The Chief Inspectors Report On Entry Clearance Posts

[VisasPlus]

This is one you don't want to miss. The latest report from the Independent Chief Inspector on the performance of ECOs, ECMs and visa issuing posts. There is too much content too include here, but I will give a couple of snippets. The first is from a case study in Bangkok. The report says:

Case study 4 – Bangkok:

The applicant:

• submitted a General Visitor application on 13 November 2009, to visit their partner in the UK, with supporting documents including i) evidence of their sponsor’s financial circumstances; ii) a letter from their sponsor describing their relationship;

• was refused entry clearance on 18 November 2009 with one of the grounds for refusal cited as failure to demonstrate a subsisting relationship with their sponsor.

Chief Inspector’s comments:

• There is no requirement in the Immigration Rules for General Visitors to demonstrate a subsisting relationship with their sponsor.

How many applications have been refused on those grounds !!!!

The second snippet:

The applicant:

• applied for entry clearance as a General Visitor on 1 June 2010;

• stated their sponsor would meet all of the costs of the visit;

• was refused entry clearance on 4 June 2010 because there was no evidence their sponsor would meet all the costs of the visit;

• reapplied for entry clearance as a General Visitor on 24 September 2010, with evidence to show their UK sponsor would meet all the costs of their stay in the UK;

• was refused entry clearance by a different Entry Clearance Officer on 27 September 2010 for failure to provide evidence of their personal financial circumstances – something that was not mentioned as grounds for refusal following the earlier application, despite the fact this evidence was not submitted with the earlier application.

Chief Inspector’s comments

• The applicant was subsequently refused on grounds which were not mentioned in the original refusal notice, and would therefore have not been aware that evidence of personal financial circumstances was required – particularly as their sponsor was funding the visit.

• It is unfair that the applicant was subsequently refused on grounds which they were not made aware of as part of the original refusal decision.

We see this all the time from the Embassy in Bangkok. Paul from ThaiVisaExpress will confirm this, as he had a typical case just recently. Briefly, that was a child settlement case that was refused on the fact that the mother in UK did not have "legal custody" of the applicant. She returned to Thailand to obtain this in the courts, and then re-applied on behalf of her child. The application was refused on four new grounds. It is good to see that this sharp practice has been recognised for what it is - moving the goalposts ! The appeal against the first refusal ( the legal custody) was, in fact, allowed at appeal, so the applicant "lost" the second application fee.

There is a lot in the ICI's report, far too much to comment on here. The ICI made three recommendations, which are:

"We recommend that the UK Border Agency:

• Ensures that when applicants have followed published guidance, but Entry Clearance officers require further information to make a decision, applicants are given an opportunity to provide this.
  
• Acts immediately to ensure that supporting documents relevant to entry clearance decisions are retained on file, to provide a transparent decision-making process.
  
• Strengthens the quality-assurance methods currently used by Entry Clearance Managers, to create a more effective and robust decision-making process."
  

Please read the full report. Lots for discussion there ! Here is the link to the report:

http://icinspector.independent.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/Entry-Clearance-Decision-Making_A-Global-Review.pdf

[ThaiVisaExpress]

My thoughts on the UK/BA in Bangkok are well documented this is great news Tony .

[7by7]

Interesting reading, indeed.

I have, so far, only skimmed through the document, but four points which struck me are:-

• It would appear that in many cases the ECM review merely acts as a rubber stamp, as the ECM has not noticed mistakes made by the original ECO. One has to wonder how thorough ECMs are being.
  
• The inspector appears to have identified cases where visas were issued which shouldn't have been; mistakes work both ways.
  
• Although Bangkok is far from perfect it does appear to be low to mid range in terms of errors made. Which is no consolation to someone wrongly refused, of course.
  
• It seems that some posts request additional information and/or documents from applicants before making a decision. Personally I believe that this should be standard practice where there is an element of doubt, rather than simply refusing; which seems to be the usual practice in Bangkok in such cases.
  

