Entry Clearance Discrimination Authorised

[vinny]

Entry clearance discrimination authorised

[VisasPlus]

Playing Devil's Advocate ( and simplifying things enormously ), don't the immigration rules already discriminate by requiring only certain nationalities to obtain visas ?

Edited February 19, 2011 by VisasPlus

[bangkockney]

Very interesting to see if any can make a successful appeal on race discrimination grounds.

As long as the end decision is made in accordance with the immigration rules, and an applicant is never refused because of their nationality alone, then I doubt such a challenge would be successful.

Risk profiling in this way is already done in a limited way by Australia. It is also a known fact that applications from the Sub-Continent suffer from higher than average levels of fraud. A approach like this therefore seems logical. Being legal however is something different entirely.

[LM09]

<br />Very interesting to see if any can make a successful appeal on race discrimination grounds. <br /><br />As long as the end decision is made in accordance with the immigration rules, and an applicant is never refused because of their nationality alone, then I doubt such a challenge would be successful. <br /><br />Risk profiling in this way is already done in a limited way by Australia. It is also a known fact that applications from the Sub-Continent suffer from higher than average levels of fraud. A approach like this therefore seems logical. Being legal however is something different entirely.<br />

<br /><br /><br />

When you consider the stated aim is to reduce net immigration from the 100's of thousands to 10's of thousands, and that there is nothing they can do to stop EU immigration, then it makes sense that the focus will shift to the non-EU applicants. Just a flimsy attempt to cover their bums when people cry racism isn't it?

They've already put caps on Tier 1 and 2, and are about to stop PSW visas. Could family path caps be next? It's not a refusal if you haven't met the cap. This April will see changes clear across the board for all visa categories. They're adding fee streams which means charges for things that used to be free such as appeals.

[bangkockney]

They won't get away with a direct cap on the family route but could well raise the bar.

Do you have any further detail on charging for appeals? Does this include Administrative Reviews? Where did you get this information?

I wouldn't be surprised to see the UK Coalition push as close to a cap as possible; successive UK governments have a history of testing the breaking point of HR legislation.

[LM09]

<br />They won't get away with a direct cap on the family route but could well raise the bar.<br /><br />Do you have any further detail on charging for appeals? Does this include Administrative Reviews? Where did you get this information?<br /><br />I wouldn't be surprised to see the UK Coalition push as close to a cap as possible; successive UK governments have a history of testing the breaking point of HR legislation.<br />

<br /><br /><br />

I have it from a very reliable source who wishes to remain anonymous. Will see if I can link to something about charging for appeals, this came up a while ago I believe.

[bangkockney]

There was a consultation on charging for tribunals, by the way no refund if the appelent wins or UKBA withdraw, which has raised eyebrows.

Kind of fits in with the recent report on the UKBA which found they are more focused on revenue generation than correct decision making.

There's even doubt on whether charging for access to the tribunal system is even legal. E.g

- breaches Articles 16 and 29 of the Refugee Convention

- will not means test everyone, breaching common law rights and ECHR rights

- case law has already questioned fixed fees. See Baiai

- inconsistent with statutory equality obligations

- breaches Articles 47, 20 and 18 of EC law (essentially the right to an effective remedy before a tribunal

- potentially breaches the Convention on the Rights of the Child

Set against the massive reduction in availability of legal aid planned it is worrying indeed.

The measures appear ideologically driven IMO.

[bangkockney]

Let's hope they can get the permenant 1/2 caps right this time. They cocked up the interim cap massively.

Edited February 21, 2011 by bangkockney

[elliss]

Very interesting to see if any can make a successful appeal on race discrimination grounds

racial discrimination only applies

to the so calleed civilised countries .

imo , you are wasting your time .

best of luck. :jap:

[bangkockney]

Am I missing something?

Since when did the UK become uncivilised?

Good luck with what exactly and with what am I wasting ny time?

[LM09]

Let's hope they can get the permenant 1/2 caps right this time. They cocked up the interim cap massively.

Permanent 1/2 caps? What are those? Are we referecing settlement visas which most of this forum applies for or the Tier visas?

[bangkockney]

Let's hope they can get the permenant 1/2 caps right this time. They cocked up the interim cap massively.

Permanent 1/2 caps? What are those? Are we referecing settlement visas which most of this forum applies for or the Tier visas?

It's a reply to your comment making reference to Tier 1 and 2 caps!

[LM09]

Let's hope they can get the permenant 1/2 caps right this time. They cocked up the interim cap massively.

Permanent 1/2 caps? What are those? Are we referecing settlement visas which most of this forum applies for or the Tier visas?

It's a reply to your comment making reference to Tier 1 and 2 caps!

Oh I get it! I thought you meant half caps (1/2 caps)! Dur

[vinny]

Secret Race Discrimination

[bobrussell]

Entry Clearance discrimination should be a 'non-topic' as long as the immigration rules are then enforced in the same way. It is sensible to 'risk assess' and act upon those assessments.

If false/fraudulent applications are common from 'country A' then it makes sense to scrutinise applications from those countries more thoroughly than 'rich, affluent country B' or 'well behaved country C'. The rules are the same for all of them but financial and staff resources are limited.

It is no different from low Police levels in a quiet rural area compared to high levels in rough high crime areas. The law is the same and miscreants should be treated the same if found irrespective of where a crime is committed.

What matters more is that the staff do their job properly, efficiently and accurately. Failure to process applications properly based on who the applicant is or where he or she comes from is real discrimination and is unacceptable.

[7by7]

Totally agree with the above.

This reminds me of two Met police initiatives in the 1980s

One was targeting street crime; most of which was carried out by black youths so the police's efforts were concentrated in that area. It had to be dropped after complaints that this was racist.

The second was targeting burglary, and most offenders here were white males in their late 20s/early 30s. No one from the PC brigade complained about this group being targetted!