Refusal rate for UK family visit visas after appeals abolished

[Tony M]

Refusal rate for family visit visas jumped after appeals abolished

 

The refusal rate for family visit visa applications jumped by 6 percentage points in the period after abolition of appeal rights in July 2013.

This ought to come as no surprise. As Tony Blair once said (Hansard vol 213, col 43, 2 November 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 that 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.

 

It is, of course, disappointing nevertheless. What will happen when rights of appeal are curtailed under the appeal provisions of the Immigration Act 2014?

 

The data was released following a Freedom of Information request and appeal. The full data was as follows:

 

                                    Refused

July 11 – Jun 12           18%

July 12 – Jun 13           19%

July 13 – Sept 13          25%

 

The information comes from the Free Movement website.  

 

Edited August 1, 2014 by Tony M

[Basil B]

1 in 4 chance of refusal but they keep the money anyway... 

 

New meaning to "Welcome To Rip Off Britain", surprised we get any tourist want to come to the UK. 

[Seekingasylum]

All quite predictable. One can only heap opprobrium upon them whenever the occasion arises. British sponsors should write to their MPs in strong terms and demand a meeting, their right, in order to present their case. MPs are lazy these days and accept any piffling letter from the Home Office correspondence unit in a mealy mouthed manner, often dispatching the constituent's complaint with the response " there is nothing I can do ". Make it quite clear you are not going away and stick to your guns like a barnacle to a rock. In the end the MP will up his game and actually address the matter properly.

Apathy is the Home Office's friend.

[Jay Sata]

If you read Colin Yeo's site he makes the following point.

 

 

For immigration lawyers, the effects of the Immigration Act 2014 are profound. The Government has predicted a 67% fall in the number of immigration appeals. This may be an overestimate and it may well be counterbalanced to some extent by an increase in applications for judicial review, but it will nonetheless have an important impact on the everyday work of lawyers. 

By everyday work of lawyers he of course means their revenue stream.Which means a substantial reduction in the publicly funded legal aid industry which exists at the taxpayers expense.

 

I am no fan of the legal industry which has mushroomed in recent years.

 

The USA and Thailand offer no right of appeal against the issue of visa's so why should the UK be any different.

 

Edited August 1, 2014 by Jay Sata

[Seekingasylum]

Legal aid is not available to the immigration cases we are concerned with.

Your point is otiose.

[Baerboxer]

If you read Colin Yeo's site he makes the following point.

 

 

For immigration lawyers, the effects of the Immigration Act 2014 are profound. The Government has predicted a 67% fall in the number of immigration appeals. This may be an overestimate and it may well be counterbalanced to some extent by an increase in applications for judicial review, but it will nonetheless have an important impact on the everyday work of lawyers. 

By everyday work of lawyers he of course means their revenue stream.Which means a substantial reduction in the publicly funded legal aid industry which exists at the taxpayers expense.

 

I am no fan of the legal industry which has mushroomed in recent years.

 

The USA and Thailand offer no right of appeal against the issue of visa's so why should the UK be any different.

 

 

If you think it prudent and fair to remove the right of appeal then the UK, USA and Thailand have got it right.

 

If you think it's inappropriate that officers should be considered never likely to make a mistake or be inconsistent then maybe they haven't got it right.

 

Tony Blair's comments in a earlier post are pretty sound. I don't know any US officials but I know plenty of UK ones.I also know people who have appealed and won in the past. 

Sorry but the training, levels of competence and in some cases the attitudes of many officers leaves a lot to be desired.

 

[Donutz]

If you read Colin Yeo's site he makes the following point.

For immigration lawyers, the effects of the Immigration Act 2014 are profound. The Government has predicted a 67% fall in the number of immigration appeals. This may be an overestimate and it may well be counterbalanced to some extent by an increase in applications for judicial review, but it will nonetheless have an important impact on the everyday work of lawyers. [/size]

By everyday work of lawyers he of course means their revenue stream.Which means a substantial reduction in the publicly funded legal aid industry which exists at the taxpayers expense.
 
I am no fan of the legal industry which has mushroomed in recent years.
 
The USA and Thailand offer no right of appeal against the issue of visa's so why should the UK be any different.

How is "He, she, they are (not) doing it" a valid argument? One could also list a number of countries which do grand right of appeal, such as the Schengen states for example.

