Uk Visa Refusals

[VisasPlus]

This has just been released by the UKBA:

http://www.ukba.home.../23-appeal-fees

In one week's time (!), the 19th December, UKBA are introducing fees for appeals against visa refusals. Although the new charges apply for visa refusals from the 19th December 2011, UKBA ( the Ministry of Justice) are not publishing details of the charges until the day they are introduced !

In addition, appeals can no longer be submitted at the Embassy, or High commission, where the application was made. Appeals will now have to be submitted to the Appeals Tribunal in the UK, and the fee paid there.

One of my concerns, apart from the fact that UKBA are giving just one week's notice of this new procedure, along with absolutely no detail on how it will work, is how the current ECM Review system will operate. At the moment, if an applicant submits an appeal at an Embassy against a visa refusal, a review procedure is automatically triggered, and an Entry Clearance Manager has to review the refusal decision before deciding if it should proceed to the appeal stage in the UK. Often, refusal decisions are overturned at this stage. With the new procedures, the appeal must be lodged in the UK ( appeals will no longer be accepted at visa sections overseas ), and, presumably, the fee paid at that time. If so, then how will the ECM Review procedure be triggered at the Embassy where the refusal decision was made ? How long will an ECM Review now take ? If an ECM Review is eventually carried out, and the decision overturned, then how does the applicant get his appeal fee back from the UK ?

I have written to the visa section at the British Embassy, Bangkok, asking for clarification, more details, and a copy of the guidance on how the ECM Review is now to be operated. I will post any response that I receive.

Edited December 11, 2011 by VisasPlus

[Eff1n2ret]

And so it goes on - more and more burdens are placed on those who seek to enter the UK legally whilst UKBA shows itself to be totally inept at dealing with those who enter illegally or overstay.

In addition to your germane questions about how the ECM review will be affected, one wonders whether the IAT will have any power to award costs and a refund of the appeal fee in the case of successful appeals. I suspect the answer will be the same as for applications - you pay for the application/appeal, not for the outcome.

[VisasPlus]

John,

In the original proposals on this, there was going to be the power to award costs. Whether that has been included in the final provisons , or not, will not be known until UKBA releases details on the day that this new charging system comes into effect.

I do hope that such a power has been included as, I think, it may concentrate the ECO's mind if he knows that his adverse decison may result in UKBA having to pay costs. Certainly, management in visa sections will have to look very closely at any rising costs incurred by losing appeals. The prospect of costs being awarded against UKBA may well be the reason for another proposed change - the removal of the right of appeal in Family Visit refusals. This would be, I'm sure, because, UKBA currently lose the majority of Family Visit appeals. If costs were to be awarded against UKBA in those appeals then it could be expensive for UKBA. So, if the power to award costs is included in these new changes, then expect to see the right of appeal in family visits removed.

And so it goes on - more and more burdens are placed on those who seek to enter the UK legally whilst UKBA shows itself to be totally inept at dealing with those who enter illegally or overstay.

In addition to your germane questions about how the ECM review will be affected, one wonders whether the IAT will have any power to award costs and a refund of the appeal fee in the case of successful appeals. I suspect the answer will be the same as for applications - you pay for the application/appeal, not for the outcome.

Edited December 11, 2011 by VisasPlus

[7by7]

Gentlemen,

Would you not agree that it is neither the UKBA nor the MoJ who are responsible for the introduction of these fees, the change in procedures and the possible withdrawal of Family Visit appeals but the government? Furthermore, it is not the government who will decide whether or not costs will be awarded in successful appeals?

I have only ever been what the UKBA these days choose to call a 'customer,' but you have both at some time worked for them, or their predecessor the IND. Therefore you obviously have far more experience in their procedures etc. than I. Would you say that your frustrations in dealing with their complex procedures and petty rules were and are caused by your then civil service masters or by their political ones?

From reading various appeal judgments and the experiences of appellants on boards such as this, my impression is that the majority of successful appeals are successful because the appellant has submitted extra evidence which the original ECO was not privy to. From your experiences, would you agree?

If my impression is correct, then making sure that one's application is complete will, hopefully, negate the need for an appeal as the application will be successful. Although there will always be cases where the refusal is due to ECO error, of course.

Whenever this subject arises I am reminded of one refusal I read about, I can't remember if it was on this forum or another. The sponsor had not included some vital financial evidence "because it was obvious." Not to the ECO it wasn't!

