Should The Rules Change For Visit Visa's?

[Rj 81]

I think there is some contradiction going on with regard to visit visa's being issued, or not as in most cases.

Firstly, I'd love to know where they get the figures saying only 4.7% of visit visas are refused,

Yeah right.

Secondly, the ECO's consistantly use "no reason to return to Thailand" as a reason for refusal. However, some people are granted visas when they do have no reason to return to Thailand, trust or credibility being the over riding factor.

I think there should be a set criteria that applicants need to match to. There's too much left open to interpritation with regard as to how the ECO makes there decision, thus resulting in genuine applicants being refused.

What do you think?

[spacebass]

I think there is some contradiction going on with regard to visit visa's being issued, or not as in most cases.

Firstly, I'd love to know where they get the figures saying only 4.7% of visit visas are refused,

Yeah right.

Secondly, the ECO's consistantly use "no reason to return to Thailand" as a reason for refusal. However, some people are granted visas when they do have no reason to return to Thailand, trust or credibility being the over riding factor.

I think there should be a set criteria that applicants need to match to. There's too much left open to interpritation with regard as to how the ECO makes there decision, thus resulting in genuine applicants being refused.

What do you think?

It was reported in the Sun newspaper, about September, last year that out of the thousands of male applicants for a visitor visa to visit the UK from Libya not a single one was called to the UK Embassy for interview, despite Libya being a hotbed of Moslem extremism and no doubt being full of poor people.

This illustrates that the government visa scam is a self serving process providing a policy filter and is actually not based as a whole on individual merit of applications but a means of implementing blanket selective government policies.

You will therfore get no review as this is the process the UK Government chooses to implement.

Any legal process with no independent appeal is more primitive than would be allowed to exist on British soil.

It is a bit like Guatomino Bay prison camp in Cuba. Move it offshore and we can utilise Anarchy! (Anarchy = no law) even though we are pretending to fight it.

[the gent]

How delightfully dotty these posts truly are. Better than reading the letters pages in either the Nation or the Post.

Keep it coming chaps but do try to remember ' if a refusal is likely to offend, don't ask'.

[Rj 81]

How delightfully dotty these posts truly are. Better than reading the letters pages in either the Nation or the Post.

Keep it coming chaps but do try to remember ' if a refusal is likely to offend, don't ask'.

In my OP where does it say I have taken offence? I am asking your opinions on a subject, if you have not got one don't bother posting.

[lamonster]

I can only talk from my own experience with settlement visa - but what I have to say can be applied to VV to.

From my own investigations (talking to various people including a couple of solicitors that specialise in immigration law) into how the whole UK visa thing works since my fiancee was refused has lead me to believe the ECOs are more often than not trying to prove one way or another something that is abstract i.e. someones intent to go back to thailand say, there's no proof involved for the most part - just a balance of probabilities (that's the sort of lingo in the appeal stuff from my lawyer by the way)

You could put the same person with the same documents in front of 5 different ECOs and I bet that you would get 3 refusals and 2 acceptances - based on my feeling that the ECO is basically looking for a reason to refuse the application from the outset - I am not saying that it is official policy but from a lot of what has been said on this forum in the past I tend to get that feeling - after all the ECOs are only human - if they fell out with the mrs the night before then you gf will get it with both barrels - and I sure a lot of people have heard that getting an interview Fri PM is an almost certain way to get a visa as the Beer beckons

End of the day the ECOs have a sneaky joker card they can pull anytime they want to - insufficient reason to return. Your average joe public in Thailand even if they have 10s of thousands of £ in their banks and a fairly ok job - e.g. earning 20K bhat a month, and property - they [eco] could just as easily say that if they do a runner in UK - they would be able to earn say £3 an hour, 40hrs a week doing the dishes in Thai restaurant appx = 35,000 bhat a month i.e. almost double their current salary. And just because said Thai person has 1 million in their thai bank account - wouldn't stop them from transferring the money to UK via Western Union say over 12 months or more.

What I am saying in a very long winded way (my style I am affraid) is that there has to be a better way to assess an application. And from what I can see if an ECO in BKK messes up a decision on a VV - there's no come back (at least with settlement visas you have the luxary of an appeal) then nothing will change and the Visa Lottery will continue.

Just my 2 cents worth.

[spacebass]

I can only talk from my own experience with settlement visa - but what I have to say can be applied to VV to.

