Family Migration Changes (Uk) - Impact Assessment

[VisasPlus]

I apologise for starting a new thread, but this is on the subject of the Impact Assessment, on the changes to the immigration rules, that has been published. It is well worth reading, and this is the link :

http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/sitecontent/documents/news/fam-impact-state.pdf

Some nuggets from this document are:

Benefits

Direct – ongoing benefit. Increased UKBA fee income – there will be UKBA income effects associated with any increase in LTR applications due to the longer probationary period to ILR. Fees for main applicants and dependants at different stages are available on the UKBA website and are set out in Annex 4. Under the volume assumptions set out above, we estimate that UKBA fee income will increase by around £245 million (PV) over 10 years.

These are the "extra" fees that will have to be paid at the 2.5 year stage, for Further Leave to Remain. Dare I suggest that the considerable increase in revenue for UKBA might have had some impact on the new 5 - year qualifying period for ILR ?

Ending Family Visit appeals

Increased UKBA fee income – there will be an increase in UKBA fee income if those unable to appeal reapply. The fee for visit visa applications is £76. Assuming 50 per cent of those unable to appeal reapply, there will be around 4,100 additional visit visa applications, at an estimated benefit of £1 million over 10 years. This benefit is uncertain and depends on the behavioural response of family visitors.

An extra 1 million GBP benefit in application fees from applicants who ( have to ) re-apply ?

And this one is a real stunner. This is a 60 page document ( the Impact Assessment ). This is the paragraph concerning the possible impact on UK sponsors :

Impacts on individuals (residents) – there may be negative impacts on individuals prevented from sponsoring the settlement of a partner in the UK. It is not possible to accurately quantify this effect but it could be significant.

" there may be negative impacts..............................." !!!!!! One sentence in a 60 page document ? That is, in my opinion insulting and shameful, and a whole lot of other words I could come up with.

As far as I can see, the Impact Assessment has these figures on the difference that these changes will, or might, make to net migration to the UK :

Impacts on net migration

The MAC has estimated that there is a scaling factor between visa grants in the family routes and IPS migration figures for those accompany/joining another person of around 0.4. Applying this ratio to the expected reduction in visa volumes might suggest a reduction in IPS migration of around 7,500 to 10,200, with a central estimate of 9,000 per annum, as a result of all of these changes to the family route. This estimate is uncertain and subject to wide error margins, and may depend on the behavioural responses of migrants and sponsors.

Well, that's going to make a big difference to the current 250,000 Net migration figures.

[bangkockney]

Thanks VP, will skim when I can.

At least they did one this time

[7by7]

I apologise for starting a new thread

No problem, VP.

I ask members to restrict comments in this topic to the impact assessment and it's contents. Please post comments and questions on the changes themselves in Proposed Uk Settlement Visa Changes.

[theoldgit]

I’ve skimmed through the impact assessment Tony and have reached the conclusion that the whole thing has been instigated by the number crunchers.

Ministers are aware that the great British public is “anti immigration” and these proposals will give them a quick hit without addressing the issue, it will also provide an increase in income into the Treasury coffers.

I suspect the main target is the Indian sub continent, though those wishing to return home from places like Thailand, US, Canada and the like may well be caught up in the net.

I don’t intend returning to the UK with my good lady, though never say never, and I think I could meet the income requirements, though there would clearly be an ongoing cost.

The issue for me is the family visit, I realise the requirements are virtually the same as a standard visa, but at the moment it comes with the safety net of an appeal process.

The assessment states there a very high rate of refusals overturned on appeal, and that the cost is too much, it doesn’t mention that if the applications were properly considered in the first there would be no need for an appeal to be submitted.

I suspect the number crunchers have had a field day with this; there is clearly no incentive for ECO’s to make a correct decision in the first place, as the assessment indicates there will be a steady income stream from those who re-apply in order to correct the bad decision. Indeed if I were a cynic I might believe that posts would have a target of refused visas to increase income.