Now I'm not a big fan of Tony, but he's spot on when it comes to right of appeal. Any decision by an authority such as a decision by a government official, judge etc. should atleast have one option of appeal. People make errors, people may be incompetent at times, or the coin lands on the wrong side when the decision maker is not entirely sure about saying yay or nay (due to something being in a grey area).

How it works in NL:
Visa application > free appeal (an other department should review the application/denial) > going to court at the applicants own costs, incase the applicant is foind to be in the right the authorities should pay for the expenses. Sounds fair enough to me. Edited August 1, 2014 by Donutz

[waynerooney]

Britain is full of to many beggars already, should just do what Thailand, Australia, New Zealand, USA, Canada to name a few  do, 30 days or prove you have the money to support your stay

[7by7]

Mr. Sata, yet again you spout your nonsense that someone's right to justice should be denied because lawyers make a living from it.

 

I assume that as you believe this that if you are ever unfortunate enough to suffer a legal injustice yourself that you will simply shrug your shoulders and accept it (don't say that you can afford to pay for a lawyer yourself, that's not the point and you know it).

 

One fact is absolutely certain; a significant number of appeals were upheld (if I remember correctly, I haven't checked, most of them). Which meant that a significant number of refused applicants actually met the requirements of the rules and their refusal was due to errors by the ECO.

 

Why should those people be denied justice?

 

If the government wants to, rightly, reduce the number of appeals and the legal aid bill for appeals (how many, I wonder, were funded by legal aid?) then the correct way to do so would have been to ensure ECOs are properly trained and didn't make so many mistakes.

 

Not remove the recourse to justice of those wrongly refused.

 

Also, as Donutz says happens in The Netherlands, whoever loses the appeal pays the costs. Personally, I'd make the actual ECO who made the mistake in the first place pay; that would concentrate their minds a bit more on getting it right in the first place!

 

As others have said, that other countries do not allow refused applicants to justice does not make it right that the UK does as well. Some other countries have public executions and floggings; should we have them, too?

[7by7]

Britain is full of to many beggars already, should just do what Thailand, Australia, New Zealand, USA, Canada to name a few  do, 30 days or prove you have the money to support your stay

 

The UK already does; whatever type of visa applied for the applicant has to show that they can support themselves in the UK without access to public funds. For a family settlement visa their sponsor must have a set minimum income or cash savings.

 

If they can't do this they wouldn't get the visa in the first place!

 

Before making comments like the above, I suggest you familiarise yourself with the UK immigration rules!

[Jay Sata]

Britain is full of to many beggars already, should just do what Thailand, Australia, New Zealand, USA, Canada to name a few  do, 30 days or prove you have the money to support your stay

Agreed.

 

The problem in the past was people entering the UK on visit visas who were not genuine tourists but economic migrants that disappeared.

 

There are certain parts of the world where an airline ticket and funds to stay in the UK are far beyond the reach of the average person.

[7by7]

Yes, overstayers are a problem; hence the reason to return requirement. How does abolishing the right of appeal for genuine applicants who have been wrongly refused change that?

 

Yes, there are many people in all parts of the world who cannot afford to travel to the UK; but how will abolishing the right of appeal for those who can and whose visa application is wrongly refused effect them?

 

You really are clutching at straws in your attempts to justify the unjustifiable!

[waynerooney]

 

Britain is full of to many beggars already, should just do what Thailand, Australia, New Zealand, USA, Canada to name a few  do, 30 days or prove you have the money to support your stay

 

The UK already does; whatever type of visa applied for the applicant has to show that they can support themselves in the UK without access to public funds. For a family settlement visa their sponsor must have a set minimum income or cash savings.

 

If they can't do this they wouldn't get the visa in the first place!

 

Before making comments like the above, I suggest you familiarise yourself with the UK immigration rules!

 

 

For a family settlement visa their sponsor must have a set minimum income or cash savings., in the original post i saw no mention of a family settlement visa, try getting that in Thailand, no chance
 

[7by7]

This topic is about the abolition of the right of appeal for family visit visas and the effect that has had on the number of refusals, noyt about the coming abolition of that right for family settlement; true.

 

But I included the financial requirements for family settlement in an attempt to educate you in the realities of the UK immigration rules; i.e. that anyone applying for any type of UK visa has to show in their application that they have the necessary funds to support themselves.

 

Which means your original post is nonsense.

 

As for Thailand, many non Thais live in Thailand with heir Thai partners, I intend to do so myself one day; and the financial requirements for the non Thai spouse of a Thai national are less arduous than those of a non Thai who is not married to a Thai. although both are subject to 90 day reporting etc.