From my own investigations (talking to various people including a couple of solicitors that specialise in immigration law) into how the whole UK visa thing works since my fiancee was refused has lead me to believe the ECOs are more often than not trying to prove one way or another something that is abstract i.e. someones intent to go back to thailand say, there's no proof involved for the most part - just a balance of probabilities (that's the sort of lingo in the appeal stuff from my lawyer by the way)

You could put the same person with the same documents in front of 5 different ECOs and I bet that you would get 3 refusals and 2 acceptances - based on my feeling that the ECO is basically looking for a reason to refuse the application from the outset - I am not saying that it is official policy but from a lot of what has been said on this forum in the past I tend to get that feeling - after all the ECOs are only human - if they fell out with the mrs the night before then you gf will get it with both barrels - and I sure a lot of people have heard that getting an interview Fri PM is an almost certain way to get a visa as the Beer beckons

End of the day the ECOs have a sneaky joker card they can pull anytime they want to - insufficient reason to return. Your average joe public in Thailand even if they have 10s of thousands of £ in their banks and a fairly ok job - e.g. earning 20K bhat a month, and property - they [eco] could just as easily say that if they do a runner in UK - they would be able to earn say £3 an hour, 40hrs a week doing the dishes in Thai restaurant appx = 35,000 bhat a month i.e. almost double their current salary. And just because said Thai person has 1 million in their thai bank account - wouldn't stop them from transferring the money to UK via Western Union say over 12 months or more.

What I am saying in a very long winded way (my style I am affraid) is that there has to be a better way to assess an application. And from what I can see if an ECO in BKK messes up a decision on a VV - there's no come back (at least with settlement visas you have the luxary of an appeal) then nothing will change and the Visa Lottery will continue.

Just my 2 cents worth.

The sentiment of your post is absolutely spot on.., and if the Thai person had 1m pounds in the bank that would instantly make him a drug trafiking kingpin in the ECOs eyes and he would without any further consultation or questioning be rejected.

But the answer is not a better way of assessing applications because as long as it is down to the applicant alone nothing will ever change and you will never know official policy, I bet Scouse could illuminate that a little more but no doubt he had to sign some official secrets act document that prevents him from spilling the beans.

The key lies in a new set of laws/system that give British Ciitizens the right to invite a guest to the UK, possibly under the condition of a posted bond on the return of the guest as promised, as I believe exists in some other western countries. As long as the status quo is the subject of the debate you will just be treading waterand being swept backwards.

Every person involved in the application for visa should involve their MP from day 1 and when enough people do and they get a bit overwhelmed perhaps something might happen.

[the gent]

Excellent stuff Spacebass. So, now we have it.......it's all a gigantic conspiracy operating at every level of the legislature and executive in order that your average Brit punter can be separated from his Thai whoopsie. Whatever you are smoking, can I have some of it? Absolutely priceless matey but, seriously, what do you really think?

[Rj 81]

Excellent stuff Spacebass. So, now we have it.......it's all a gigantic conspiracy operating at every level of the legislature and executive in order that your average Brit punter can be separated from his Thai whoopsie. Whatever you are smoking, can I have some of it? Absolutely priceless matey but, seriously, what do you really think?

the gent, I can understand if you have a difference of opinion with what others are saying, but why don't you state your opinion instead of making smart comments?

Can you elaborate on what you mean when you say "your average Brit punter can be separated from his Thai whoopsie." What the ###### is all that about?

Seems to me you have got a serious issue going on there matey.

[lamonster]

Excellent stuff Spacebass. So, now we have it.......it's all a gigantic conspiracy operating at every level of the legislature and executive in order that your average Brit punter can be separated from his Thai whoopsie. Whatever you are smoking, can I have some of it? Absolutely priceless matey but, seriously, what do you really think?

That's a bit off the mark as far as I can see. What we are saying is that the system in place is flawed and mistakes are made on a regular basis, and as long as we are discussing Visitors Visas there's no way to appeal the decision with an independant body as far as I know - if you are looking a settlement visas then ok you get the right to appeal but this can be an expensive and time consuming process in itself.

I am sure that if a bond was paid to the order of several thousand pounds - at least if the person went missing in the UK the government could use that money to go towards the cost of tracking them down, I know they hold the travel agent responsible for example in Duabi - I have a friend who owns a travel agent and one of his clients went missing in dubai and the UAE government started charging his company on a daily basis until she either turned up or proof she had left the country turned up.

Don't get me wrong I am not saying that its the answer. But like spacebass says - if people don't get this sort of thing in front of their MPs then nothing will ever get done about it - that's what they are there for afterall - they are your reprsentitive they work for you - same can be said for the ECOs - they are public servants after all - not that you would think that was the case judging by some of their attitudes.

