New UK Immigration Bill is published

[Tony M]

This is not a problem.

There is no law on how large a property an individual may rent, and this bill wont change that. So RichardW's fears about sponsors 'upgrading' their rental property before their spouse or partner applies for their settlement visa are groundless.

Of course, once that settlement visa is granted and the foreign spouse or partner is legally in the UK then there will not be a problem either.

Local authorities and housing associations already have (or should have) systems in place to check that any potential tenants are entitled to social housing; including checking the persons immigration status. It will be a simple matter for letting agents in the private sector to introduce similar.

This part of the Bill is a non issue.

My main concerns about this Bill are the proposals to erode even further the right of appeal and the proposal to levy charges on those subject to immigration control. Charges for what and how much?

I agree. I read this several times to make sure I wasn't misreading. The erosion of rights of appeal seems contrary to the principles and spirit of English Law.

Civil servants, regardless of department, are not infallible in applying the law and the right of appeal would seem a safe guard to disputed interpretations and rulings.

Several years ago a wealthy English friend wanted to bring his Thai brother in law over for a holiday. The visa was turned down, but on appeal a judge overturned this and the visa was issued. Now, from what I'm reading, this right of appeal is blocked and the officer's ruling will be final ?

Appeal rights have been gradually eroded over the years. Here is a quote from Tony Blair, made more than 20 years ago, in 1992 :

"When a right of appeal is removed, what is removed is a valuable and necessary constraint on those who exercise original jurisdiction. That is true not merely of immigration officers but of anybody. The immigration officer who knows that his decision may be subject to appeal is likely to be a good deal more circumspect, careful and even handed than the officer who knows that his power of decision is absolute. That is simply, I fear, a matter of human nature, quite apart from anything else."

Edited October 12, 2013 by Tony M

[Thai at Heart]

It appears that this bill would usually make it illegal to obtain rented accommodation for oneself and a spouse from overseas prior to a visa being granted.

At first sight it would also appear that a landlord will have to evict tenants if an application for ILR or FLR is not granted promptly. Is this just a threat to ensure that the Home Office knows the real addresses of people who were due to apply but didn't?

The whole section on illegibility to rent feels fundamentally wrong. If it is meant as a requirement on landlords to report tenants who may be present illegally, it should be worded as such.

yawn. How many employers have actually been prosecuted for employing and illegal immigrant. Who thinks that any private landlords will actually face prosecution for failing to do these checks.

More waffle.

Two in the village where I have a business (not me!). Two in the village where I live. It cost them all a lot of money and plenty of bad publicity!

As an employer it is very simple to identify if someone has the right to work in the UK (copy of passport is generally enough). I cannot see any reason why a landlord would have problems doing the same. Most require pretty involved references already.

The local curry house got done 30k for two waiters.

[makescents]

One good section of the bill is the limitations on appeals which in 99% of all cases are funded by UK legal aid.

The legal gravy train has cost the UK a fortune for decades and needs to be stopped in it's tracks.

Because only the rich should have legal representation.

[Richard W]

The power to remove persons lawfully in the UK, extended under Clause 1, seems to be excessive.

(a ) There is no longer any limit on how slowly the decision to remove a member of the family of a person who has been removed may be made. There used to be an 8 week limit.

(b ) I'm not sure if this is new, but what constraint is there on the regulations as to who a family member is?

I hope I'm wrong about the following scenario beyond step 2, but I'd be relieved to be told how it's impossible.

1. A Briton with a Thai mother and a Thai start a family in Thailand, and then move to Britain.

2. The Thai wife has her leave to remain revoked, and she is removed, leaving the British father and children in the UK.

3. Two years later, the Secretary of State, out of the blue, decides to remove husband and children as being part of her family.

4. Every time they return to the UK, they are re-removed on the same basis.

Apart from the question of who is a member of someone's family, it could be any immigration officer, not just the Secretary of State.

