Charges For UK Immigration Appeals

[VisasPlus]

Charges for immigration appeals are to be introduced from October 2011. The consultation paper and response are here :

http://www.justice.gov.uk/docs/appeals-fee-charges-consultation-response.pdf

This is not good news. In addition, it will no longer be possible, after October 2011, to lodge an appeal at the Embassy in Bangkok. Appeals will have to be lodged in UK, presumably by post. The charges will be introduced at 80 GBP for a paper hearing and 140 GBP for an oral hearing. The respsonse document warns that these charges will rise. There is some hope, in that if the appeal is allowed, then the Embassy will have to refund the charges ( not the visa fee ). This may cause the Embassy to think before refusing an appealable decision.

My concern at this point, apart from the obvious dismay at the charges, is that no mention is made anywhere that I can see of the decision review process which currently takes place when an appeal is lodged at the Embassy - the ECM Review. Is this being ended ? If not, who will carry out this review ?

Some of the salient points:

Fees to be set at £80 for paper hearings and £140 for oral hearings to begin with, but with increases likely, starting with the managed migration and settlement appeals

No fees to be charged in the Upper Tribunal, although this may be revisited in future

A discretionary power is to be given to Immigration Judges to award the cost of the appeal fee against UKBA ( but not if the decision to allow the appeal is made on new evidence produced at the hearing )

Edited May 18, 2011 by VisasPlus

[theoldgit]

I have skim read this VP and, as you indicated, it does little, or anything, to address the issue of ECO's failing to assess applications correctly, there will be no comeback for the ECO if s/he really gets it wrong, so no change there then.

I think you are right in your belief that it seems that applications will have to be lodged by post, it seems to indicate that in the flow chart. Whilst the report doesn't mention the ECM review I hope they will keep that facility in when the Immigration Act is amended, maybe it wasn't mentioned as it wasn't in the consultation document.

What does worry me is the fact that if a family appeals against the decision to refuse a settlement visa, then every member of the family would be liable to pay the appeal fee, their justification being that the family have already had to pay the, extortionate, fee for the application to be considered.

We all know that there is a problem with the abuse of the asylum process and illegal immigration, and this new policy does nothing to address this issue, indeed most illegals and asylum seekers fall under the fast track process and if they detained will be exempt from the fees.

It's interesting that should post this today, they very day that the press publishes an article at the problem tour operators are facing with the difficulties their customers are facing in getting visas to visit many European countries.

This in my view, is nothing more than a cynical money making excersise and will further damage the reputation of the UKBA.

[VisasPlus]

I have skim read this VP and, as you indicated, it does little, or anything, to address the issue of ECO's failing to assess applications correctly, there will be no comeback for the ECO if s/he really gets it wrong, so no change there then.

I think you are right in your belief that it seems that applications will have to be lodged by post, it seems to indicate that in the flow chart. Whilst the report doesn't mention the ECM review I hope they will keep that facility in when the Immigration Act is amended, maybe it wasn't mentioned as it wasn't in the consultation document.

What does worry me is the fact that if a family appeals against the decision to refuse a settlement visa, then every member of the family would be liable to pay the appeal fee, their justification being that the family have already had to pay the, extortionate, fee for the application to be considered.

We all know that there is a problem with the abuse of the asylum process and illegal immigration, and this new policy does nothing to address this issue, indeed most illegals and asylum seekers fall under the fast track process and if they detained will be exempt from the fees.

It's interesting that should post this today, they very day that the press publishes an article at the problem tour operators are facing with the difficulties their customers are facing in getting visas to visit many European countries.

This in my view, is nothing more than a cynical money making excersise and will further damage the reputation of the UKBA.

I share your concerns. It is very obvious that the charges will rise, probably quickly and steeply. If this happens, and I have no doubts that it will, and if there is no ECM review process, then I don't see how the average ( and I don't mean that unkindly) applicant will have the opportunity for natural justice that they are due. I am concerned at how the ECM review process could work if the appeal does not pass through the Embassy as it does now, unless the lodging of an appeal in the UK triggers the process at an Embassy. That might work, but the review process is likely to be delayed even more than it is now.

[VisasPlus]

TOG, the fact that an IJ can order costs against the Embassy may possibly concentrate the ECO's mind somewhat ? If an ECO is making poor decisions, and it starts to cost the Visa Section/UKBA money, then there may be a more rigorous review of refusal decisions at an early stage. Lost appeals, and costs awarded against an Embassy may affect all Grades within the visa section ? Certainly, someone will have to account for the higher costs if it becomes noticeable ? Maybe they will make the ECO repay the cost of poor decisions from their salary ) There's an incentive scheme for you !

[bobrussell]

Money-making exercise. The visa application fees are already high enough to be revenue generating so the costs of appeals is already built into the system!

I would be happier with the idea of charges if the applicant were able to receive proper costs especially where 'maladministration' was an issue. The UKBA would step up it's quality control if it faced the possibility of having to pay true costs.