On another note Mr Gent - way I see it you are either a troll trying to start something, or could it be that you work in the immigration industry yourself - perhaps being an ECO? Now I have definitely being taking the wrong pills today as that sounds paranoid...

[GU22]

The idea of some kind of bond is firstly a complete non-starter. It would take far to many complex changes to so many laws that Parliament could do nothing else for several sessions!

Secondly, it would be totally unfair. For a bond to be a deterrent to overstaying the amount would have to be several thousand pounds. Speaking personally I simply do not have that sort of money, and if a bond was necessary then my step-son would not have been able to visit us last year.

A whoremaster using paid accomplices to import bar girls to work in brothels in London, Manchester or wherever would not have that problem. A financial bond would only penalise the genuine and make it easier for the crooks.

[lamonster]

The idea of some kind of bond is firstly a complete non-starter. It would take far to many complex changes to so many laws that Parliament could do nothing else for several sessions!

Secondly, it would be totally unfair. For a bond to be a deterrent to overstaying the amount would have to be several thousand pounds. Speaking personally I simply do not have that sort of money, and if a bond was necessary then my step-son would not have been able to visit us last year.

A whoremaster using paid accomplices to import bar girls to work in brothels in London, Manchester or wherever would not have that problem. A financial bond would only penalise the genuine and make it easier for the crooks.

Point taken - like I said I wasn't realistically sugesting that the bond was a viable solution - just trying to say that there are other ways that other countries do - I doubt there really is a perfect solution.

Maybe when you apply for a Visa you should be interview by 3 people - that way there would be less chance of one ECO throwing a spanner in the works. Again I am just trying to make suggestions.

End of the day way I see it there's no point telling people to change something and not having any ideas on what you would like to be changed.

GU22 - I agree with you totally - in Dubai for example there is no shortage of Philipino or Chinese girls working the massage parlours and night clubs - so the bond thing doesn't work as far as keeping people in line - but I bet its a nice little earner for the UAE government!

I remember reading something somewhere a couple of years back that basically said if you scrub visas totally you end up with no more people in a country than if you have visas. But that could have just been a political spin doctor making a point.

And where I work for example we have loads of Indians on work visas as they will work for peanuts - and they get the visas without too many questions asked which I assume is to do with that I am working for a multinaitonal company on a government project. And there'e poor me can't get a visa for my Mrs for love nor money at the moment - maybe I send her to a boot camp get her an MCSE and CCNA and see if I can get her a visa same as the indians? Last ones a joke in case anyone missed it.

Sorry I just got too much to say for myself these days.

[silomfan]

I agree with GU22 here (and thats a first!!) , the bond is a no-starter.

Others are correct to say that constant lobbying of MP's by us all will have some effect in the long term.

In many of my previous posts i have argued for there to be a set of rules (GU22.. you don't need to point out there are ..and that they are called "immigration rules" we all know that ..), a set of rules that are transparent in that they make clear what is required. Then for whatever visa is being applied for both the sponser and the applicant will be aware what they need to provide. If they then provide all this the visa should be issued .. end of story. It should not be up to the discretion of the ECO if it is true or "credible"(a favourite and very annoying word they always use) , if paper documentation shows what is being asked for then thats it . For example , if you are required to show evidence of a relationship then a selection of dated photos (not difficult for anyone to show surely) taken at different times and different places throughout the relationship should be enough. Backed up with hotel receipts and phone records and you have a relationship. It is not up to the ECO to say that he/she thinks that because you have only spent 2 months in the last 15 physically together that he/she does not find it "credible" that this is a genuine relationship. It is not up to them to judge how long a couple should be together physically before a visa should be issued. You are talking about 2 people who may live on opposite sides of the world and being together is made very difficult due to work commitments. If you have met and have spent time together and you say you have a relationhip then you do. It shouldn't be at their discretion.

The main problem is this "reason to return" for visitors visas. It has never applied to me , but this is a big problem for many people. Apart from a few select Thais no-one can really show a reason to return . Better it should be scrapped altogether and it made very clear to both parties that any failure to abide by the rules will lead to big problems in the future. After all you can't accidently overstay on a visa can you . I mean if you say you are going for a 1 month holiday and stay 9 then you are asking for trouble . I think if it was clear that your immigration history would be stained if you overstay most would return on time. Sure a few wouldn't but isn't it better for 3 guilty people to get away with it than 97 innocent people suffer ??

SILOMFAN

[GU22]

Reason to return is, or seems to be, the most common reason for refusal of a VV. However, the ECO has two approaches to this issue.