Having said that, one would expect that most appeals where new evidence has been submitted would never get to a hearing and be overturned by the ECM review; one wonders why they haven't been. Bloody mindedness by ECMs, late submission of the new evidence by the appellant or some other reason?

Of course, if the ECM review is somehow done away with, all cases will go to, and pay for, a full hearing. A procedural change by the UKBA or a decision by the government to make even more money out of immigrants?

[Basil B]

Have to agree on it is a Government thing to decrease the number of immigrants entering the UK, an election promise by the PM.

But as Eff1n2ret says it is getting easer for II's to get in, as it was I was listening to a BBC R4 program in the week called "The Report" this week the subject was "Border Controls" which highlighted the Lille loophole, in the program Simon Cox investigates the much-criticized UK Border Agency and asks whether the public can have confidence that borders are now safe and secure.

I think the basic problem is Legal Immigrants are counted, Illegals are not... It's all about Cameron saving face.

[VisasPlus]

Agreed, it is a government decision, but the government cannot make the decisons without major input from UKBA. The government wouldn't know where to start. As Eff1n2ret says, it is a cheap shot at people who cannot do anything about it.

You say : - " the majority of successful appeals are successful because the appellant has submitted extra evidence which the original ECO was not privy to. From your experiences, would you agree?" I really have no idea how this pans out worldwide, but certainly, a lot of appeals are lost because the ECO has made a bad, or wrong, decision. You are right that the ECM Review procedure should pick up these poor decisions, but it is a fact that not all appealed decisions actually get the mandatory ECM Review. Many appeals reach the Tribunal with a note attached saying something along the lines of " Not reviewed as no resources available". This goes back to a point I made many months ago, and repeat endlessly - there is no accountability on the part of UKBA for anything they do. They are instructed to review refusal decisions at post before sending the appeal bundle to the IAT. What happens if they don't ? Errr..........nothing,. But they may lose the appeal. of course. So, if the new changes coming into force next week include allowing Immigration Judges to award costs when allowing an appeal, then we may see ECOs and ECMs doing what they are supposed to, making reasonable decisions and reviewing the refusal decisions.

Gentlemen,

Would you not agree that it is neither the UKBA nor the MoJ who are responsible for the introduction of these fees, the change in procedures and the possible withdrawal of Family Visit appeals but the government? Furthermore, it is not the government who will decide whether or not costs will be awarded in successful appeals?

I have only ever been what the UKBA these days choose to call a 'customer,' but you have both at some time worked for them, or their predecessor the IND. Therefore you obviously have far more experience in their procedures etc. than I. Would you say that your frustrations in dealing with their complex procedures and petty rules were and are caused by your then civil service masters or by their political ones?

From reading various appeal judgments and the experiences of appellants on boards such as this, my impression is that the majority of successful appeals are successful because the appellant has submitted extra evidence which the original ECO was not privy to. From your experiences, would you agree?

If my impression is correct, then making sure that one's application is complete will, hopefully, negate the need for an appeal as the application will be successful. Although there will always be cases where the refusal is due to ECO error, of course.

Whenever this subject arises I am reminded of one refusal I read about, I can't remember if it was on this forum or another. The sponsor had not included some vital financial evidence "because it was obvious." Not to the ECO it wasn't!

Having said that, one would expect that most appeals where new evidence has been submitted would never get to a hearing and be overturned by the ECM review; one wonders why they haven't been. Bloody mindedness by ECMs, late submission of the new evidence by the appellant or some other reason?

Of course, if the ECM review is somehow done away with, all cases will go to, and pay for, a full hearing. A procedural change by the UKBA or a decision by the government to make even more money out of immigrants?

[rawhod]

"In addition, appeals can no longer be submitted at the Embassy, or High commission, where the application was made. Appeals will now have to be submitted to the Appeals Tribunal in the UK, and the fee paid there."

I presume the appeal does not have to be submitted in person ( ie. can be submitted and paid by post)...otherwise they create a "catch 22" situation.

[VisasPlus]

"In addition, appeals can no longer be submitted at the Embassy, or High commission, where the application was made. Appeals will now have to be submitted to the Appeals Tribunal in the UK, and the fee paid there."

I presume the appeal does not have to be submitted in person ( ie. can be submitted and paid by post)...otherwise they create a "catch 22" situation.

