without actually addressing that query, thereby delaying by the first 20 days. You then write another email or letter telling them that they haven't answered the first query, and that gets you another vague response in another 20 working days, and so on. I guess they hope that you will either give up or the matter will have been sorted out before they actually have to address the real enquiry or complaint.

I feel they are rather heavy handed and if they were accountable, then they would be brought to book for their actions. For instance, a visitor visa refusal was issued stating that it had been refused on the basis that there was a pending appeal for a settlement visa. That logic is simply wrong, probably illegal and if I can summon the will to fight it, I shall, because the actions of these people raises significant financial costs for the sponsors as well as the emotional trauma.

We have a settlement visa, obtained by jumping through hoops, simply because of what I feel is a wrong decision on the original visa. Despite having a settlement visa at the second attempt, I will appeal the original decision which is still months away and if I win, I will go after them for the costs of the second visa and associated expense, irrespective of the law, to raise the profile, drag those responsible as far as I can to accountability and simply force them to explain their actions.

I would not be surprised that a freedom of information request does not provide some statistics which shows a desired level of refusals, as a revenue generator, where the law is pushed to one side. If anyone wishes to put forward their case, I will happily take PMs.

It will be interesting to see the result of the visit visa appeal.

Edited December 20, 201015 yr by VisasPlus

Regarding the ECM review of the settlement visa, we finally have a response form the Embassy in Bangkok. As I suspected, the Visa Section of the Embassy refuse to accept that the guidance contained in the Entry Clearance Guidance instructs that the ECM review be carried out on receipt of an appeal against the refusal decison. The Visa Section still mainatin that they can carry out this review at any time convenient to them as long as it is done before the appeal papers are sent to UK - this has a 4 month timeframe ! I remain firmly of the opinion that the Embassy is wrong in it's interpretation of the " guidance "

That said, the refusal decison in our client's application has been reviewed by an ECM ( finally ). The decision was made on 17th November 2010. We appealed on the 25th November 2010. The mandatory ECM review has just been carried out. As a result of the ECM review the refusal decison has been overturned. This is the relevant extract from the letter I received :

" The ECM has now reviewed your client’s appeal papers and although they and I are satisfied that the decision to refuse the application initially was correct and in accordance with the evidence submitted with the initial application, the extra documents submitted with the appeal forms do now allow us to overturn the original decision and issue the visa. A member of the team will be contacting your client shortly in order to arrange this. "

I still believe that the refusal decision was wrong, and that the ECO failed to take all of the information into account. It is beyond hope that the Visa Section would ever admit to this. They seem to have taken the easy option, and rather than argue it, have justified their reversal by saying that the original documentation was not sufficient.

On the matter of whether the ECM review should be carried out " on receipt" of the appeal ( as I contend) the Visa Section writes :

" You have stated that the follow up process on submission of an appeal is not being properly followed by the visa section. You have then pointed out that the review by the Entry Clearance Manager must take place within 10 days. However Entry Clearance Guidance Section APL 7.3, which you have referred to in earlier correspondence, does not make reference to a review being conducted within 10 days. This timescale refers to the period of time within which the decision to overturn an application must be communicated to the appellant. I am therefore satisfied that the Entry Clearance Managers are acting appropriately and in accordance with current guidelines. Towards the end of last year we saw a substantial increase in applications as compared to the same period in 2009. In these circumstances it is important, in fairness to all, that applications for appeal are dealt with in strict order. "

The response from the Visa Section fudges the delay in dealing with these reviews. Sure, the reviews should be dealt with in the order that they are received, but not up to four months later. That is totally unacceptable. On the point of whether the guidance instructs the ECM to carry out an immediate review, or a review at his/her whim, it is still under debate. We will certainly keep pressing this point with the Embassy, and I hope others will too. All the while that the Visa section gets away with treating visa applicants, and their British sponsors, in this way, they will continue to do so.

The bottom line, at the moment, to this tale is that we managed to get the refusal decision reversed. Sadly, our client was unable to spend the Christmas period with her family in the UK as we had hoped, but they will all be reunited shortly.

Top work TVP...

Illegitimi non carborundum

RAZZ

It's becoming increasingly common for no explanatory statement and bundle to be submitted, too, leading one to question whether any "review" has even been carried out. The case then proceeds at appeal with nothing from the ECO before the judge other than the refusal notice.