First, has the applicant provided concrete documentary evidence that they have fixed ties in Thailand? Do they have a job and leave of absence from their employer? Are they a student, with their university registration? And so on. In other words, the list of documents that Silomfan is suggesting. This system already exists, and the vast majority of VV applications are dealt with in this way and the visa issued without the need for an interview.

However, not all applicants have the necessary documents, as they don't have a job that will be kept open for them, don't attend university etc. If the ECO had a check list of documents and was not allowed to use any discretion, then these people would stand no chance of getting a visa.

Under the system at present if the documentary evidence does not support the application enough the ECO can interview the applicant and make a decision based upon the balance of probabilities. Many people without a concrete reason to return have successfully obtained VVs because they came across as credible at the interview, so the ECO can feel that the reason for the visit is genuine and so they can be trusted to return. If the applicant is the boy/girlfriend of the sponsor, then the more evidence to show that the relationship is genuine the better.

No system is perfect, and there will always be people who fall foul of whatever system is used. I am reminded of something that Winston Churchill once said:-

"Democracy is a very inefficient form of government, but it is infinitely better than any of the alternatives."

I think the same could be said of the present visa system.

[silomfan]

In reply to GU22 , yes what you say is true and is of use to those who have a job , or are studying etc. However really here we are talking about those who don't have this.

To those people how do they address this issue? You say they must come over as credible but surely you must agree that is far too subjective . First it depends on how good or bad the person is at interview technique . My partner for example had big problems in the past , happily now solved, because despite being from a high(ish) class Thai family and being a university graduate was hopeless at interview. I mean really....i used to despair..... No idea at all..... This counted against him even tho he was a genuine applicant and so he was refused largely through this lack of credibility. Secondly it depends on the ECO on the day .. his /her mood and prejudices or otherwise. So someone who is hopeless at interview, however genuine the documentation is , and who is unlucky enough to get a ECO in a bad mood, will be refused now and for evermore. This is not right i'm sure you will agree .

So this use of discretion you are supporting may be good for some but could be a death sentence for others . My suggestion was that this discretion should be taken away where the use of it will be to the applicants disadvantage. In other words where you have an applicant who is poor at interview (i can do them in my sleep but some can't and its not their fault) but who provides on paper all that was asked for under the immigration rules , then the visa should be issued .

Anyone else have an opinion on this ?? Its an interesting subject and it would be good to know what others here think could be done to improve this visa "lottery" , a word used by many here not just me .

SILOMFAN

[GU22]

.......where you have an applicant who is poor at interview (i can do them in my sleep but some can't and its not their fault) but who provides on paper all that was asked for under the immigration rules , then the visa should be issued .

Which is precisely what happens at the moment! If the paperwork provided shows that the criteria are met then the visa is issued with a short interview (a mere formality done informally at the counter) or even no interview. Or are you seriously suggesting that the ECO's interviewed all 43,511 people who applied to the Bangkok embassy for a visa last year? Indeed, even when there is no concrete reason to return plenty applicants still get short interview, or even no interview, treatment provided the other evidence (photos, evidence of contact, length of relationship etc.) shows the applicant to be genuine.

Everything you are asking for already happens!

If the evidence is not sufficient then the applicant will be interviewed. If at the interview they can fill in the gaps then the visa will be issued. Remember that only 4.7% of VV applicants were refused last year. (Rj 81, in answer to the question you posed in your OP, it's a simple piece of maths to work it out. Divide the number of refusals by the number of applicants and then multiply by 100.) It is unfortunate that nerves can get the better of someone in a stressful situation, especially if they are trying to hide something such as a previous breach of the immigration rules, but if interviews were abolished then those who don't provide satisfactory paperwork would be automatically refused. The interview system provides, as I've said before, a second chance.

When someone posts on a forum such as this about how unfair the system and/or the ECOs are it is usually evident when they provide details of the application where the fault lies. With the applicant and/or sponsor for not providing all the necessary evidence, or supplying evidence that is contradictory. (Leaving out the "I barfined her for a couple of weeks, now give her a visa" brigade. I'm sure we all agree that these idiots only make it harder for the rest of us.)

As for contacting MPs, fine if you think you have been unfairly treated. Your MP will get his staff to look into it and if s/he feels that you have been teated unfairly then s/he may try to help you. But if s/he feels that the application was treated correctly, then all you'll get is a "Sorry, but I can't help you" reply. As for a bunch of harassed MPs demanding the government change the immigration rules, ain't going to happen. The majority of British voters, of all ethnic backgrounds, either don't care one way or another about this, or if pushed would vote to have the immigration rules tightened, not relaxed!

