Should The Rules Change For Visit Visa's?

[GU22]

Yep, a little bit of urine extraction, no offence meant.

Suspicious? Why? What possible reason would they have for 'massaging' figures?

[Rj 81]

Non taken GU22.

Just the shear amount of people who come on this forum asking for advise after a visit visa refusal would seem to indicate that alot are refused. They are notoriously difficult to get and to me 4.7% is incredibly low.

I have no idea why they would manipulate the figures, maybe they don't, but it just seems very low to me.

[GU22]

I see what you're saying, Rj 81, but you need to remember one thing.

Most of the posts on forums such as this about visas are from people who have yet to apply and are seeking advice on how to go about it, or from people who have been refused and want advice on what to do next. Posts about a visa success are usually (always?) from people who have sought advice prior to the application and now wish to follow up with the outcome. Very few people, if any, are going to join a forum simply so they can report a visa success.

This means that reading forums like this one is naturally going to give the impression that a visit visa to the UK is, as you put it, "notoriously difficult to get."

I feel that VV refusals fall basically into 3 groups:-

A. The "I barfined her for a couple of weeks and now want to take her to the UK" brigade.

B. Those that are seeking a visa for some nefarious purpose.

C. Those that are genuine, but either failed to prove this or, occasionally, are victims of a snafu by the ECO.

For those in group A, the advice is to be realistic and give the relationship more time to develop.

I don't think that any of us have much sympathy for group B. I can remember sitting in the visa section a few years ago with my wife when a Thai girl came up to us and asked if we could explain the refusal notice to her. I can't remember the exact wording, but it was something like "You say that you wish to travel to the UK to meet your boyfriends family, but have not been able to explain what has happened to the lady your boyfriend sponsored 3 months ago for the same purpose!" I don't know if she had been genuinely duped by this guy, or was party to the scam, but her reaction made me think it was the latter.

It is those in group C that I reserve my sympathy for. If the application has been refused because it wasn't made properly, then the advice is to look at the reasons for the refusal and then deal with them. If the ECO has made an error, and it does happen they are only human, then you can ask for the decision to be reviewed. This is not the same as an appeal; visit visas, except for family visits, cannot be appealed.

Finally, I would like to say that I have not reached this conclusion by looking at it through the rose tinted glasses of a 100% success rate. I have personally been involved in 5 visa applications, only 2 of which were successful. Whilst at the time I was angry and indignant over the 3 refusals, and the reasons given, with the benefit of hindsight and the information gleaned from forums such as this, I can see exactly where we went wrong and the mistakes we made that led to their being refused.

Edited January 25, 2006 by GU22

[Rj 81]

Quote

"Most of the posts on forums such as this about visas are from people who have yet to apply and are seeking advice on how to go about it, or from people who have been refused and want advice on what to do next. Posts about a visa success are usually (always?) from people who have sought advice prior to the application and now wish to follow up with the outcome. Very few people, if any, are going to join a forum simply so they can report a visa success.

This means that reading forums like this one is naturally going to give the impression that a visit visa to the UK is, as you put it, "notoriously difficult to get." "

Good point, I agree. But 4.7% still seems low even with that taken into account.

I agree entirely with points A and B, and well done to the Embassy refusing them applications. Though A and B are not the issue at hand. Neither is point C.

What I am saying is that "reason to return to Thailand" should not be allowed to be given as a reason to refuse applications, if in fact some applications are successful without the "reason to return to Thailand". This means the Embassy are basically saying to some applicants we don't trust you, and to others, okay yes we trust you.

I think it should be looked upon more as the applicants validity for a reason to visit. As I see it, if someone is going to overstay, they are going to overstay, no matter what great reason they have to return to Thailand.

Edited January 26, 2006 by Rj 81

[GU22]

What I am saying is that "reason to return to Thailand" should not be allowed to be given as a reason to refuse applications, if in fact some applications are successful without the "reason to return to Thailand". This means the Embassy are basically saying to some applicants we don't trust you, and to others, okay yes we trust you.

I think it should be looked upon more as the applicants validity for a reason to visit. As I see it, if someone is going to overstay, they are going to overstay, no matter what great reason they have to return to Thailand.

Which is, basically, what I am saying too. If the applicant is credible and the reason for the visit is credible, then the ECO trusts them to return. On the other hand, if the applicant has no credibility then the ECO does not trust them to return, so refuses them on the "no reason to return" catch all rule.