The only way of stopping this that I can see is an appeal to an Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. I may be missing something, as I can't see what, even now, prevents the Secretary of State deciding to remove the whole family. Is it that a new removal decision is required after each entry following a removal?

As an extreme, could the Secretary of State decide that we are all members of the same family, and start removing people from the UK at will? Would the courts rule that that was not the meaning intended by Parliament?

[laolover88]

It is already not at all clear whether many parts of this proposed legislation may not be illegal. Not under UK law, nor under EU Human Rights Legislation, but under EU law. I should think there will be endless appeals and contestations.

[icare999]

what a load of crap. More nonsense government interference, rules, regulation and designed to control even more the normal people in UK. We need less government nonsense and more common sense. Like all stupid regulation it wont stop anything. All over the world governments are bringing in more and more control as we march more and more into an orwelian world. Read 1984 animal farm and rest and those not totally brain dead will see whats in front of their eyes. Most however will sleep walk into their slavery.

[Richard W]

Clause 14 new Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 Section 117C Paragraph (4):

Exception 1 applies where C

(a ) has been lawfully resident in the United Kingdom for most of Cs life,

(b ) is socially and culturally integrated in the United Kingdom, and

(c ) there would be very significant obstacles to Cs integration into the country to which C is proposed to be deported.

seems to further ease the expulsion of most foreign criminals.

The procedure would be:

1. Promptly deport to country of nationality on completion of sentence.

2. Hear human rights appeal from abroad, and argue that the criminal is now coping in country of nationality, this defeating 4(c ).

There's nothing to stop this procedure being applied to dual nationality criminals. The first step would be to deprive of British Citizenship on the basis (e.g. Paragraph (1) of the above, though it's not really necessary) that "the deportation of foreign criminals is in the public interest". Obviously Britain has to get in first, though most other countries are not in the race. Prison Service Instruction 52/2011 requires both foreign and dual national prisoners to be notified to the UKBA 'to facilitate timely and efficient case consideration'.

[vinny]

See also New Immigration Bill: summary of clauses.

Given the UKBA's inability sometimes to confirm an applicant's immigration status, this may make private landlords as paranoid as Employers and create more homeless unemployable people.

[7by7]

That the barrister you talked to is unaware of any cases of a person using deception to obtain a visa or leave to remain in the UK being removed does not mean it doesn't happen. Though I do admit that a (albeit brief) search for relevant statistics has been unsuccessful.

Here's one of several I found in 10 seconds!

https://www.gov.uk/government/world-location-news/uk-visa-applicant-arrested-for-fraud

Indeed, I found many similar reports; but I was looking for statistics.

Sorry that my use of the phrase "search for relevant statistics" didn't make that clear to you.

[Jay Sata]

The Telegraph carried the following story today.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/10375358/True-scale-of-European-immigration.html

A 291-page report, to be published this week by the European commissioner in charge of employment and welfare, discloses:

Key points

• The number of “non-active” EU migrants in Britain has risen by 42 per cent between 2006 and 2012;

• 611,779 “non-active” EU migrants were living in Britain last year, up from 431,687 just six years ago. The total is equivalent to the population of Glasgow;

• The number of EU migrants coming to Britain without a job increased by 73 per cent in the three years to 2011;

The report also shows the huge burden on the NHS, concluding it is equivalent to more than one per cent of the total NHS budget of £1.5 billion.

The estimated cost to France’s health system of “non-active” EU migrants is a fraction of that at just £3.4 million.

Edited October 13, 2013 by Jay Sata

[Richard W]

The only thing the bill appears to do about immigrants from the EU is to make it more difficult for them to participate in sham marriages. In so much as that is a problem, if disqualification from renting is to be implemented, the housing restrictions should probably be rejigged to ensure that EEA national and non-EEA spouse normally live in the same accommodation - and make marriage certificate plus EEA passport adequate evidence of qualification to rent! Separate accommodation should cause the UKBA to be alerted - it is conceivable that the non-EEA partner may have to live away from home during the working week. Surinder Singh cases would have to be covered as currently proposed - I can't see any better option.