As you know, Tony, not so long ago failure by an IO/ECO to write an appeal statement in a timely fashion would have got one hauled before the boss to explain one's inaction. That simply no longer seems to be the case and reinforces the belief that once a decision has been made, the visa section perceives its involvement to have ceased, short of issuing the visa once the appeal has been allowed some 7-8 months later.

Scouse.

It's becoming increasingly common for no explanatory statement and bundle to be submitted, too, leading one to question whether any "review" has even been carried out. The case then proceeds at appeal with nothing from the ECO before the judge other than the refusal notice.

As you know, Tony, not so long ago failure by an IO/ECO to write an appeal statement in a timely fashion would have got one hauled before the boss to explain one's inaction. That simply no longer seems to be the case and reinforces the belief that once a decision has been made, the visa section perceives its involvement to have ceased, short of issuing the visa once the appeal has been allowed some 7-8 months later.

Scouse.

I agree with you, Ralph, and I do indeed remember those halcyon days. The current procedure, as I have now stated many times, seems wrong, and does not take into account the disadvantaging of the applicant ( appellant). I am sure that the guidance is designed to overcome this. However, as we know, the visa section will not admit that they are wrong under any circumstances, if they can help it.

The letter, of which I have already posted a little, comes from the newly arrived Regional Manager and First Secretary ( Visas) at the Embassy. I know him personally from many years ago at Heathrow. I doubt if that actually had anything to do with overturning the visa section's poor decision, and he does state that the review was carried out by an ECM ( that would be unusual as it is usually an ECO who does the review on behalf of an ECM ). The RM appears to have reviewed the guidance, and he is satisfied that the visa section is acting correctly. I have gone back to him to ask if this is a local decision ( ie, his decision ) or whether he has taken advice from London on this matter. If he has taken a purely local decision, then I will follow this up with London as I would like to know if the guidance is being ignored globally.

I think the Embassy should be pressed on this guidance at every opportunity, ie, whenever an appeal is made against a settlement visa refusal. Maybe lobbying the Embassy and London will help. I know you still have contacts here, so maybe they would like to lobby against the guidance as it stands ?

Without wising to seem as if I am leaping to the defence of bad practice by the ECOs and ECMs, I'd like to ask you both a question.

As we know, the last government introduced new application fees and have consistently raised both them and the old ones way above inflation in order to make the whole UKBA pay for itself (and every indication is that the new government will continue to do so). Would you say, from your experiences, that they have also reduced the staff in busy embassies as a cost cutting measure?

Whilst this is not an acceptable excuse for not following proper procedure, it would go some way in explaining why applications generally seem to be taking longer to process, even though very few applicants are interviewed now, as well as their tardiness in dealing with appeals.

Any thoughts?

Without wising to seem as if I am leaping to the defence of bad practice by the ECOs and ECMs, I'd like to ask you both a question.

As we know, the last government introduced new application fees and have consistently raised both them and the old ones way above inflation in order to make the whole UKBA pay for itself (and every indication is that the new government will continue to do so). Would you say, from your experiences, that they have also reduced the staff in busy embassies as a cost cutting measure?

Whilst this is not an acceptable excuse for not following proper procedure, it would go some way in explaining why applications generally seem to be taking longer to process, even though very few applicants are interviewed now, as well as their tardiness in dealing with appeals.

Any thoughts?

Yes, indeed, 7x7. It is mostly down to costs. The government and UKBA are constantly looking for ways to cut down on overseas costs ( other departments and agencies are doing the same, of course - Passport Agency, for example ). We now have "hubbing and spoking" which means that visa sections in many Embassies have been closed down, and visa applications are sent to the " hub" to be processed. For example, Pakistan applications are now dealt with in Abu Dhabi. London is now a major hub. If you think about it, how many applicants are interviewed, in Bangkok for example ? Probably not even 5%. So, is there any reason why these paper applications can't be dealt with in London ? No, there isn't, and that is what will happen eventually, I'm sure. The applications will be sent to London to be processed.

In defence of the cost question, it is expensive to keep an ECO, or any UK based staff, overseas. When I was overseas, not as ECO, but at an Embassy, the cost of keeping me there was around 100,000 GBP a year. That is salary, accommodation, a travel package, transport ( I had an official car ), etc, so you can see that not having staff overseas, or cutting down on them, is actually an attractive option financially.

It is cheaper to cut down on permanent overseas staff and then send out temporary staff to assist in busy periods. There are also "ECO Floaters" who are available to travel to posts that need assistance. As you know, the Embassy here in bangkok advertised recently for a new ECO, and then withdrew the position. I'm sure that was down to cost ( and possibly fewer applications in Thailand) although it was a locally engaged position which doesn't pay anywhere near what a UK based ECO would be getting.