Sometimes they get it wrong and people get a visa and then overstay, work illegally etc. Equally they sometimes get it wrong and genuine people are refused. As I have said before, any system that relies on people making a judgement is bound to contain errors.

However, the alternative proposed by Silomfan, where if you have the right documents you get a visa, but if you don't then you don't, means that people who currently get a visa even though they don't have all the bits of paper would stand no chance. That would, IMHO, be a lot more unfair and discriminatory than the present system.

[silomfan]

Hi again to all...i have been otherwise engaged for a couple of days as my b/f has finally arrived in the UK and we've been busy catching up on sightseeing , shopping , unpacking (has anyone else noticed how many hours can be spent on this alone ??) etc etc.

I don't think GU22 that you and rj81 ARE saying the same as you suggest. He is saying that "reason to return" (failure of showing) should not be used when the criteria are otherwise met, which is exactly what i have been saying. You are saying what you have always said which is that ECO's can use their discretion as to the credibility or otherwise of the applicant. We are both saying they should not be allowed to if the application otherwise meets the criteria.

I am saying that if all the documents asked for are provided then the ECO must give the visa . You say this will lead to discretionary cases being turned down. Well i think the number of cases where the application is allowed on discretion where it would otherwise be disallowed through lack of documentation , are very tiny.

OK.... so what about this then ....

All documents provided that are asked for ..... visa issued, no discretion.

Where some documentation is lacking , not automatically refused but to interview for possible discretion to be used.

Now whats wrong with that ?? That would address your concerns without giving ECO's the power to refuse cases that are genuine but can't show reason to return.

Good idea ??? or not ....??

PS thanks for your good wishes re me and my b/f

SILOMFAN

[GU22]

OK.... so what about this then ....

All documents provided that are asked for ..... visa issued, no discretion.

Where some documentation is lacking , not automatically refused but to interview for possible discretion to be used.

Now whats wrong with that ?? That would address your concerns without giving ECO's the power to refuse cases that are genuine but can't show reason to return.

Good idea ??? or not ....??

Excellent idea; in fact it is exactly what happens under the present system.

[silomfan]

OK.... so what about this then ....

All documents provided that are asked for ..... visa issued, no discretion.

Where some documentation is lacking , not automatically refused but to interview for possible discretion to be used.

Now whats wrong with that ?? That would address your concerns without giving ECO's the power to refuse cases that are genuine but can't show reason to return.

Good idea ??? or not ....??

Excellent idea; in fact it is exactly what happens under the present system.

No no, you're missing the point. What happens now, and many threads bear testimony to this, is that you can provide all that is asked for but the ECO can decide that the applicant is not credible (often for ludicrous reasons) and refuse.

SILOMFAN

[GU22]

No no, you're missing the point. What happens now, and many threads bear testimony to this, is that you can provide all that is asked for but the ECO can decide that the applicant is not credible (often for ludicrous reasons) and refuse.

Sorry, but I think it is you who is missing the point.

I have seen many threads on this and other forums started by people who have had refusals. After going into the details of the refusal they seem to fall into one of the categories I listed earlier.

I'm sure you'd agree that neither category A no B can by any stretch of the imagination be classed as genuine or credible.

Those in category C are refused because:-

They have not provided all the evidence they could or should have. The ECO can only make a decision on the evidence provided.

The replies in any interview have not been consistent with the documents. Which should the ECO believe?

They have tried to cover up something they think could be disadvantageous (is that a word?) and been caught in the lie; all credibility out the window.

They have had a visa before, but broken the conditions of that visa in someway. e.g. working on a tourist visa or not attending college on a student visa. (Sound familiar?)

The ECO has made an error. Which does happen but is a lot rarer than any of the others.

As I have said before, and still believe, the current system is not perfect, and mistakes are inevitable. But it is a lot better than any alternative.

[silomfan]

This thread has probably reached the end of its life now , but can i just make a couple of quick points. GU22 i agree with much of your last post except that , if the rules were clear about the docs needed then hardly anyone would fall foul of the point you make about not having enough docs (trouble is they obviously aren't clear enough otherwise no-one would be refused on this would they)as they wouldn't apply until they had them all.

secondly, if they have all the documents asked for then the fact that their replies aren't consistant with them (can be due to bad technique or bad translators) wouldn't be a factor cos i am saying if they do have them all then there should be no interview . Thats the point.

And in the cases where the ECO is just plain wrong ,as you admit happens, the system should be changed so that there is not this awfully long wait for justice. After all, why should any genuine case have to wait any length of time due to ECO error ? There should be an immediate chance to address any points raised and the ability to see the ECO again QUICKLY .