Just possibly, if the bill makes coloured immigrants visibly homeless, it might lessen the pressue on white immigrants. Otherwise, the bill does nothing about the problems of white immigration.

[Jay Sata]

It's nothing to do with creed or colour.

Most immigration is economic.

In the case below the UK legal and benefit system has funded this guy to waste taxpayers money and fill the pockets of the legal aid gravy train.

Esam Amin has tried to claim asylum five times in the past six years.

Mark Harper, the government’s immigration minister, appeared on live TV on Sunday to tell the Iraqi asylum seeker to "return home".

In a heated exchange, Harper, who appeared with Amin on the BBC’s Sunday Politics West, told the Iraqi that neither the British government nor the British courts thought his claim to stay in the country legitimate and that the British taxpayer should not be responsible for supporting him.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2458617/Mark-Harper-tells-time-failed-asylum-seeker-home-live-TV.html

[7by7]

Yet again an admitted EEA national exercising his EEA treaty rights to live in the UK is condemning other EEA nationals for doing the same!

I thought this topic is about changes to the UK immigration rules; not the EEA freedom of movement regulations or asylum however:-

Benefit tourism claims: European Commission urges UK to provide evidence

The UK government has consistently declined to provide evidence to support its claims about "benefit tourism", the European Commission has said.

Spokesman Jonathan Todd told the BBC the Commission had been asking for more than three years for the figures.

"One can but sincerely hope" for ministers to set the record straight, he said............

Some newspapers have noted that the report shows that there are more than 600,000 "non-active" EU migrants in the UK - describing them as "unemployed".

But the Commission said this figure included older schoolchildren, students, the spouses of migrant workers, and retired people.

Fewer than 38,000 were claiming Jobseeker's Allowance, it added.

"The vast majority of migrants go to the UK to work, and they actually contribute more to the welfare system than they take out, purely because they tend to be younger than the average population, and of working age," Mr Todd told the BBC Two's Daily Politics..............

Edited October 15, 2013 by 7by7

[bkk_mike]

It appears that this bill would usually make it illegal to obtain rented accommodation for oneself and a spouse from overseas prior to a visa being granted.

At first sight it would also appear that a landlord will have to evict tenants if an application for ILR or FLR is not granted promptly. Is this just a threat to ensure that the Home Office knows the real addresses of people who were due to apply but didn't?

The whole section on illegibility to rent feels fundamentally wrong. If it is meant as a requirement on landlords to report tenants who may be present illegally, it should be worded as such.

yawn. How many employers have actually been prosecuted for employing and illegal immigrant. Who thinks that any private landlords will actually face prosecution for failing to do these checks.

More waffle.

Two in the village where I have a business (not me!). Two in the village where I live. It cost them all a lot of money and plenty of bad publicity!

As an employer it is very simple to identify if someone has the right to work in the UK (copy of passport is generally enough). I cannot see any reason why a landlord would have problems doing the same. Most require pretty involved references already.

You're confusing the right to work (which an employer is supposed to check) against the right to actually be in a country long enough that you want to rent a flat.

i.e. It's relatively easy to check if someone has the right to work, and employers ought to be set up to handle that. (i.e. EU or EEA or Swiss passport - or you need a visa in your passport giving you permission to enter/remain in the UK, that doesn't say you don't have the right to work. (i.e. ILR/ILE/FLR or some sort of work visa or settlement visa).

That is SIMPLE compared to the mess that is the rules for being allowed to be in the UK, and therefore have the possible requirement to rent a flat for 6 months. (And this will be a different list from the rules governing councils, as someone on a 6 month holiday isn't going to have any right to council housing.)