 

As I said before, that other countries have immigration rules which are unfair does not make it right that the UK does as well.

 

But this is a topic about the UK immigration rules in general and the abolition of the right of appeal in particular.

 

If you want to discuss Thai immigration rules and their injustices, I suggest you start a topic in the appropriate forum.

 

 

[PeeJay1959]

I'm guessing these figures will be reflected in settlement visas soon as the right of appeal is removed from that. Maybe the ECO should have a senior person check their work. Part of my job is to design cables and my work is always checked before they go into production. Something as complex as a visa decision should not fall in the remit of just one person,

[Jay Sata]

No right of appeal in many parts of the world including the USA and Australia so why should the taxpayer fund the process and expense of appeals for entry to the UK.

We already have one of the most generous visitor visa allowance in Europe allowing six months in every twelve against the norm of 90 days.

Apart from the very wealthy how many genuine tourists can afford to give up their job and live in the UK for half a year?

What the closure of the appeal loophole has done is reduced economic migrants entering our nation via the back door. Edited August 1, 2014 by Jay Sata

[bifftastic]

Using this thread to express an opinion about people who abuse the UK immigration rules and overstay their visas falls into the category of 'missing the point entirely'.

 

That point being, that if there is no right of appeal, the person making the decision on a visa application is less likely to take as much care to do so correctly than if there is.

 

In simple terms (which may or may not help you to understand) if the ECO knows their decision cannot be challenged, there is nothing to stop them refusing it incorrectly.

 

As someone said earlier (7by7?) if the real aim of the government was to reduce appeals, the best way to do that fairly would be to make sure that their employees (the ECOs) make fewer mistakes.

[Jay Sata]

Someone has to make a decision on granting a visa and that is the ECO.

If a foreigner has a right to challenge the decision of an employee of HM government then the system would become an expensive bureaucratic nightmare with the taxpayer footing the bill.

Try appealing a visa for Thailand and see how far that gets you.

The current system places the onus on the applicant to satisfy entry requirements and if the fail they can submit a further application having attended to points raised in the first refusal.

Much cheaper and more efficient for the system to work that way.

I have my car tested every year and I am at the mercy of the examiner working for the garage. If it fails I get it fixed instead of going to appeal which is available. Edited August 1, 2014 by Jay Sata

[PeeJay1959]

"I have my car tested every year and I am at the mercy of the examiner working for the garage. If it fails I get it fixed instead of going to appeal which is available"

 

Yes but you still have the right to appeal, it's up to you if you use it. It should be the same for visa's. The MOT tester is trained by a government body and appointed to perform tests on behalf of the government.

[jacko45k]

1 in 4 chance of refusal but they keep the money anyway... 

 

New meaning to "Welcome To Rip Off Britain", surprised we get any tourist want to come to the UK. 

 

Plenty one-way tourists from Europe!

 

I do not mind them being strict, and evaluating applications thoroughly...... but they need to apply a little common sense and sadly, some racial profiling. Thailand as a developing country, sadly gets caught by its past. It should not be difficult for them to quickly assess, for example, that as me and my Thai wife have been together 12 years, have 2 houses, and a bank account well in credit, that we really are coming to visit and will be going back to Thailand where we live.......I just wonder how some of the others I see in the 'other' queue at the UK airport got their Visas.
 

[jinners]

No right of appeal in many parts of the world including the USA and Australia so why should the taxpayer fund the process and expense of appeals for entry to the UK.

We already have one of the most generous visitor visa allowance in Europe allowing six months in every twelve against the norm of 90 days.

Apart from the very wealthy how many genuine tourists can afford to give up their job and live in the UK for half a year?

What the closure of the appeal loophole has done is reduced economic migrants entering our nation via the back door.

 

What the closure of the appeal loophole has done is reduced economic migrants entering our nation via the back door.

 

No it hasn't. What is means is that for people wishing to make a short 3/4 week trip to see family and friends, are now offered no possible recourse due to an error on the part of the office making the decision to decline. What the term of 6 months has got to do with the removal of an appeal process is beyond me. It's not the job of the assessing officer to do anything other confirm the paperwork is complete, and then grant the visa.

 

These people are visiting from Thailand, not Romania or Portugal, where every God forsaken economic migrant has already washed up at the UK's door.