Of course if the government didn't make it so difficult to get the visas to start with this problem would largely disappear.

And so what if planeloads of bargirls did come here...might liven this dull country up a bit !!

Don't take the last point too seriously ....although ... maybe .............

SILOMFAN

[the gent]

There were 2.5 million visa applications worldwide last year with 2,200 staff dealing.

Get real.

[the scouser]

And so what if planeloads of bargirls did come here...might liven this dull country up a bit !!

For once I agree with you!

Scouse.

[Rj 81]

There were 2.5 million visa applications worldwide last year with 2,200 staff dealing.

Get real.

And that is why something should be done, it's obvious the system needs to be improved.

A rough calculation, based on 5 working days a week, 4 working weeks in a month over 12 months, shows that of the 2200 staff dealing, they had to handle 4.7 applications each, per day. This of coarse is without taking into account staff holidays, sick ect...

Edited January 29, 2006 by Rj 81

[GU22]

And that is why something should be done, it's obvious the system needs to be improved.

Obvious to whom?

The government is happy with the way things are now.

The majority of the UK population, if asked, would probably say that getting a visa should be more difficult, not less.

The majority of applicants, those who have submitted a full application with all the necessary evidence and so get their visa without an interview, are probably happy with the system too.

I have read many posts on various forums from disgruntled sponsors saying that the ECO should have known some fact or other as it was "bloody obvious." The ECO doesn't know the sponsor nor the applicant. Things that are obvious to the sponsor are only obvious to the ECO if the evidence submitted or the responses at an interview show that it is!

Edited January 29, 2006 by GU22

[Rj 81]

Obvious by the fact that 2.5 million applications were made and that only 2200 staff were there to deal with them! Obvious to anyone who looks at them figures.

I don't give two s*its if the government are happy or not. Because the government are happy with the system, that doesn't make it right. In fact they were happy with sex cases working in schools up until a few weeks ago.

Come on GU22, if an applicant has got there visa first time it is obvious they are going to be happy with the system! duh. It also doesn't mean to say they don't think the system could be better.

Yes, most people in the UK would agree to make it more difficult to get a visa, but that is only because of the governments immigration policy. If you were to ask them should it be more difficult for a British citizen to bring his or her b/f / g/f / husband / wife to the UK, they would be surprised as to how tight the rules are at present! And I'm sure they would support 90% of cases, being the nature of them, definitely.

[GU22]

Obvious by the fact that 2.5 million applications were made and that only 2200 staff were there to deal with them! Obvious to anyone who looks at them figures.

How many staff would you like? 22,000? 220,000? 2,200,000?

As he hasn't given a source, I have no idea how accurate the gent's figures are, but let's assume they are correct.

2.5million applicants dealt with by 2200 staff equals an average of 1137 applicants per staff member.

52 weeks in a year, but shall we say visa staff get 4 weeks holiday? So that's 48 weeks. 5 day working week so that's 240 days. Minus, of course, various public holidays; these vary from country to country but in Thailand this year there are 12. Happy to take that as an average? So, that's 228 working days for the average visa staff member.

8 hour working day? Let's say 6. Which means 1368 working hours per year per staff member. 1368 hours to deal with 1137 applications. So applications gets an average of 1.2 hours attention! Of course, most applications don't need that much time as it is simply a matter of checking the paperwork and, as that is all in order, issuing the visa.

So, how are you going to convince anyone that visa sections are understaffed?

[Rj 81]

Well we would need to know how many relavant staff work at the Embassy, and look at the actual figures for the Embassy in Bangkok to establish a point over this that is relative to this topic.

I can understand what your saying GU22. However we could go on all day long debating.

Basically from what I read, you don't see any need for improvement or change with regard to the visa section, where as I do.

Edited January 30, 2006 by Rj 81

[silomfan]

Well we would need to know how many relavant staff work at the Embassy, and look at the actual figures for the Embassy in Bangkok to establish a point over this that is relative to this topic.

I can understand what your saying GU22. However we could go on all day long debating.

Basically from what I read, you don't see any need for improvement or change with regard to the visa section, where as I do.

Yes that sums up GU22's beliefs. No need for change . I agree with RJ81 , much change is needed . All this kow-towing and jumping through hoops (whilst the sponser waits out in the fume-ridden road outside - not even allowed into his own embassy) .. why does everyone put up with it ? Complain to your MP, UK Visas and keep complaining. Change will come if you push hard enough.

SILOMFAN