[silomfan]

Once again we will agree to disagree. You can never prove a reason to return , its a subjective decision . I am saying that this element should be removed from the ECO's armoury of powers , and that where the application meets the requirements of the immigration rules , on paper backed up by documentation, then the visa should be issued and not refused because the ECO deems the applicant not credible and cites no reason to return because they can't find any other reason. Why does there have to be an interview ? If the paperwork fulfills the requirements there should be no discussion. If the paperwork doesn't then why make an application at all?? Wait until it does and then apply. Thats not too difficult to grasp is it ?

And i disagree about the lobbying of MP's. They all hold public meetings often several times a month (mine does so 4 or more times a month). If on each occasion they were lobbied about unfair immigration decisions then something would happen as did in my case. I alone caused a lot of work for the Home Office and thats just one person...imagine what could happen with some determination from everyone unjustly refused. People must be prepared to fight for their beliefs, not just slink into a corner and blame themselves for not being properly prepared. Many threads on this forum show that emourmous amounts of preparation were done by the applicant , far more than asked for or is reasonable , and yet still the old "no reason to return" is wheeled out because they can't refuse it on any other criteria.

All you people unjustly refused DO SOMETHING. Don't be bullied by officials hiding behind doing their jobs or by people here telling you its all your own fault. The system needs to be made fairer, so fight to change it . My fight is already won, but i care passionately about those whose lives are being wrecked by the unchecked actions of uncaring ECO's.

SILOMFAN

[GU22]

Why does there have to be an interview ? If the paperwork fulfills the requirements there should be no discussion. If the paperwork doesn't then why make an application at all?? Wait until it does and then apply. Thats not too difficult to grasp is it ?

I thought I had explained, so I'll try again.

Under the present system; if the paperwork fulfils the requirements then the visa is issued. If the paperwork doesn't, then the applicant will be interviewed and if at the interview they fill in the gaps then the visa will be issued.

What you are suggesting removes the interview, so if the paperwork doesn't fulfil the requirements; no visa. No second chance; no opportunity to put one's case; just a flat refusal!

How is that more fair?

You are correct that proving an absolute reason to return is impossible, and the ECO does have to make a decision based upon the evidence before him/her. But it is a decision based upon the balance of probabilities. You are also correct to say that people should wait until the relationship is solid and they can show that it is.

If on each occasion they were lobbied about unfair immigration decisions then something would happen as did in my case. I alone caused a lot of work for the Home Office and thats just one person.......

From what you have posted previously, the reasons for your past difficulties stem from a breach of the immigration rules. So yes, you did create a lot of work for the Home Office, but not in the way you are suggesting! What happened in you case is that you your boyfriend re-applied, fitted the criteria and was granted a visa with a short interview; just like the vast majority of applicants are.

Why have a reason to return? A quick look at the Tom's cards in city centre phone boxes or the back street sweatshops will answer that one.

[silomfan]

In reply to GU22's comments, yes i am saying that, if there were fair and transparent rules then it wouldn't be too difficult to meet the requirements. So , yes, if the paperwork cannot meet them then the visa should be refused . This is done anyway. An interview won't help anyone whose papers show they don't qualify, they will be refused now as they would under my system. What i AM saying is that if they meet the requirements on paper then the visa should be issued . Why have an interview if all that is asked for is met? That way those who are not good at interview would not be put at an unfair disadvantage. Also i am saying that the "no reason to return" rule that they can use anytime they don't like someone but can't refuse on the paperwork should be revoked , rather like the "primary purposes" rule was back in the 1990's. This happened after much lobbying as it lead to much distress unfairly.

Lobbying can work if enough people complain.

Where we are differing also is that GU22 maintains in all his posts that if you meet the criteria you are given the visa. He always makes it sound so fair and easy, just like the official websites of the Home Office and UK Visas and the British Embassy Bangkok do. In reality it is not so. You can meet the criteria and still be refused at interview because the ECO can subjectivally decide you have no reason to return. It is the "primary purposes" rule all over again.

As for Gu22's comment that the phone boxes are cluttered up with Thais phone numbers who got a vv and then didn't return, i think thats stretching the truth a little.

In conclusion all i am saying is that the rules should be a little fairer, transparent and , yes , easier.

SILOMFAN

[GU22]

Why have an interview if all that is asked for is met?

Have you actually read my posts, or just skimmed them?

I will say again, highlighted this time so that you can't miss it:-

Under the present system; if the paperwork fulfils the requirements then the visa is issued. If the paperwork doesn't, then the applicant will be interviewed and if at the interview they fill in the gaps then the visa will be issued.