I like that. Maybe we can create a whole new industry. Applications for visas to go to UK to submit an appeal against a visa refusal. Now where can I find a suitable applicant........... ?

[Eff1n2ret]

Agreed, it is a government decision, but the government cannot make the decisons without major input from UKBA. The government wouldn't know where to start.

That is exactly so. It's classic 'Yes Minister' territory - a Minister is appointed who may have a firm policy about "getting tough on immigration", but has little idea of the complexities of legislation or the difficulties of actually enforcing the law. By the time he's mastered some of the basics he's moved on to some other post and the whole rigmarole begins again. The politicians are almost entirely in the hands of civil servants, and unfortunately the policy over quite a number of years has been to fill the management of UKBA and its predecessors with appointees from other departments such as the Prison Service, MOD, DSS and the like, so there are very few now in senior management who have ever sat on the desk at a major airport, or worked as an ECO, or interviewed illegals in police custody as VisasPlus and I have. My 20 years in that department were characterised by increasingly draconian legislation which was based mainly on wishful thinking and did little to stem the flow of people from all over the world who have little genuine right to be in the UK. Gordon Brown thought we should encourage a big increase in students coming to the UK, so they came up with the Points Based System - tick a few boxes, and you're in, never mind any questions about whether there is any real intention or ability to pursue a course of study. That worked wonderfully well; there was a huge increase in sucessful student applications, but it's now been recognised that very many never actually attended a course, and even more have never left the UK since.

And so, to give the politicians a fig-leaf to persuade the voters that they really do mean to get tough, the civil servants pick on the easy targets.

Of course, it's not just UKBA that suffers this way. Only this morning an ex-colleague emailed a link to the news that the head of HM Revenue and Customs is being replaced, his term as chief tax-man generally being regarded as a failure. His replacement? - none other than Lin Homer, erstwhile Chief Executive of UKBA. I hope she is better at catching tax dodgers than she was at removing illegals.

[theoldgit]

I didn't know that Lin Homer was going to HMRC, wasn't under under her tenure that a number of HMRC staff became Operational Managers in the UKBA?

I did quite like her though.

Of course in most government departments it's the Civil Servants who draft the policy documents not the operational staff, that's the same in the UKBA, NOMS and the like, but you will be aware it will then go to staff like Tony Smith for comment and alteration.

[VisasPlus]

Lin Homer was accused of operating a " shambles" ( UKBA, that is ) if I remember correctly. She was in charge for 5 years, at a salary of more than 200,000 GBP a year. That's not bad, a Million GBP for operating a shambles. Tony Smith, who happens to be an old friend of mine, only earns 100,000 GBP a year. I guess UKBA needs to charge for appeals in order to pay salaries like that !

I didn't know that Lin Homer was going to HMRC, wasn't under under her tenure that a number of HMRC staff became Operational Managers in the UKBA?

I did quite like her though.

Of course in most government departments it's the Civil Servants who draft the policy documents not the operational staff, that's the same in the UKBA, NOMS and the like, but you will be aware it will then go to staff like Tony Smith for comment and alteration.

[bobrussell]

She will do fine at HMRC! She will be coming into a ready made shambles so she will feel right at home. I am self-employed and have received nothing from HMRC all year. My accountant tells me how much to pay, I pay it and receive silence in return.

I am not expecting a thank you (how nice would that be - 'Dear Sir Thank you for your tax payment.......') but confirmation of receipt would be good and a statement was routine in the past.

[theoldgit]

Lin was certainly over paid, but the same could be said for all Civil Servants at that level, I don't know of any CEO's of these Government Agencies who have come up "through the ranks" apart from NOMS, they are pure political animals. Yes the UKBA was said to be a shambles under her tenure but a lot of that was due to political meddling and that of the Judiciary, but as CEO she has to take the flack, and was very well paid for doing so - I still liked her though.

I cannot claim Tony Smith as.a friend but I did have some dealings with him and he is a very able and knowledgable operator and he certainly carried the respect of Immigration Officers. Maybe they should have made him CEO, I suspect Ministers would feel a tad intimidated by his knowledge and straight talking approach.