Did you know for instance that Namibians don't need a visa to enter the UK for 6 months, while South Africans need one. This means you can rent a flat to a Namibian with no visa in their passport, but not to a South African. I know lots of people who rent out one flat or one house (e.g. a guy where he rents out his own house, and rents a different one with the proceeds so that he's in the catchment area for the school he wanted his kids to go to), so there are lots of people renting out a single property, and for them, going through an agency is not the normal way to do things because an agency takes essentially all the profit from the rental. (i.e. the difference between the rent and the mortgage).

Add in the risk of you renting to one person, and a few months later a girlfriend/boyfriend moves in with them. If that second person is in the country illegally, is the landlord liable? Would using an agency even help in that situation?

Even when somebody is there legally, the paperwork isn't exactly easy to follow always. Have you ever seen an ILE visa stamp. It's Indefinite, but it's got a date (when you must make your first entry by) on it which is labelled as an expiry date. It's the worst designed visa on the planet as it's valid AFTER the date labelled as an expiry date on it. And they somehow expect landlords renting out one flat to know all this crap? What it will turn into is an excuse for landlords to not rent to foreigners because if a landlord restrict themself to renting to EU nationals, you're safe. It's basically an enabling law for racism.

[Kevin1908]

It appears that this bill would usually make it illegal to obtain rented accommodation for oneself and a spouse from overseas prior to a visa being granted.

At first sight it would also appear that a landlord will have to evict tenants if an application for ILR or FLR is not granted promptly. Is this just a threat to ensure that the Home Office knows the real addresses of people who were due to apply but didn't?

The whole section on illegibility to rent feels fundamentally wrong. If it is meant as a requirement on landlords to report tenants who may be present illegally, it should be worded as such.

yawn. How many employers have actually been prosecuted for employing and illegal immigrant. Who thinks that any private landlords will actually face prosecution for failing to do these checks.

More waffle.

Two in the village where I have a business (not me!). Two in the village where I live. It cost them all a lot of money and plenty of bad publicity!

As an employer it is very simple to identify if someone has the right to work in the UK (copy of passport is generally enough). I cannot see any reason why a landlord would have problems doing the same. Most require pretty involved references already.

You're confusing the right to work (which an employer is supposed to check) against the right to actually be in a country long enough that you want to rent a flat.

i.e. It's relatively easy to check if someone has the right to work, and employers ought to be set up to handle that. (i.e. EU or EEA or Swiss passport - or you need a visa in your passport giving you permission to enter/remain in the UK, that doesn't say you don't have the right to work. (i.e. ILR/ILE/FLR or some sort of work visa or settlement visa).

That is SIMPLE compared to the mess that is the rules for being allowed to be in the UK, and therefore have the possible requirement to rent a flat for 6 months. (And this will be a different list from the rules governing councils, as someone on a 6 month holiday isn't going to have any right to council housing.)

Did you know for instance that Namibians don't need a visa to enter the UK for 6 months, while South Africans need one. This means you can rent a flat to a Namibian with no visa in their passport, but not to a South African. I know lots of people who rent out one flat or one house (e.g. a guy where he rents out his own house, and rents a different one with the proceeds so that he's in the catchment area for the school he wanted his kids to go to), so there are lots of people renting out a single property, and for them, going through an agency is not the normal way to do things because an agency takes essentially all the profit from the rental. (i.e. the difference between the rent and the mortgage).

Add in the risk of you renting to one person, and a few months later a girlfriend/boyfriend moves in with them. If that second person is in the country illegally, is the landlord liable? Would using an agency even help in that situation?

Even when somebody is there legally, the paperwork isn't exactly easy to follow always. Have you ever seen an ILE visa stamp. It's Indefinite, but it's got a date (when you must make your first entry by) on it which is labelled as an expiry date. It's the worst designed visa on the planet as it's valid AFTER the date labelled as an expiry date on it. And they somehow expect landlords renting out one flat to know all this crap? What it will turn into is an excuse for landlords to not rent to foreigners because if a landlord restrict themself to renting to EU nationals, you're safe. It's basically an enabling law for racism.