The vast majority of visas are, in fact, issued without an interview; settlement as well as visitor. In cases where an interview is required, then yes the ECO can get it wrong, they are only human, but if visa decisions were made based on the paperwork alone then all those applicants who currently require an interview would be automatically refused. Is that what you want?

As for Gu22's comment that the phone boxes are cluttered up with Thais phone numbers who got a vv and then didn't return, i think thats stretching the truth a little.

I'm talking worldwide, not just Thailand; the rules are the same for every visa national. It was you who mentioned Thais in this context, not I. If/when I have the time I can dig up articles etc. to show that a significant minority of prostitutes working in the UK are foreign nationals who came here on some sort of bogus visa. Ditto for sweatshop workers etc.

No system is perfect, any visa system has to employ humans to make decisions and so by it's very nature is open to error. The only alternative is to abolish visas completely and allow anyone from anywhere to come to the UK for any purpose for as long as they want. In a perfect world that would happen, but the world isn't perfect. Any party that suggested abolishing all immigration controls would be committing political suicide.

[the gent]

Honestly, GU22 why bother.Silomfan ignores all rationality demonstrated by the myriad posts elsewhere illustrating the absurdity of his position and his ludicrous assertions.

The facts speak for themselves, if folk choose to ignore them in preference to cherishing their own prejudices, then so be it.

Silomfan and disaffected falang of his ilk are of a type, symptomatic of a self indulgent generation suckling on the teat of a society which engenders the illusion everyone is entitled as a matter of god given right to have what they want, when they want. Stupid is as stupid does.

[Jersey_UK]

Under the present system; if the paperwork fulfils the requirements then the visa is issued. If the paperwork doesn't, then the applicant will be interviewed and if at the interview they fill in the gaps then the visa will be issued.

The vast majority of visas are, in fact, issued without an interview; settlement as well as visitor

GU22,

I missed this point in my previous thread - just to clarify - if our paperwork is 100% ok for a Settlement Visa then the Missus may not need an interview? I think she would do ok, but one less thing to at least hope for is always a good thing!

Also a little bit of good news for when I put our paperwork together, she told me today that that she has been presented with a certificate from her employer (Bangkok Health Authority or something like that) as they had annual performance awards (or similar) - she was ranked as No 10 out of 127 - she is very chuffed. The last time she got any award from folk was when she represented her school at PingPong! (honest......and no, this is one thing (the only thing? ) she never did in her former "career"). She has also got from them some bit of paper which I do not yet understand but sounds like it has some leaving school equivalence....... "can help for look new job".

BTW does her having recently acquired a Tattoo with my name on it help with the Settlement Visa? and if so will she have to display it at any interview? (although I have not seen it, apparently a "large" multicoloured Butterfly with my name under it, just under her breast) If I had known about this beforehand and especially if I had been in Thailand (as intended) she would have got a complete bollocking for even thinking of the idea ............but it was presented as a fait accompli (no doubt for this very reason ) and because I was very happy about hew award I did not have the heart to be angry with her. It's been a good weekend.

Edited January 21, 2006 by Jersey_UK

[silomfan]

One of the things i believe GU22 and I agree on is that this "the gent" character is a menace to this board. If you look at his various posts in this forum they are almost always difficult to understand and constantly critical of whoever has posted before. He also takes rudeness to a level that would make even the British Embassy ECO's blush.

He appears to have no purpose other than to criticise , without any useful input whatever from him.

Whilst GU22 and I present opposing views on most things to do with immigration , at least i hope we have a level of mutual respect , the idea of which sems to be totally lacking in "the gent"

SILOMFAN

[the gent]

Oh dear Silomfan where would you be without your propensity for gross exaggeration?

I rather thought my posts were reasonably insightful and generally pitched at a level one might consider to be comprehensible to most. I am sorry you find difficulty in understanding my points but perhaps this is indicative of a weakness in your intellect rather than my expression.

I suppose I have been a tad robust on occasions and if offence is taken as a consequence then I am more than happy to apologise if that were to assuage hurt feelings.

Nevertheless, I remain somewhat frustrated by your blinkered attitude, probably as much as you resent mine but I suppose we could both live with that.

Respectfully yours,

the gent

[silomfan]

Oh dear Silomfan where would you be without your propensity for gross exaggeration?

I rather thought my posts were reasonably insightful and generally pitched at a level one might consider to be comprehensible to most. I am sorry you find difficulty in understanding my points but perhaps this is indicative of a weakness in your intellect rather than my expression.