That said, I think that the Embassy could prioritise differently. They have managed to bring the settlement waiting time down to around 5 weeks currently, so why not spend just a little time on all of those outstanding reviews and appeals. The reason is because they do not see the refused applications as important or worth spending time on. The decision has been made, and let the appeal court sort it out. There is, as I have said previously, no money for the Embassy in processing appeals or reviewing decisions. That is irresponsible. arrogant and totally unreasonable, especially when you are dealing with people's lives and hopes.

Thanks for the response, which pretty much confirms what I thought.

However, one more point if I may.

You say

There is, as I have said previously, no money for the Embassy in processing appeals or reviewing decisions. That is irresponsible. arrogant and totally unreasonable, especially when you are dealing with people's lives and hopes.

I agree totally with the second sentence, but am confused by the first.

I have always believed that embassies do not get to keep any of the visa fees they collect; that such money either goes into the UKBA coffers or it ends up in the general exchequer. Are you saying that embassies do indeed keep some of the money from visa fees for their own purposes; or does the visa section have to show a profit, or have I misunderstood this sentence completely?

Thanks for the response, which pretty much confirms what I thought.

However, one more point if I may.

You say

There is, as I have said previously, no money for the Embassy in processing appeals or reviewing decisions. That is irresponsible. arrogant and totally unreasonable, especially when you are dealing with people's lives and hopes.

I agree totally with the second sentence, but am confused by the first.

I have always believed that embassies do not get to keep any of the visa fees they collect; that such money either goes into the UKBA coffers or it ends up in the general exchequer. Are you saying that embassies do indeed keep some of the money from visa fees for their own purposes; or does the visa section have to show a profit, or have I misunderstood this sentence completely?

You are right, the Embassy doesn't get any money from the visa fees. However, they must account financially for everything they do eg, each visa application takes x minutes of an ECO's time, and costs x Pounds. The costings do not go past the decision process, so all time spent on other tasks post decision is not going to be financially helpful to the visa section. They cannot ask for money from the government to cover the time spent on post decision tasks ( I'm sure some funds are allocated, but not enough to cover costs really ). It is not a profitable part of the business, producing no income, but using resources. It is the application and decision process that brings in the money.

Good to see you making an early start VP.

Thanks for that VP.

Another question, if I may.

From what both you and Scouse have said, it appears that the situation re ECM reviews has only really become dire since Blair and Brown decided that the UKBA should pay for itself; i.e that those areas where a fee could be charged, e.g. LTE and LTR applications, should provide the funds to cover the costs of those areas where a fee couldn't, e.g. IOs at ports of entry. Hence their introduction of fees for LTR and the massive rises in all fees over the last few years.

Would you say that this has led to the financial pressures on ECOs that you describe?

Every indication is that, despite vigorous Tory opposition when LTR fees were first introduced, Cameron and Clegg intend to continue with this policy and even extend it; I seem to recall a post (from Scouse, I think) saying that they were considering introducing fees for appeals!

I guess what I'm really saying is that the problem's source is at the very top; it's an easy way to raise funds that effects a very small percentage of the population. Would you agree?

(OK, that's two more questions.)

Seems very hard to justify some of the fees charged, I happened by chance to view a "UK Boarder Force" documentary program last week, they covered the work of the High Commission in Delhi who process some 8,000 visa applications a week, prices similar to Bangkok, (£75 visit to £775 settlement) not sure what the percentage make up is, but even if all were visitor visas they would be racking in £20m, suspect the figure to be nearer £100m per year.

Just wonder how many staff they have, many were locals so their wages would not be that high, just how can they justify these high charges, wonder what the average time is taken on processing a settlement visa?

As for Cameron and Clegg doing something about it, remember Cameron made an election pledge to reduce the imitation numbers and Clegg shot himself in the foot by suggesting an armistice for illegal immigrants.

Edited January 18, 201115 yr by Basil B

The fees for all category of visa are set by the government and are the same worldwide; except that they are paid in the local currency at an exchange rate set by the local British Embassy or High Commission.

As I understand it Cameron's pledge was to reduce economic migrants from outside the EU. (EU law and treaties make it impossible for any British government to stop qualifying EU nationals from coming to the UK for economic reasons.)

I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong but, like the last government, I don't think this government has any plans to cap those coming to settle in the UK for family reasons. Other than the outrageous £1680 visa fee for a parent, grandparent or other adult dependant relative.