[jrtmedic]

Taxpayer spends £1m a week funding visa appeals

The taxpayer is spending almost £1 million a week to fund appeals

against family visa refusals after cases increased six fold in a decade

Photo: CORBIS

By Tom Whitehead, Home Affairs Editor

7:00AM GMT 13 Dec 2011

The sharp rise followed a change in the law under the last Government which scrapped fees for those bringing appeals against family visitor visas.

As a result the taxpayer has funded all such appeals since 2002.

Around 50,000 people last year challenged a decision not to give them a family visitor visa, which provides a temporary stay in the UK with a relative who lives here.

That was up from around 8,000 in 2002.

The appeals cost the public a total of £50 million in 2009, according to the report by Migration Watch UK.

The campaign group called for a tightening of the rules surrounding family visitor visas and for charges to be reinstated.

Sir Andrew Green, chairman of Migration Watch, said: “At a time of severe financial stringency for UK families it is an outrageously generous system which taxpayers should no longer be expected to fund.

“It should be stopped immediately, the definition of “family visitor” tightened, charges reintroduced and consideration given to bonds to ensure people actually leave at the end of their visit.”

The report said the definition of who was classed as a family member under the visa regime was so wide that it could cover up to 120 relatives for one individual.

As well as an applicant’s immediate family, such as parents or children, it can also include uncles, aunts, cousins, relatives of the applicant’s spouse and step family.

Fees for appeals against refusal were originally set at £500 for an oral hearing or £150 for a paper application.

They were cut to £125 and £50 respectively in 2001 before being scrapped altogether in 2002.

In the last four years the success rate of appeals has ranged between 28 per cent and 45 per cent.

Sir Andrew added: “The government have at last seemed to realised that it is ludicrous and grossly unfair that taxpayers are expected to foot the bill for foreign citizens who wish to visit Britain.

“In these straightened times there are much better uses for our money.

“The whole issue of immigration and asylum was so ineptly handled by the previous administration that it will inevitably take time to reverse some of its most woeful decisions but this must surely be one of the easier ones to accomplish and should be a high priority for Ministers.”

Copied from The Daily Telegraph dated 13 December 2011

[bobrussell]

I have no objection, in principle, to fees for appeals to reduce the number of spurious appeals. The purpose of an appeals process is to overturn errors, incorrect decisions and to make civil servants accountable for their decisions.

The big question is going to be about whether costs and compensation will be awarded to the applicant if an appeal is successful. If so it has my support. If not, it is not fair and is not democratic.

It will be interesting to see the level of fees charged but the cynic in me suspects it will be another revenue generating exercise!

[VisasPlus]

When this was proposed, several months ago, the government was fairly open about the fees. They quoted between 80 GBP anfd 150 GBP, I think, but did say that these fees would be raised fairly quickly ( and probably fairly often, like visa fees ).

I too hope that there will be a facility for the Judge to award costs. This would certainly make the visa officer more aware that a "bad" decision could be costly. It may be that "costs" will be limited only to the cost of the appeal, but I would like to see it include the cost of the visa too. This would, again, ensure that the decision making process is more robust.

I think, that if costs can be awarded, then this is a proposal that UKBA ( the government ) might regret introducing, as it may just jump up and bite them in the behind. It could cost them considerable amounts of money globally if the ECO's decisions are not sound.

I have no objection, in principle, to fees for appeals to reduce the number of spurious appeals. The purpose of an appeals process is to overturn errors, incorrect decisions and to make civil servants accountable for their decisions.

The big question is going to be about whether costs and compensation will be awarded to the applicant if an appeal is successful. If so it has my support. If not, it is not fair and is not democratic.

It will be interesting to see the level of fees charged but the cynic in me suspects it will be another revenue generating exercise!

[ThaiVisaExpress]

When this was proposed, several months ago, the government was fairly open about the fees. They quoted between 80 GBP anfd 150 GBP, I think, but did say that these fees would be raised fairly quickly ( and probably fairly often, like visa fees ).

I too hope that there will be a facility for the Judge to award costs. This would certainly make the visa officer more aware that a "bad" decision could be costly. It may be that "costs" will be limited only to the cost of the appeal, but I would like to see it include the cost of the visa too. This would, again, ensure that the decision making process is more robust.

I think, that if costs can be awarded, then this is a proposal that UKBA ( the government ) might regret introducing, as it may just jump up and bite them in the behind. It could cost them considerable amounts of money globally if the ECO's decisions are not sound.