I suppose I have been a tad robust on occasions and if offence is taken as a consequence then I am more than happy to apologise if that were to assuage hurt feelings.

Nevertheless, I remain somewhat frustrated by your blinkered attitude, probably as much as you resent mine but I suppose we could both live with that.

Respectfully yours,

the gent

I suppose that is as near to an apology as i can ever hope to get from you . You should understand that most people on this forum are trying to help others and we can all learn things we didn't already know ... even you . Certainly none of us is always right. Also certainly the visa system we have at present is far from ideal. If we can together try to advise each other how to succeed against a system that is often unfairly weighted against certain sectors of Thai society, then surely that is a good thing. I think all of the main posters, including myself, here are now successful in getting the visas we wanted. We remain on this forum out of a desire to help others following behind us. If you are annoyed by someones attempts to show injustice, as you seem to be with mine, then you don't have to read them or reply. Just ignore them as i have done with many of your posts which i don't agree with. If you do post try to avoid personal insults (like above... there is nothing wrong with my intellect as you know of course) and instead try to make a constructive response.

An example over which you could make a constructive reply would be the following......

I have noticed quite recently posts from at least 2 people who applied for fiancee visas for their girlfriends. They had both been told by their local authorities that no date can be booked for the wedding because their policy is not to take bookings until the visa is issued. Their visas were refused because they hadn't booked a date and hadn't got a firm date in mind. They thought that as they had enquired and been told the local authorities position on this that they had done all they could. Now how can this be fair ??

My point about transparent rules is that they should help show the applicant exactly what is needed .So under the section that says you must get married within a certain time of arriving in the UK , why don't they say that you must have booked a firm date or show a letter to say you can't . that way everyone who wanted to apply would know this was a document they must produce or address before going to interview. It would be clear. Better than using the lack of such document to refuse. Anyone like to comment on this ?

My points have been recently that the rules should be made very clear. You are told what you need to provide clearly. Then most applicants would not apply until they have them all. That way more visas would be granted instantly saving time and expense of the long wait for interview. Put another way there should be a checklist that is exhaustive and shows everything that is required for each type of visa. If its not on the list its absence cannot be used as a reason for refusal. That would take away the powers of the ECO's to make subjective judgements and thus take away the unfairness. Naturally that is why they don't have this policy !!

How would you feel if you went into TESCO's to buy some fruit and in the rules said for this transaction you need money and a shopping bag. However when you get to the checkout the cashier refuses to let you buy the fruit because you aren't wearing brown shoes. Now it isn't mentioned that you have to wear brown shoes but the cashier has the discretion to refuse because they don't think its credible that a person wearing blue shoes really wants to buy this fruit. Hopefully the brighter ones here will get the point of this .

Ignoring the last paragraph in your reply, would someone please tell me , preferably without insults, WHAT IS WRONG WITH THAT IDEA??

SILOMFAN

[GU22]

just to clarify - if our paperwork is 100% ok for a Settlement Visa then the Missus may not need an interview? I think she would do ok, but one less thing to at least hope for is always a good thing!

Yes, if the paperwork satisfies the ECO that the criteria are met then she will not need a full interview.

However, do not be disheartened if this doesn't happen. Not getting 'short interview' treatment does not mean that there is a problem, merely that there are some points the ECO isn't sure about and so wants clarified. If her answers at the interview are consistent then she will be ok.

However, if I remember previous posts rightly, once the ECO has made a positive decision the case has to be referred to the Jersey government for their confirmation? So the process may be slightly different in your case.

Silomfan, you say

Whilst GU22 and I present opposing views on most things to do with immigration , at least i hope we have a level of mutual respect

I agree.

In the cases you mention of fiance visas being refused because the wedding hadn't been booked, I feel that there was more to this than had been said. The ECOs are well aware that both parties have to attend the registry office to book the wedding! However, it is not unreasonable to expect the applicant for a fiance visa to have a reasonable idea of when the marriage is to take place. I suspect that this has been the problem in the cases you mention.

I have read many times on various forums people being advised to apply for a FV rather than a VV as it would eliminate the need for a reason to return. My personal feeling is that the ECOs have cottoned on to this and so are looking at FV applications more closely.

[Jersey_UK]

Silomfan,

I would suggest that you READ the advice given, then consider both what is said and what is not said and weigh it's worth up in relation to other information you have. My view of the Forum is that it only provides guidance and advice, it does not spoon feed folk on complete specific applications and it is not part of the visa application itself

I will agree that The_Gent's style of writing is somewhat blunt. Succint, but blunt . But I suggest you do READ them. Carefully. You ain't marrying the guy (?? ), only listening to his advice and then considering it.