Given that there is estimated to be close on a million illegal immigrants working in the UK it demonstrates that there are plenty of eomployers who don't carry out checks or simply don't care. Few employers ever get caught.

Whta chance do you think there is of a landlord actually getting caught. And given that the fine is only £3000 it almost seems like taking the risk.

[7by7]

I see that people are getting hung up on a minor point again.

What some of you don't seem to realise is that Clause 11 of the Bill means that if it becomes law and your wife, husband, partner, step child is refused a settlement visa then you/they will not be able to appeal that refusal.

You/they will have to pay (currently £851) to make another application.

Even if that refusal was unlawful.

Even if that refusal was against the provisions of the immigration rules.

Even if that refusal was due to an error by the ECO.

They are using the same excuse for this as they did for abolishing the right of appeal for family visits; too many appeals are successful!

That, I feel, is more important and more worrying than concerns over extra paperwork for landlords.

Edited October 15, 2013 by 7by7

[Richard W]

Add in the risk of you renting to one person, and a few months later a girlfriend/boyfriend moves in with them. If that second person is in the country illegally, is the landlord liable?

It looks to me that the landlord is only liable if at the time of the contract, the landlord should have known that that the second person was likely to move in. Problems would arise if that person became a tenant.

This does bring to mind an Australian 'squat' in London where the landlord continued to accept rent from the current occupants even though the original tenants were long gone. I can't see how such an arrangement doesn't totally circumvent the proposed law. Perhaps the current 'squatters' become potentially liable when a new squatter is accepted!

Even when somebody is there legally, the paperwork isn't exactly easy to follow always. Have you ever seen an ILE visa stamp.

As I read it, at least it will be sufficient that an authorised occupant has had the requisite nationality, ILR or ILE. It doesn't appear to be necessary to confirm that the nationality or indefinite leave is still held.

[Richard W]

I see that people are getting hung up on a minor point again.

What some of you don't seem to realise is that Clause 11 of the Bill means that if it becomes law and your wife, husband, partner, step child is refused a settlement visa then you/they will not be able to appeal that refusal.

You/they will have to pay (currently £851) to make another application.

Even if that refusal was unlawful.

Even if that refusal was against the provisions of the immigration rules.

Even if that refusal was due to an error by the ECO.

The government line seems to be that one is to request a judicial review. Presumably, if one can't obtain the funds to do so, that is viewed as acceptable; the government doesn't want poor people.

[vinny]

The new Immigration Bill is sinister and nasty.

[Jay Sata]

The blog in that link is written by a London barrister who make his living out of legal aid funded immigration appeals.

His workload is going to diminish early next year. Chris Grayling has said that foreigners and immigrants who fail a residency test are to be barred from receiving legal aid for civil court cases.

They will have to have lived lived legally in Britain for at least a year if they want to use the court system to block deportation.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2466791/Civil-legal-aid-banned-foreigners-year-help-stop-Britain-seen-soft-touch.html

[7by7]

One of the major principles of British justice is that it should be available equally to all; regardless of their wealth, status or any other factor.

With the proposed abolition of the right of appeal, British citizens with a foreign spouse/partner will not have access to justice if their spouse/partner's visa is refused; even if that refusal is unlawful or erroneous!

Remember, these bans will not apply only to those deemed 'undesirable' by the Daily Mail and it's readers, they will apply to all; including the family of this forum's members whose UK visa applications may be unlawfully or erroneously refused.

The abolition of legal aid means only the wealthy will have any access to justice.

Certain Irish immigrants living in the UK may think this fair; those who believe in the basic principles of British justice cannot agree.

Edit:

I have no idea how much of Colin Yeo's work is undertaken on a legal aid basis; but he is a highly respected expert on immigration law.

Edited October 19, 2013 by 7by7

[Jay Sata]

Surely the clampdown on long drawn out legal aided appeals is there for the public good.