Edited June 25, 2012 by theoldgit

[VisasPlus]

I’ve skimmed through the impact assessment Tony and have reached the conclusion that the whole thing has been instigated by the number crunchers.

Ministers are aware that the great British public is “anti immigration” and these proposals will give them a quick hit without addressing the issue, it will also provide an increase in income into the Treasury coffers.

I suspect the main target is the Indian sub continent, though those wishing to return home from places like Thailand, US, Canada and the like may well be caught up in the net.

I don’t intend returning to the UK with my good lady, though never say never, and I think I could meet the income requirements, though there would clearly be an ongoing cost.

The issue for me is the family visit, I realise the requirements are virtually the same as a standard visa, but at the moment it comes with the safety net of an appeal process.

The assessment states there a very high rate of refusals overturned on appeal, and that the cost is too much, it doesn’t mention that if the applications were properly considered in the first there would be no need for an appeal to be submitted.

I suspect the number crunchers have had a field day with this; there is clearly no incentive for ECO’s to make a correct decision in the first place, as the assessment indicates there will be a steady income stream from those who re-apply in order to correct the bad decision. Indeed if I were a cynic I might believe that posts would have a target of refused visas to increase income.

You are right on many points, John. For instance, on removing the right of appeal in family visit applications - the consultation document said ( amongst other things) this:

The main themes emerging from the write-in answers were that:

•

The appeal right needs to be retained as ECOs make bad decisions or may make a mistake (198)

•

All applications should retain the right to appeal (156)

•

Certain reasons for visiting should have a right to appeal, for example a visit following a bereavement, to see someone who is terminally ill, or for weddings and births (62)

(967 people answered ‘yes’ to this questions and 631 left a comment)

Amongst the narrative responses, there was a widespread view that the right of appeal should be retained in its entirety. Some added that there was little or no evidence of abuse of the family visit route or that there was no justification for the right to appeal to be removed:

The right to appeal should be retained in its entirety. We do not agree that the figures given in the consultation document in relation to evidence provided at appeal stage indicates any ‘abuse’ of the family visit application process. Indeed, the suggestion that applicants knowingly fail to submit the evidence required because they can do so at appeal makes little sense given the UKBA’s assertion that most applicants seek to enter the UK for visits at a particular time and / or for a particular occasion. If the UKBA wishes to reduce the number of appeals against refusals to family visit visas it should focus on improving the quality of decision making and the guidance given to applicants and decision makers.

(Women’s organisation)

Many respondents felt that the removal of appeal rights would allow poor decision making to go uncorrected:

We are strongly opposed to any removal of the right to appeal in family visa applications. It is a necessary safeguard against malpractice, negligence and discrimination. This is especially relevant in a context where a high number of cases are successful at appeal suggesting that poor quality decision making is widespread.

(Women’s organisations )

Having considered the responses in the consultation process, what did the government do ? Removed the right of appeal, of course. So why did they bother asking ? The government were informed by UKBA that they (UKBA) were losing more than 40% of family visit appeals. UKBA were obviously worried that, if they continued to lose appeals ( after charging for appeals was introduced) then they would be paying out money in "costs" when appeals were allowed. They could not, of course, allow that to happen. So, the easiest method of saving money was to remove the right of appeal, and hope that refused applicants would re-apply ( thus getting a new application fee ! ). This is, of course, in addition to the loss of free ECM reviews. Whereas previously, when an appeal was submitted at the Embassy, an ECM review was carried out ( often leading to a reversal of the refusal decision), the charging system now requires that the appeal is submitted in the UK and the appeal fee paid. Only then does the ECM review come into play. If the ECM review overturns the original refusal decision, there is no refund of the appeal fee, even though no appeal will take place ! So, in theory, UKBA could refuse every application that has a right of appeal, then, once the appeal fee is received, overturn the refusal decision. What a potential money-maker ! I'm not saying that there is an intent to do this, but there is nothing to stop it being done, and no recourse if it is done.