I have no objection, in principle, to fees for appeals to reduce the number of spurious appeals. The purpose of an appeals process is to overturn errors, incorrect decisions and to make civil servants accountable for their decisions.

The big question is going to be about whether costs and compensation will be awarded to the applicant if an appeal is successful. If so it has my support. If not, it is not fair and is not democratic.

It will be interesting to see the level of fees charged but the cynic in me suspects it will be another revenue generating exercise!

Lets wait and see Tony as you well know we have had some terrible decisions especially in Bangkok.

[7by7]

Some posts and a response to one of them have been deleted.

This topic is too important for those who want to play silly games and childish attempts at point scoring.

Warnings and long posting holidays will be given to anyone who attempts to hijack this thread the way others have been recently.

[Seekingasylum]

Awarding of costs in favour of a successful appellant is now permitted according to Rule 11 of The Tribunal Procedure (Amendment) ( No2) Rules 2011 but the amount will not exceed the fees paid.

Frankly, I can't see this impingeing much on the mind of the ECO/ECM when they refuse an application or decline a favourable review.

Whatever one may say about Lin Homer she did introduce a culture of strategic management into the UKBA and established a framework within which operational heads could function. That those heads may have helped to develop policies that ultimately backfired is really no reflection upon her. That was never her function which primarily was to introduce a functioning system of departmental governance. Indeed, her subsequent trajectory within the Civil Service management indicates her skills are much prized and I suspect her brief will be to reform the HMRC management so as to avoid any more damaging scandals.

[7by7]

Introducing fee charges for appeals in the Immigration & Asylum Chamber of the First-tier Tribunal

[VisasPlus]

Awarding of costs in favour of a successful appellant is now permitted according to Rule 11 of The Tribunal Procedure (Amendment) ( No2) Rules 2011 but the amount will not exceed the fees paid.

Frankly, I can't see this impingeing much on the mind of the ECO/ECM when they refuse an application or decline a favourable review.

Whatever one may say about Lin Homer she did introduce a culture of strategic management into the UKBA and established a framework within which operational heads could function. That those heads may have helped to develop policies that ultimately backfired is really no reflection upon her. That was never her function which primarily was to introduce a functioning system of departmental governance. Indeed, her subsequent trajectory within the Civil Service management indicates her skills are much prized and I suspect her brief will be to reform the HMRC management so as to avoid any more damaging scandals.

I think there will be some impact on the decision making process. At the moment there is no real accountability on the part of the ECO when deciding to refuse an application. A percentage of refusal decisions are reviewed by an ECM ( 10% is the current target, I think ). So 9 out of 10 refusal decisions are not checked by anyone, unless an appeal is submitted. Only then is there any real quality control of the refusal decison. If an applicant doesn't appeal, then nobody knows if the decision was good or not. If the appeal goes ahead, and is won by the applicant, what happens to the decison makers ( the ECO, and the ECM who reviewed the decision ) ? Well, nothing at all. Okay, all of this still applies when the new charges are brought in, but added to this is that a poor refusal decision allowed to go to appeal will incur costs awarded against UKBA. So. there is now a financial aspect to losing an appeal, and this means someone will be accountable for making a poor decison ( for costing UKBA money), and allowing that decision to go to appeal. I believe that the new financial aspect to all of this will concentrate a few minds on making better decisions.

Where there might not be much impact is in Family Visit refusals. UKBA have long said that family visit appeals are expensive, and that they ( UKBA) lose almost half of those appeals. Hmmmmmm. Anyway, the cost of appealing against a family visit refusal will be 80 GBP or 140 GBP. The cost of re-applying would be only 76 GBP, so UKBA are hoping that applicants will re-apply, rather than appeal ( the rationale being that if an applicant re-applies, then UKBA get a second fee of 76 GBP. If the applicant appeals and wins, then UKBA have to pay 76 GBP or 140GBP in costs. They start to lose money). I actually hope the applicants will appeal as, if they win, then they will get the visa plus their appeal fee ( the 80 GBP ) returned. The applicant might, of course, lose the appeal, and would then need to pay a new visa application fee if they wanted to try again. But, if there has been an "injustice", then let the appeal system sort it out.

[theoldgit]

I actually hope the applicants will appeal as, if they win, then they will get the visa plus their appeal fee ( the 80 GBP ) returned. The applicant might, of course, lose the appeal, and would then need to pay a new visa application fee if they wanted to try again.  But, if there has been an "injustice", then let the appeal system sort it out.