Colin Yeo illustrates a case on his latest blog yesterday involving a Jamaican woman who entered the UK on a visitor visa

nine years ago. http://www.freemovement.org.uk/2013/10/18/unlawful-removal-unlawful-detention-damages/

Ms Shaw stated that she was a full time student attending Birmingham Training College but was unable to name the full title of the course that she was studying and could not state the name of the qualification she was studying for. She said that she lived as a member of her cousin’s household and did not do any work or claim benefits…On further questioning, however, she admitted that she had been working two hours a day from Monday to Friday for a cleaning company (not two hours a week as she had previously claimed). She also admitted working for up to 32 hours a week for a catering firm.”

The lady in this case was obviously an economic migrant and not a genuine student. While I have a degree of sympathy for her there has to be a solid immigration policy in place to prevent people using similar methods to settle in the UK

Looking at the court case it obviously cost the public purse a substantial amount of money. The plans by the Justice Minister will block similar appeals in the future as the applicant will not qualify if not here legally.

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2013/42.html

Edited October 19, 2013 by Jay Sata

[Richard W]

The blog in that link is written by a London barrister who make his living out of legal aid funded immigration appeals.

Unfortunately, that doesn't make him wrong.

The latest unreasonable requirement can be found in the electoral registration forms that have just been pushed through the door. There's a fine of up to £1,000 for giving false information or failing to respond, which, thankfully, will be at the discretion of the courts. Now, I am minded to deal with the form immediately, but I note the following instruction on the reverse:

'Who not to include: Convicted people in prison on 17 February 2014'

How am I to know who in the household will be in a convicted person in prison on 17 February 2014? (It is currently 19 October 2013.)

[7by7]

Odd that in this topic you say

there has to be a solid immigration policy in place to prevent people using similar methods to settle in the UK

yet here you say about your home country

If I was in your shoes I'd be heading back to Eire. Unlike the UK they have a more easy going attitude to returnees with wives.

All the UK barriers to partners do not exist.

So you want the UK to make it difficult for family migrants, but not your home country? How odd, if so.

I have no objections to the UK, or the RoI for that matter, having a 'solid immigration policy' as long as it is fair and implemented lawfully; which it wasn't in this case; and far too many others!

Yes, she eventually lost her case, but to quote from further down the page you linked to

The removal directions were, in my (the judge's) judgment, unlawful for the simple reason that the Defendant failed to give the Claimants any time at all to consider whether to seek legal assistance.

To make it clear, the Court of Appeal ruled that she and her child were removed from the UK unlawfully. They should have been allowed to remain until a final decision on their case had been made.

Furthermore, that this appeal was lost is no argument for withdrawing access to legal aid. Everyone should have the right to seek legal representation.

You often boast about your supposed wealth, but most people who come up against UKV&I and/or Home Office are not in the position to themselves fund lengthy court cases. How are they to achieve justice if the original decision on their case is erroneous or unlawful?

The decision to withdraw legal aid for immigration and asylum appeals is not being done for the public good; it is being done

• to save money
• to appease the more right wing members of the Tory party in an attempt to stop them defecting to UKIP.

I see this as the thin edge of the wedge. How long before legal aid is withdrawn completely; leaving those accused of any crime with no legal representation unless they are wealthy?

[7by7]

The blog in that link is written by a London barrister who make his living out of legal aid funded immigration appeals.

Unfortunately, that doesn't make him wrong.

Why 'unfortunately?'

The latest unreasonable requirement can be found in the electoral registration forms that have just been pushed through the door. There's a fine of up to £1,000 for giving false information or failing to resp

ond, which, thankfully, will be at the discretion of the courts. Now, I am minded to deal with the form immediately, but I note the following instruction on the reverse:

'Who not to include: Convicted people in prison on 17 February 2014'

How am I to know who in the household will be in a convicted person in prison on 17 February 2014? (It is currently 19 October 2013.)