The return of the application fee is a minor issue especially if considerable legal work has been performed to correct a bad or wrong judgement.

In theory I have no major problems with some form of charging to reduce the levels of spurious appeals. As nearly 50% of appeals appear to be upheld this does not seem to be that major a problem.

The consultation document clearly had enough daft bits in to allow the DofJ to be seen to be responsive. I suspect the final paper will contain everything they intended in the first place (in line with 'Yes Minister' government). Sad!

Another hit for those trying to do things right and more reason for people to try to by-pass the system.

[theoldgit]

In theory I have no major problems with some form of charging to reduce the levels of spurious appeals. As nearly 50% of appeals appear to be upheld this does not seem to be that major a problem.

In theory yes, but it's a slippery slope. The applicant is already paying for a process and has a right to expect that the person carrying out the process to excersise due diligence when considering the application. If the ECO makes a mistake, it can happen, then the applicant has to pay of an IJ to consider the appeal and may or may not get the fee refunded, what next, somebody improperly convicted of a crime will have to pay to take the conviction to an appeal court? and I'm not even taking into account lawyers fees.

I suspect that the object of the excersise is to reduce the number of appeals, and yes that's not a bad thing, I think there will be an expectation of the UKBA that most people will simply re-apply, and that will probably be the case, but that will not give the UKBA managers the incentive to improve procedures.

VP, I like the idea of ECO's being brought to account for incorrect decisions, both financially and through the reporting process, but you and I both know that's unlikely to happen.

[ThaiVisaExpress]

Most of these bad decisions could be addressed in 5 minutes.

[VisasPlus]

Most of these bad decisions could be addressed in 5 minutes.

Yes, they could. At the moment, as you know, it takes up to 16 weeks !

[bobrussell]

In theory I have no major problems with some form of charging to reduce the levels of spurious appeals. As nearly 50% of appeals appear to be upheld this does not seem to be that major a problem.

In theory yes, but it's a slippery slope. The applicant is already paying for a process and has a right to expect that the person carrying out the process to excersise due diligence when considering the application. If the ECO makes a mistake, it can happen, then the applicant has to pay of an IJ to consider the appeal and may or may not get the fee refunded, what next, somebody improperly convicted of a crime will have to pay to take the conviction to an appeal court? and I'm not even taking into account lawyers fees.

I suspect that the object of the excersise is to reduce the number of appeals, and yes that's not a bad thing, I think there will be an expectation of the UKBA that most people will simply re-apply, and that will probably be the case, but that will not give the UKBA managers the incentive to improve procedures.

VP, I like the idea of ECO's being brought to account for incorrect decisions, both financially and through the reporting process, but you and I both know that's unlikely to happen.

I agree with the slippery slope comment.

My previous post started with the comment:

The visa application fees are already high enough to be revenue generating so the costs of appeals is already built into the system!

Does this mean there will be a downward adjustment in the visa application fees I wonder? (just ducking to avoid the flying pig!)

[7by7]

The slippery slope was first entered upon when Blair and Brown decided to make visa and leave to remain fees finance all the operating costs of the UKBA (or IND as it then was). A move vociferously opposed by both the Tories and LibDems at the time; but since they came to power we have seen yet another above inflation increase!

I have it in my mind that this move was first mooted by Labour, and that the coalition have simply gone through with it (like the A1 test for settlement). Am I right, or just imagining it?

My opinion of a fair way of funding appeals: if the appeal is rejected, the appellant pays but if its upheld, the ECO pays! Wont happen though.

[bangkockney]

Family visit appeals could well be scrapped entirely in 2011/12 according to a leaked UKBA doc.

36% of family visit appeals are successful highlighting a clear problem with ECO decision making.

That said, with the UKBA expected to cut 20% of expenditure I don't see things improving any time soon.

Edited May 19, 2011 by bangkockney

[paully]

The slippery slope was first entered upon when Blair and Brown decided to make visa and leave to remain fees finance all the operating costs of the UKBA (or IND as it then was). A move vociferously opposed by both the Tories and LibDems at the time; but since they came to power we have seen yet another above inflation increase!

Precisely, 7by7. This latest fee has been coming for some time. Naturally it is also a way for (at least the Conservative part of) the coalition government to be seen to address the 'issue' of non-EU immigration levels into the UK without falling foul of the Human Rights Act. Unfortunately it will affect everyone whose visa application is not correctly handled.

There should, of course, be a way for applicants to continue to request that the ECM reviews a refused application without commencing a formal (and now costly) appeal. But I wouldn't put my hat on it.

We also made it clear in the consultation document that we would aim to increase fees over time beyond 25% of cost.[/Quote]

Expect 100% (at least). And soon..

Edited May 19, 2011 by paully

[VisasPlus]

There should, of course, be a way for applicants to continue to request that the ECM reviews a refused application without commencing a formal (and now costly) appeal. But I wouldn't put my hat on it.

I have asked the British Embassy in Bangkok to comment on this very point. I'm hoping for a response, and if I get one I will let you know.

[paully]

Cheers, VP.