[bobrussell]

Quote:

Certain reasons for visiting should have a right to appeal, for example a visit following a bereavement, to see someone who is terminally ill, or for weddings and births (62)

(967 people answered ‘yes’ to this questions and 631 left a comment)

By the time this got to the UKBA it has been spun to:

Between July and October 2011, the Home Office carried out a consultation on whether applicants refused a family visit visa should have a full right of appeal. 39 per cent of respondents felt that a full right of appeal should not be retained for this category and 28 per cent felt that it should. 33 per cent didn't comment.

[dracos]

There must be some recourse to legal challenges if the ECOs are making incorrect decisions based upon the evidence in front of them and not applying the laws/rules correctly.

If the refusal is due to not providing full supporting evidence then fair enough the applicant is at fault but when the ECO is at fault they should be held accountable for their poor decisions - all other respected professionals are held liable for their mistakes!

For me an analogy is a builder contracted to build a house deliberately does not do it properly with the intention to then charge extra fees to correct their original shoddy work. I don't think the majority of people would willingly just accept this, pay them the extra and continue on as if this is normal practice.

[theoldgit]

There must be some recourse to legal challenges if the ECOs are making incorrect decisions based upon the evidence in front of them and not applying the laws/rules correctly.

Yes, but you and I know that's a time consuming and expensive operation, a fact that will not be lost on the number crunchers.

I agree that if in the case of an incomplete or unsound application the ECO would be right in refusing the application, but I'm still worried that there will be no incentive for an ECO to get it right. In theory if an ECO makes too many incorrect decisions the fact should be highlighted during the annual staff appraisal, so by doing away with appeals, or at least making them more difficult, means that the fact an ECO is making too incorrect decisions would not come to light.

VP will be able to tell us is the ECM should pick this up, or maybe a spot check by John Vine's team.

[VisasPlus]

There must be some recourse to legal challenges if the ECOs are making incorrect decisions based upon the evidence in front of them and not applying the laws/rules correctly.

Yes, but you and I know that's a time consuming and expensive operation, a fact that will not be lost on the number crunchers.

I agree that if in the case of an incomplete or unsound application the ECO would be right in refusing the application, but I'm still worried that there will be no incentive for an ECO to get it right. In theory if an ECO makes too many incorrect decisions the fact should be highlighted during the annual staff appraisal, so by doing away with appeals, or at least making them more difficult, means that the fact an ECO is making too incorrect decisions would not come to light.

VP will be able to tell us is the ECM should pick this up, or maybe a spot check by John Vine's team.

ECMs should pick up poor quality decision making if they carry out their "service standard" , or target, of checking 25% of all refusal decisions. Unfortunately, if you read the latest report by John Vine ( the Independent Chief Inspector ) on the 4 visa posts that were inspected recently in Africa, you will see that these targets are not being met ( which means the refusal decisions are not subjected to the required quality control ) due to lack of pressure of work. For instance, the ICI wrote this about the visa section in Abuja, Nigeria :

In Abuja we found that quality checking mechanisms were not being operated in line with Agency guidance. Prior to our onsite visit we had been led to believe that ECM checks of the requisite levels were made. However, during the inspection ECMs told us they did not always have time to carry

out the expected numbers of checks. The Operations Manager confirmed that the ECMs were not currently carrying out the full range of reviews required due to pressure of work. This is consistent with the problems on decision quality we found in our file sampling. This was of particular concern to us given that following our first inspection of Abuja we recommended that the Agency “uses Entry Clearance Manager Review Guidance Tools to quality assure issues and refusals of entry clearance”. Staff also raised concerns regarding insufficient and inconsistent feedback on the quality of their work

from ECMs which limited opportunities for learning.

We will see if the Bangkok Embassy is carrying out the required checks when John Vine's report on his recent visit to Bangkok is published.

dracos is right when he says that ECOs should be accountable for their decisions, but unfortunately they aren't. I honestly can't remember hearing about any ECO being sacked , or sent home, due to poor performance. Maybe nobody reads the annual appraisals carried out by managers.

Edited June 26, 2012 by VisasPlus