I am 100% sure that no member of my household is a criminal and so will not be a convicted person in prison on 17 February 2014.

But if you are worried about a member of your household, wait a couple of months before sending the form back.

From my own experience as a victim of ABH last year; even though the perpetrator was arrested the same day and even though he pleaded guilty it was still nearly 10 months before he was actually sentenced.

So, based on that and reports in the press; were a member of your family arrested today, the likelihood of them, even if they plead guilty, being sentenced and so a convicted person in prison by 17 February next year is very slim.

Not that any of that has anything to do with UK immigration, let alone this topic.

[marstons]

If you want to discuss the specifics of your situation, then I think that the place for that is back in your original thread on the subject; not here.

Going back to what is relevant to this topic: I referred to 'him' because you said

He talks about revoking driving licences but not about revoking visas or passports. I have written to him asking him why the Bill doesn't look at deception in marriage and retrospectively revoking such visas and passports?

Whoever 'he' is, I am sure that the reply you will get is this Bill does not look at revoking visas or leave to remain obtained by deception simply because, as already said, such legislation already exists.

BTW, as far as I can recall, I have never read the Grauniad in my entire life. Not that the papers I read have any relevance.

Him as in Mark Harper, the person who drafted this new immigration bill

Unless you reside in his constituency you wont, and if you do he will write a response

to your home address in the UK.

Edited October 19, 2013 by marstons

[Richard W]

The blog in that link is written by a London barrister who make his living out of legal aid funded immigration appeals.

Unfortunately, that doesn't make him wrong.

Why 'unfortunately?'

We do not want sinister and nasty legislation.

So, based on that and reports in the press; were a member of your family arrested today, the likelihood of them, even if they plead guilty, being sentenced and so a convicted person in prison by 17 February next year is very slim.

Not that any of that has anything to do with UK immigration, let alone this topic.

The connection is that government regulation in the UK is not considering what it is possible for people to do.

[vinny]

Have your say on the Immigration Bill.

[vinny]

Immigration Bill Committee announce evidence programme.

[Tony M]

Having had a longer look at the bill, and the "impact assessment " ( attached below) it looks like the government plans to replace the current entry clearance appeals with an "Administrative Review" system ( similar to the current AR system for refusals under the Points Based System ). It would mean that, if an application is refused, then the applicant can ask for a review of the decision. That sounds great, but I see a couple of problems :

appeals_impact_assessment.pdf

1. The refusal decision will be reviewed by the same office ( not the same ECO who refused the application, but by the same office), and probably a colleague of the refusing ECO. So, who "polices the police" ?

2. The applicant will have to pay for a review. No potential fee cost has been provided yet, but I think it will be priced quite high in order to make the review system an unattractive option. I'm not sure if visit visa refusals will be entitled to review, but if so, then I think the fee for a review will be priced somewhat higher than the visit visa application fee in order to make a re-application more financially attractive.

3. There is no indication whether, if the applicant wins the review, then the fee will be returned. I suspect that it won't be.

4. If the AR fee is not refunded in cases where the ECO is shown to have made a "casework error" ( as it seems to be called in the impact assessment), then I see no reason why ECOs, and the UKV&I, should worry about whether the decision is a good one or not. In theory, the ECO could give any reason for refusing the application and, if the applicant applies for a review, give any reason for not overturning that refusal decision. They will want the applicant to submit a new application. Again, who polices the police ?

5. An AR system is a financial win-win situation for the UKV&I. Currently, if they lose an appeal then the Immigration Judge can award costs ( the visa fee) against the Home Office. That will not happen when the review is carried out by the same office that made the refusal decision in the first place.

6. If the UKV&I do actually start receiving requests for reviews, then this will probably impact on their staffing. They might well need more staff to carry out the reviews, so I think they will try to make AR requests as unattractive as possible. If it's too expensive, then applicants will re-apply rather than pay for a review. The UKV&I, will, of course, benefit from the new visa application fee.