I do agree with you here, it would be good if people were to appeal refusals, however I wonder if agrieved people would be put off by the time an appeal would take, especially if they want to travel fairly quickly, and might take the easy option of re-applying. I suspect that the UKBA would be quite happy if people went down that route

[VisasPlus]

I actually hope the applicants will appeal as, if they win, then they will get the visa plus their appeal fee ( the 80 GBP ) returned. The applicant might, of course, lose the appeal, and would then need to pay a new visa application fee if they wanted to try again. But, if there has been an "injustice", then let the appeal system sort it out.

I do agree with you here, it would be good if people were to appeal refusals, however I wonder if agrieved people would be put off by the time an appeal would take, especially if they want to travel fairly quickly, and might take the easy option of re-applying. I suspect that the UKBA would be quite happy if people went down that route

I think you are right too. The alternative, of course, is that UKBA will withdraw the right of appeal for family visit visas, and that would be very wrong, especially as the rationale for that would be that they ( UKBA ) are losing too many appeals ! Surely that alone says a lot about the level of decision making ?

Edited December 18, 2011 by VisasPlus

[Seekingasylum]

I actually hope the applicants will appeal as, if they win, then they will get the visa plus their appeal fee ( the 80 GBP ) returned. The applicant might, of course, lose the appeal, and would then need to pay a new visa application fee if they wanted to try again. But, if there has been an "injustice", then let the appeal system sort it out.

I do agree with you here, it would be good if people were to appeal refusals, however I wonder if agrieved people would be put off by the time an appeal would take, especially if they want to travel fairly quickly, and might take the easy option of re-applying. I suspect that the UKBA would be quite happy if people went down that route

I think you are right too. The alternative, of course, is that UKBA will withdraw the right of appeal for family visit visas, and that would be very wrong, especially as the rationale for that would be that they ( UKBA ) are losing too many appeals ! Surely that alone says a lot about the level of decision making ?

The elephant in the room here of course is the subcontinent and West Africa. Family visits are the main route to a clandestine settlement in the UK by those from these countries who do not qualify legitimately under the rules. They account for probably 60% of all refusals worldwide and represent the worst threat to the UK. immigration wise. Withdrawing appeal rights would be the sensible thing to do. If the truly genuine get upset then they can always apply for a judicial review.Initially expensive but if the case is that shakey in the first place then the UKBA will give in fairly quickly.

Accountability is fine and dandy but unworkable in any system where volume exceeds the means to maintain a standard worthy of the highest ideal. The American way is perhaps the best: everyone is assumed to intend permanent settlement unless they can prove otherwise.

[VisasPlus]

I actually hope the applicants will appeal as, if they win, then they will get the visa plus their appeal fee ( the 80 GBP ) returned. The applicant might, of course, lose the appeal, and would then need to pay a new visa application fee if they wanted to try again. But, if there has been an "injustice", then let the appeal system sort it out.

I do agree with you here, it would be good if people were to appeal refusals, however I wonder if agrieved people would be put off by the time an appeal would take, especially if they want to travel fairly quickly, and might take the easy option of re-applying. I suspect that the UKBA would be quite happy if people went down that route

I think you are right too. The alternative, of course, is that UKBA will withdraw the right of appeal for family visit visas, and that would be very wrong, especially as the rationale for that would be that they ( UKBA ) are losing too many appeals ! Surely that alone says a lot about the level of decision making ?

The elephant in the room here of course is the subcontinent and West Africa. Family visits are the main route to a clandestine settlement in the UK by those from these countries who do not qualify legitimately under the rules. They account for probably 60% of all refusals worldwide and represent the worst threat to the UK. immigration wise. Withdrawing appeal rights would be the sensible thing to do. If the truly genuine get upset then they can always apply for a judicial review.Initially expensive but if the case is that shakey in the first place then the UKBA will give in fairly quickly.

Accountability is fine and dandy but unworkable in any system where volume exceeds the means to maintain a standard worthy of the highest ideal. The American way is perhaps the best: everyone is assumed to intend permanent settlement unless they can prove otherwise.