A system which relies on people to make judgments is always going to contain errors, but to paraphrase Churchill; the present system is the worst there is, apart from any of the alternatives.

[VisasPlus]

Interesting reading, indeed.

I have, so far, only skimmed through the document, but four points which struck me are:-

• It would appear that in many cases the ECM review merely acts as a rubber stamp, as the ECM has not noticed mistakes made by the original ECO. One has to wonder how thorough ECMs are being.
  
• The inspector appears to have identified cases where visas were issued which shouldn't have been; mistakes work both ways.
  
• Although Bangkok is far from perfect it does appear to be low to mid range in terms of errors made. Which is no consolation to someone wrongly refused, of course.
  
• It seems that some posts request additional information and/or documents from applicants before making a decision. Personally I believe that this should be standard practice where there is an element of doubt, rather than simply refusing; which seems to be the usual practice in Bangkok in such cases.
  

A system which relies on people to make judgments is always going to contain errors, but to paraphrase Churchill; the present system is the worst there is, apart from any of the alternatives.

The point about requesting further information is well made. At one time ECOs had three choices when dealing with an application - issue, refuse, or make further enquiries. Then UKBA, the Home Office, or whatever you want to call them, decided that there should really only be two choices - issue or refuse, and that the decision should be "evidence based", that is made on the documentation provided with the application. The decision to not make further enquiries was based, I believe, on the fact that further enquiries are time consuming, and therefore resource intensive in terms of manpower and finance. We know that ECOs do make further enquiries from time to time, but not neccessarily to assist the applicant. More often than not, those enquiries are to try to show that the applicant is not being totally honest. For instance, an ECO doesn't phone an employer to really confirm that the applicant is employed, but rather to prove that they aren't. Of course, that does mean that some of the results of those enquiries do go in the applicant's favour.

I agree that further enquiries should be the norm, In fact, natural justice demands it. The ICI points out that applications shouldn't be refused for lack of information if the applicant has never actually been informed what information he should provide ! But, I also think that all visa applicants should be interviewed, and there's very little chance of that !

[7by7]

I'm not sure that I agree with all applicant's being interviewed. This can only cause delay, unreasonable in many visit cases, or would mean increasing the establishment in post; more cost, higher fees.

Maybe the option should be; grant or interview and then only refuse if the interview fails to answer the ECOs concerns.

Certainly, a refusal based on missing documents which were not asked for is unjust.

I still remember my first experience of the visa section in Bangkok, back in 2000.

I had spent some time in Thailand, met the woman who is now my wife and we were getting serious. We thought it would be a good idea for her to come to the UK and meet my family; not unusual.

I was a complete visa naif, so phoned the embassy, no VAC in those days, and asked how long a visit application would take.. The reply was that 95% of visit applications were decided on the same day.

So, we turned up at Wireless Road, collected the forms in that tiny office in the gateway, filled them in and handed them over with the fees for my girlfriend, now wife, and her daughter.

After a long wait we were called to the counter and told to come back for an interview in three weeks time. I told the woman who spoke to us what I had been told on the phone and she replied "Most visit applications are from business or respectable people, your girlfriend is neither!" I at this point understood the need for a thick pane of security glass between her and the public. (I later discovered that this particular woman, who I wont name, was well known for her abrupt manner and an apparent belief that it was her duty to protect the UK from the corrupting influence of Thai women!) We were given a letter with the appointment date and a list of documents to bring to the interview.

Anyway, we turned up on the due date with all the documents they had requested, she was interviewed and refused on reason to return grounds. Unusually, the ECO who interviewed her agreed to speak to me afterwards, though I had to wait for about three hours until he had completed his last interview of the day. I told him that she had to return by a certain date as her daughter was due back to school then. He replied that I had not provided any evidence that the girl attended school. I showed him the document list we had been given, which did not ask for this information and he pointed out the note at the bottom which stated that documents not listed may be required. When I showed him that it also said that were this the case then the applicant would be given time to produce them and that I could be back with the required documents within an hour he said; "I've made my decision and it is final." He then left the room.