The fees for all category of visa are set by the government and are the same worldwide; except that they are paid in the local currency at an exchange rate set by the local British Embassy or High Commission.

As I understand it Cameron's pledge was to reduce economic migrants from outside the EU. (EU law and treaties make it impossible for any British government to stop qualifying EU nationals from coming to the UK for economic reasons.)

I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong but, like the last government, I don't think this government has any plans to cap those coming to settle in the UK for family reasons. Other than the outrageous £1680 visa fee for a parent, grandparent or other adult dependant relative.

You are right. The government will not, in fact cannot, stop settlement applications from family members to UK, nor will they cap them. Therefore, they will keep raising the visa fees as and when they want. I totally agree that the 1680 GBP fee is outrageous, but whatever pledges are made by any government concerning numbers, fees, capping, etc, those pledges are free to be broken at the government's will. Recent events in the UK concerning pledges in other areas confirm that.

Going back to your earlier points, the question of funding is a tricky one. It is not as simple as saying that the visa operation brings in x Million Pounds a year, so UKBA has that money to spend. The income from the visa operation goes directly into the Treasury pot. The UKBA budget is then decided for whichever coming year, but has nothing to do with the income generated. In theory, the income from the visa operation could be 100 Million a year, and the budget given for UKBA to run it's overseas operations could be only 50 Million a year. There is no correlation between the two ( that would be too easy !). It's very much like "Road Tax" ) which brings in enormous sums, but very little gets spent on the roads.

Edited January 19, 201115 yr by VisasPlus

Great piece and follow-up VP.

It really is quite shocking when you see Government estimated unit costs for the various visa categories: the fees for Settlement - Dependant Relative quoted in the discussion are more than 6 x cost!

In a way I'm not suprised at the response received from the Embassy: as you have pointed out, they are fantastic at waffle and they, quite consistently it seems, take liberties with the immigration rules themselves, so a liberal application of the guidance is probably to be expected.

Quite right too that British citizen sponsored settlement applications can not be prevented in any other way than through fees.

However, that does not mean settlement in general will not be targeted. Indeed, if the Coalition is to meet its immigration pledge, the settlement route will have to be clamped down on. And it is in fact the rate of settlement rather than net migration that the Coalition should be tackling, given their ever-constant citation of the pressure migration puts on public services. By far the biggest category of migrant gaining permanent settlement were those coming with family or work visas, accounting for a whopping 84% of all those granted the right to settle in 2004.

It really is quite shocking when you see Government estimated unit costs for the various visa categories

Those unit costs can be seen in this Written Ministerial Statement announcing the increases which came into effect last October.

Sorry, VP, I seem to have hijacked your thread. However, I do feel the government pressurising posts to meet targets, both financial and performance*, whilst at the same time cutting staffing levels is a major cause of the problems you describe.

*In case anyone wonders, I mean the number of applications processed in a given time, not the number of applications which are successful.

It really is quite shocking when you see Government estimated unit costs for the various visa categories

Those unit costs can be seen in this Written Ministerial Statement announcing the increases which came into effect last October.

Sorry, VP, I seem to have hijacked your thread. However, I do feel the government pressurising posts to meet targets, both financial and performance*, whilst at the same time cutting staffing levels is a major cause of the problems you describe.

*In case anyone wonders, I mean the number of applications processed in a given time, not the number of applications which are successful.

No problem, 7x7. The matter is worthy of discussion, and I suspect it is of interest to many.

To update you on this. I have received nothing in writing from the Embassy to say whether my views on the " guidance" are correct ie, it is an instruction to ECMs to review the refusal decision immediately an appeal is received, or if it is still " guidance" that allows the review process to be dealt with as and when the ECM/ECO can find the time to do it before the appeal papers have to be sent to UK.

That said, I have received assurances that the ECM review process is, at this time, up to date ie, there is no backlog in carrying out ECM reviews in settlement visa refusals. That means all ECM reviews of all settlement refusals have been carried out. The question of whether future reviews will be carried out immediately on receipt of an appeal remains unanswered, but I will press for a clear response on this.

I have no idea whether the clearance of the backlog of ECM reviews has anything to do with the fact that we have been pressing for such action, but it does seem coincidental that the backlog has been cleared now. I have not, however, yet received any response to my request under the Freedom of Information Act for details of waiting times for ECM reviews in this region. I have been assured that my request is being dealt with, and I will pass on details when I get a response.

Good work, VP. Keep at 'em!