Some interesting points. I agree with a lot of what you say, but I think one also has to look at the reasons why so many family visit visas are refused, and then why so many appeals are won. Withdrawing the right of appeal would certainly make things easier for UKBA, but there should surely be some recourse against a visa refusal where family is involved. I take your point about judicial review, but the grounds for JR are fairly limited, mainly to points of law, rather than the decision itself which was based on the balance of probabilities. Yes, family visits may account for 60% of worldwide refusals, but then 50 % of those that appeal against the decision are allowed. Maybe the whole system needs reviewing, but not to the extent of taking away the right of appeal. The UKBA will get their wish anyway, as applicants will pay 76 GBP for a new application, rather than 80 GBP for an appeal. And, the 4 GBP difference in costs will change quite quickly, I'm sure. Soon it could easily be 76 GBP for a re-application and 100 GBP ( or more) for an appeal !

[bobrussell]

As a non-betting man I would bet a months income on the fees for appeals rising astronomically once introduced. The justification will be that appeals are very expensive not that the decision making needs to be improved!!

I still broadly support charges for appeals but only with an ability to award realistic costs if an appeal is granted.

Just looked on the Ministry Of Justice website and as far as I can see there is no mention of awarding costs at all! I may have missed it but they are making sure it is not easy to find!

Edited December 19, 2011 by bobrussell

[VisasPlus]

From what I can find, it looks like there will still be an ECM Review of the decison, but that review will not be triggered until the appeal fee has been paid. Now the good part - if the ECM overturns the refusal decision, there is no refund of the appeal fee, even though there will be no appeal and the visa will be issued ! See this:

Appeal Fees Applicants can elect to have their appeal heard on the papers or at an oral hearing. Fees have been set at £80 for a paper consideration and £140 for an oral hearing. Applicants may pay their appeal fee by card online (at the same time as submitting their appeal), by providing card details on the appeal form, or by requesting details of how to make a bank to bank transfer when they lodge their appeal. Applicants may ask another person to pay the fee on their behalf using their payment card details, with their permission.

If paying by card, payment will be taken prior to HMCTS registering the appeal. If paying by bank to bank transfer HMCTS will ensure funds are cleared before Post is notified of the appeal. On receipt of an appeal Post should therefore be satisfied that HMCTS has collected, exempted or deferred a fee where one is due, and process the appeal as normal.

Unless a payment has been made or taken in error, the MoJ will not refund any fees paid. Specifically, the following appeals will not be refunded:

• Those deemed to be out of time
• Those rules invalid
• Appeals withdrawn by the appellant before the hearing
• Appeals conceded at ECM Appeal Review

Applicants can pay for and lodge an appeal on-line at www.justice.gov.uk but hardcopy appeals will continue to be accepted by HMCTS.

[bobrussell]

From what I can find, it looks like there will still be an ECM Review of the decison, but that review will not be triggered until the appeal fee has been paid. Now the good part - if the ECM overturns the refusal decision, there is no refund of the appeal fee, even though there will be no appeal and the visa will be issued ! See this:

Appeal Fees Applicants can elect to have their appeal heard on the papers or at an oral hearing. Fees have been set at £80 for a paper consideration and £140 for an oral hearing. Applicants may pay their appeal fee by card online (at the same time as submitting their appeal), by providing card details on the appeal form, or by requesting details of how to make a bank to bank transfer when they lodge their appeal. Applicants may ask another person to pay the fee on their behalf using their payment card details, with their permission.

If paying by card, payment will be taken prior to HMCTS registering the appeal. If paying by bank to bank transfer HMCTS will ensure funds are cleared before Post is notified of the appeal. On receipt of an appeal Post should therefore be satisfied that HMCTS has collected, exempted or deferred a fee where one is due, and process the appeal as normal.

Unless a payment has been made or taken in error, the MoJ will not refund any fees paid. Specifically, the following appeals will not be refunded:

• Those deemed to be out of time
• Those rules invalid
• Appeals withdrawn by the appellant before the hearing
• Appeals conceded at ECM Appeal Review

Applicants can pay for and lodge an appeal on-line at www.justice.gov.uk but hardcopy appeals will continue to be accepted by HMCTS.

Mixed feelings about this. I am happy for a further charge to be made if an application is referred to the ECM because the applicant has provided more information. The argument here is that it is a cheap way of modifying an application without the need for a new application and fee to be submitted.

If an ECO makes a mess of processing an application then it is hardly fair for the applicant to pay to have it done properly! What a crazy system!