When she next visited the embassy a few months later she was now my wife and handing in her and her daughter's settlement applications. I was not with her this time as I had returned to the UK. She was spoken to politely and her interview lasted about 5 minutes; the only question she remembers being "What are his parents' names?" To which she replied "I don't know, he calls them 'Mum' and 'Dad'!"

[Eff1n2ret]

Just a couple of observations on this interesting thread:-

- " There is no requirement in the Immigration Rules for General Visitors to demonstrate a subsisting relationship with their sponsor."

I suspect that this is no more than a careless use of terminology by ECOs who also habitually deal with settlement applications. On several occasions when I interviewed Thai females in the UK, mostly arrested in brothels, they would tell of travelling to the UK with a boyfriend who had dumped them after a few weeks. Of course I had no way of verifying this, or any particular need to do so as they usually freely admitted illegal entry or overstaying and were removed in a few days. However, I would say that it is a perfectly proper part of an ECO's consideration of a visit application to question how well the applicant knows the sponsor and refuse if there is reasonable doubt. I would expect refusal notices in such cases in the future to be worded on the lines of " I am not satisfied that your connection with the sponsor is such that it is credible that you would be visiting the UK together/ visiting him/her in the UK..."

As far as ECM reviews is concerned, this points up a difference between ECO and IO decisions. It is a formal requirement that any refusal of entry or service of illegal entry papers by a UK Immigration Officer must be authorised by a superior officer, usually a CIO. There's a good reason for this, as the service of the notice triggers powers to remove and therefore detain the individual. If I remember correctly, ECOs require no prior authority to refuse most applications. Although an entry clearance refusal doesn't result in anything so draconian as detention, if retrospective reviews aren't doing what they are supposed to, then prior reference to the ECM might be a necessary step. Of course, this would slow down the production line....

[7by7]

if retrospective reviews aren't doing what they are supposed to, then prior reference to the ECM might be a necessary step. Of course, this would slow down the production line....

Indeed, and people already complain that the process takes too long!

If all refusals were to be reviewed without unduly increasing the processing time this would mean increasing the number of ECM's; more cost to the UKBA. As both this and the last government have a declared intention that the UKBA must be cost neutral this would inevitability result in an increase in visa fees.

I fully accept that anyone who has been refused in error or unfairly is the victim of an injustice, I've been in that position myself, and that all possible and reasonable steps should be taken to ensure that this does not happen.

However, before anyone who is beginning the process of obtaining a UK visa starts to panic it should be remembered that, in Bangkok at least, the success rate for all applications is consistently around 90%.

[VisasPlus]

if retrospective reviews aren't doing what they are supposed to, then prior reference to the ECM might be a necessary step. Of course, this would slow down the production line....

Indeed, and people already complain that the process takes too long!

If all refusals were to be reviewed without unduly increasing the processing time this would mean increasing the number of ECM's; more cost to the UKBA. As both this and the last government have a declared intention that the UKBA must be cost neutral this would inevitability result in an increase in visa fees.

I fully accept that anyone who has been refused in error or unfairly is the victim of an injustice, I've been in that position myself, and that all possible and reasonable steps should be taken to ensure that this does not happen.

However, before anyone who is beginning the process of obtaining a UK visa starts to panic it should be remembered that, in Bangkok at least, the success rate for all applications is consistently around 90%.