It does not really matter whether the Visa process is "fair" or not. It's what you have to deal with at the moment.

FWIW my attitude is somewhat contradictory, I of course want it easy for ME, but appreciate that it should also not be just a rubber stamp. I do not see why breaking the terms of a Visa (including by overstaying or working on a VV should not be a criminal offence with Jail time and an automatic life time ban on re-entry - so says a man with a passport full of Thai overstays ).

IMO the visa application in practice HAS to include some discretion and cannot spell out everything that is required of an applicant. It is an art not a science - the application is the sum of it's parts and not a tick box excercise - as every situation is different I am more than happy with this approach and beleive it is the only way that can work in practice, otherwise the "tick box" approach would have a standard to high for folk to reach as it would be designed to prevent those who are dishonest and as a by product screen out those who are honest, and just do not have money / a willingness to cheat. It is not perfect and can never be so. That is just life.

To be blunt on the "reason to return", those countries where the population on average do have a reason to return get Visas on arrival, those who on average WOULD be economically better off not returning have to get a Visa for this very good reason (if it was me then I would not return either!). IMO the average folk in Thailand do NOT have a good purely economic "reason to return", but notwithstanding this, honest folk and those who would prefer to be with Family and freinds would just return anyway. But that is never 100% proveable.

I may have got things wrong here, but I get the feeling that the rules changed (last year?) so that folk can no longer get married in the UK when on a Visitors Visa and then stay legally, but that the procedures at the Embassy may not quite caught up with the reality that with it no longer being easy to Legally stay in the UK that the attractiveness of going AWOL on a VV has diminished (not dissapeared of course, but diminished - being legal = more money = more likely to not go home!). I would say that the best "reason to return" that someone could give would be "If I overstay or work on a VV then I will never get another visa to be allowed back to the UK". But I am probably being a bit too simplistic here.

BTW ask me again about UK visa's in 3 months time

[silomfan]

Jersey,

i've read your reply with interest. Don't agree with all of it , some makes sense.

BTW why ask you in 3 months about UK Visas?? I must have missed something here...

SILOMFAN

[Jersey_UK]

Jersey,

i've read your reply with interest. Don't agree with all of it , some makes sense.

BTW why ask you in 3 months about UK Visas?? I must have missed something here...

SILOMFAN

I am quite happy to settle on "some" makes sense,....cos tommorow my opinion will have changed Probably came accross a bit blunter / harsher than it was meant

Around 3 months is when I put the SV in for the Missus, was a thread a while back - concentrating on her "colourful" (and unfortunately documented ) past - and the extra / different hurdles for getting her back to Jersey. Together with info I have picked up elsewhere the process seems reasonable enough (as far as anything is when dealing with the Govt / "paper shufflers") - I am sure closer to the time I will be back asking specific questions / clarifying stuff (seeking reassurance )

So my attitude may well change from first hand experiance, but to be honest I doubt I will take it personally as in our case they WILL have grounds to refuse - and by nature neither of us are exactly optimists - a refusal will be a mighty inconveniance (especially for me as I am fairly tired of / bored with Thailand), but by no means the end of the road.

[silomfan]

Jersey,

i've read your reply with interest. Don't agree with all of it , some makes sense.

BTW why ask you in 3 months about UK Visas?? I must have missed something here...

SILOMFAN

I am quite happy to settle on "some" makes sense,....cos tommorow my opinion will have changed Probably came accross a bit blunter / harsher than it was meant

Around 3 months is when I put the SV in for the Missus, was a thread a while back - concentrating on her "colourful" (and unfortunately documented ) past - and the extra / different hurdles for getting her back to Jersey. Together with info I have picked up elsewhere the process seems reasonable enough (as far as anything is when dealing with the Govt / "paper shufflers") - I am sure closer to the time I will be back asking specific questions / clarifying stuff (seeking reassurance )

So my attitude may well change from first hand experiance, but to be honest I doubt I will take it personally as in our case they WILL have grounds to refuse - and by nature neither of us are exactly optimists - a refusal will be a mighty inconveniance (especially for me as I am fairly tired of / bored with Thailand), but by no means the end of the road.

Thanks for info..i don't recall reading the thread so can't comment. However sounds like you got a fight on your hands. I'm sure you can believe me when i say i wish you luck

SILOMFAN

[Rj 81]

I know how to work out the math GU22, my point was 4.7% seems suspiciously low, I think you new that though.

I still maintain there is some contradiction with regard to issuing visit visas.