[VisasPlus]

From what I can find, it looks like there will still be an ECM Review of the decison, but that review will not be triggered until the appeal fee has been paid. Now the good part - if the ECM overturns the refusal decision, there is no refund of the appeal fee, even though there will be no appeal and the visa will be issued ! See this:

Appeal Fees Applicants can elect to have their appeal heard on the papers or at an oral hearing. Fees have been set at £80 for a paper consideration and £140 for an oral hearing. Applicants may pay their appeal fee by card online (at the same time as submitting their appeal), by providing card details on the appeal form, or by requesting details of how to make a bank to bank transfer when they lodge their appeal. Applicants may ask another person to pay the fee on their behalf using their payment card details, with their permission.

If paying by card, payment will be taken prior to HMCTS registering the appeal. If paying by bank to bank transfer HMCTS will ensure funds are cleared before Post is notified of the appeal. On receipt of an appeal Post should therefore be satisfied that HMCTS has collected, exempted or deferred a fee where one is due, and process the appeal as normal.

Unless a payment has been made or taken in error, the MoJ will not refund any fees paid. Specifically, the following appeals will not be refunded:

• Those deemed to be out of time
• Those rules invalid
• Appeals withdrawn by the appellant before the hearing
• Appeals conceded at ECM Appeal Review

Applicants can pay for and lodge an appeal on-line at www.justice.gov.uk but hardcopy appeals will continue to be accepted by HMCTS.

Mixed feelings about this. I am happy for a further charge to be made if an application is referred to the ECM because the applicant has provided more information. The argument here is that it is a cheap way of modifying an application without the need for a new application and fee to be submitted.

If an ECO makes a mess of processing an application then it is hardly fair for the applicant to pay to have it done properly! What a crazy system!

Not strictly correct. For instance, we know of one refusal decison ( it was included on a thread here) where the ECO refused on the grounds that the applicant had produced an A1 English test certificate from a tester that ( according to the ECO ) wasn't on the UKBA approved list. It transpired that the tester was in fact on the list, and the ECO's decision was wrong. So, the applicant didn't actually provide any more information. The original information was correct. But, in order to get that wrong decision changed at an ECM review the applicant will now have to pay 80 GBP or 140 GBP ( soon to rise higher, so not necessarily a cheap way of "modifying" a decision ) for the ECM to reverse the decision. That cannot be fair or just.

UKBA will, no doubt, say that this has nothing to do with them as the Ministry of Justice has implemented the charges for ECM reviews, and the fees will go to the MoJ. That is dodging the issue. I had hoped, and have said in my earlier posts, that I sort of welcomed the new charges as I thought it might make ECOs and ECMs more accountable for their decisions if there was a financial aspect to poor decision making ( costs will be awarded against UKBA if the appeal is allowed). But this is the complete opposite. It now means, in theory, that all applications ( appealable applications, that is ) could be refused for any reason at all, and then reversed at an ECM review after the applicant has paid the appeal fee. UKBA will not have to let their poor, or wrong, decisions go to appeal, and can just reverse them after the appeal fee has been paid, again with no accountability, but with a profit for the Treasury. I'm not suggesting that this is intended, but it makes a mockery of the whole system. In many cases it will actually be better if the decision goes to appeal, and the appeal is allowed. At least then the applicant will get his appeal fee returned in awarded costs. In my example above, for instance, the decision overturned at ECM review still means that the applicant loses his appeal fee, even though the ECO made a wrong ( not a judgmental , but factual) decision. Letting it go to appeal ( where the appeal must be allowed as the A1 tester is on the approved list ) means that the applicant is awarded costs, and gets his appeal fee back.

I will make my feelings known to the UKBA at the British Embassy in Bangkok. I would hope that other will do the same.

[theoldgit]

I can see little point in a person in a person who has had application for a six month visa to visit family in the UK incorrectly refused. To get the ECM to revisit the decision would cost GBP80, about THB38,800, whilst a fresh application addressing the "issues" would only cost THB3,800.

I suspect that most short term visit visas are for a specific reason, like a wedding, the appeal process will take take time, so far easier to stump up a second fee.

I'm not suggesting that UKBA officials would take advantage of this, but there seems little or no incentive for them to get it right first time.

Of course in the event of a longer term or settlement visa my arguement goes out of the, but I will be really interested to see out this pans out