Isn't it a little bit more basic than that ? It seems, from the ICI's findings, that ECOs ( globally) make a lot of mistakes, and disregard or misinterpret their own guidance, and this is compounded by ECMs failing to pick up these mistakes. Maybe the ECO ( and ECM ) training is not good enough, or UKBA's selection procedures for staff overseas needs looking at ? I hate to bang on about it, but the lack of ultimate accountability, and apparently, no working " checks and balances", leads to falling standards as there is no "come-back" for poor decision making. John, both you and I know of ECOs sent back to UK from post, but none of them were sent home because of poor decision making. I honestly can't see things improving when, in Bangkok for instance, UKBA are taking on locally engaged ECOs rather than post experienced officers from the UK. I would assume that this a global policy. I'm not saying that locally engaged ECOs will not be as good as UK based ECOs, but they probably won't have much, if any, experience of the job. And, it is a job where decisions affect people' lives.

Edited December 27, 2011 by VisasPlus

[7by7]

Can you just clarify something for me, Tony.

By "locally engaged ECOs" do you mean that they are now employing Thais as ECOs; or are they employing Brits who happen to live in Bangkok? I have always understood that whilst the entry clearance section did employ Thai staff as clerks, interpreters etc. all ECOs were British; which I firmly believe should definitely be the case.

[Eff1n2ret]

Can you just clarify something for me, Tony.

By "locally engaged ECOs" do you mean that they are now employing Thais as ECOs; or are they employing Brits who happen to live in Bangkok? I have always understood that whilst the entry clearance section did employ Thai staff as clerks, interpreters etc. all ECOs were British; which I firmly believe should definitely be the case.

The latest trawl about which I recently received information requires candidates to be British citizens.

[VisasPlus]

Can you just clarify something for me, Tony.

By "locally engaged ECOs" do you mean that they are now employing Thais as ECOs; or are they employing Brits who happen to live in Bangkok? I have always understood that whilst the entry clearance section did employ Thai staff as clerks, interpreters etc. all ECOs were British; which I firmly believe should definitely be the case.

I think, if I remember correctly, applicants had to be a national of one of the "friendly" countries - UK, Canada, Australia, NZ. I may be wrong, and maybe it was restricted to Brits, but I don't think so. They will be employed at LE2 grade. I thought about it, but was of the opinion that I wouldn't get very far in view of the possible "conflict of interest" !

[VisasPlus]

Can you just clarify something for me, Tony.

By "locally engaged ECOs" do you mean that they are now employing Thais as ECOs; or are they employing Brits who happen to live in Bangkok? I have always understood that whilst the entry clearance section did employ Thai staff as clerks, interpreters etc. all ECOs were British; which I firmly believe should definitely be the case.

The latest trawl about which I recently received information requires candidates to be British citizens.

John,

Just saw your added post. You are probably right. I didn't keep the trawl. They are LE posts, though.

[theoldgit]

The positions were advertised for nationals of the UK, EU/EEA, Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the US. So the job could have gone to a Latvian, Pole, Romanian as well as a Brit.

[Eff1n2ret]

The positions were advertised for nationals of the UK, EU/EEA, Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the US. So the job could have gone to a Latvian, Pole, Romanian as well as a Brit.

Ah well, shows how little notice I took of it. I can't even check back as I've already deleted the email - although it wasn't specific to Bangkok, just a general trawl of ex-IS staff for extra bodies to deal with the anticipated volume of traffic to the Olympics next summer.

[theoldgit]

I was refering to a local advert for four locally employed ECO's rather than the general trawl for former IO's.

[VisasPlus]

The positions were advertised for nationals of the UK, EU/EEA, Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the US. So the job could have gone to a Latvian, Pole, Romanian as well as a Brit.

Ah well, shows how little notice I took of it. I can't even check back as I've already deleted the email - although it wasn't specific to Bangkok, just a general trawl of ex-IS staff for extra bodies to deal with the anticipated volume of traffic to the Olympics next summer.

John,

It wasn't the UK trawl. It was a local trawl from the Embassy in Bangkok, as TOG says, for 4 LE ECOs

[bobrussell]

I am not at all surprised but it is a great shame it has taken so long to achieve a bit of common sense. It was not that long ago that it was fairly routine to interview prior to rejection in most cases.

Re-introducing an element of common sense and fairness is long overdue IMO especially for visit visas.