 

If my application is refused I will be very pi***d off, but of course they'll keep the money. Finally, just because other countries also have this totalitarian method does not make it right!

 

 

[Seekingasylum]

The current system places the onus on the applicant to satisfy entry requirements and if the fail they can submit a further application having attended to points raised in the first refusal.

Much cheaper and more efficient for the system to work that way.

I have my car tested every year and I am at the mercy of the examiner working for the garage. If it fails I get it fixed instead of going to appeal which is available.

Your analysis is somewhat crude and, evidently, ill informed.

The ECO simply interprets the rules and makes a judgement based on how the application may or may not meet the requirements, in his assessment.

To imply infallibility on his part is quite absurd given the wealth of case law that has arisen from decisions that have been successfully challenged over the past 40 years. The reason why we now will no longer have an appeal system is solely based upon the inescapable fact that the Home Office have consistently lost 50 - 70% of those cases which went to appeal.

To accept a decision simply because it has been made may well be the new reality but to then argue that one must address an alleged failing in order to submit another application even though there has been no such inadequacy, in law, in the first application is a perversion verging upon the idiotic.

To pursue your analogy, would you replace your tyres simply because the tester said so even though the remaining tread met legal requirements? Of course not, you would seek a second opinion and go elsewhere.

JR is the only course of action dealing with this dreadful aberration in our legal system. To give a person the right of appeal against an adverse planning decision but to deny him the right to challenge a decision preventing him from living with his wife is nothing more than an obscenity. Edited August 2, 2014 by Seekingasylum

[Jay Sata]

No right of appeal in many parts of the world including the USA and Australia so why should the taxpayer fund the process and expense of appeals for entry to the UK.

We already have one of the most generous visitor visa allowance in Europe allowing six months in every twelve against the norm of 90 days.

Apart from the very wealthy how many genuine tourists can afford to give up their job and live in the UK for half a year?

What the closure of the appeal loophole has done is reduced economic migrants entering our nation via the back door.

 
What the closure of the appeal loophole has done is reduced economic migrants entering our nation via the back door.
 
No it hasn't. What is means is that for people wishing to make a short 3/4 week trip to see family and friends, are now offered no possible recourse due to an error on the part of the office making the decision to decline. What the term of 6 months has got to do with the removal of an appeal process is beyond me. It's not the job of the assessing officer to do anything other confirm the paperwork is complete, and then grant the visa.
 
These people are visiting from Thailand, not Romania or Portugal, where every God forsaken economic migrant has already washed up at the UK's door.
 
If my application is refused I will be very pi***d off, but of course they'll keep the money. Finally, just because other countries also have this totalitarian method does not make it right!
 
 

There is an alternative if the applicants visa to visit family and friends for a three or four week trip is refused.

The family or friends can visit him or her in their own country.

Problem solved.

You refer to visitors from Thailand but of course this rule applies to all applicants who require a visa and not just Thailand.

In the past 6 month visit visa's have been used as a method of getting cheap labour in to work in takeaways and restaurant's. Edited August 2, 2014 by Jay Sata

[AnotherOneAmerican]

Just to point out the refusal rate jumped by an amazing 27% (from 19% to 25%).
Which is a massive increase.

[Jay Sata]

I suspect more confidence on the part of ECO's knowing the applicant can no longer appeal and cost the service money defending the decision.

To get the figures in context 75% of applications are approved.

Incidentally Anotherone what about the USA and it's refusal rate? Edited August 2, 2014 by Jay Sata

[AnotherOneAmerican]

I suspect more confidence on the part of ECO's knowing the applicant can no longer appeal and cost the service money defending the decision.

Incidentally Anotherone what about the USA and it's refusal rate?

USA hardly ever refuse a spouse a visitors VISA.
If you got the money, and they have no criminal record, they're in.
They often issue a 10 year VISA, even when it isn't requested.
(good for a six month stay in each of the 10 years) Edited August 2, 2014 by AnotherOneAmerican

[Bernard Flint]

Quite a few thais in uk who have overstayed for a long time, i have met them

[durhamboy]

Quote from Jay Sata :-

"There is an alternative if the applicants visa to visit family and friends for a three or four week trip is refused.

The family or friends can visit him or her in their own country.

Problem solved."

Wow it must be great living on Planet Sata where problems can be resolved soooooo easily. Never mind the reasons for wanting to visit the UK. Refused visa? Never mind, just reverse the process. No problem if, say, the visitor from Thailand is coming for a friend's wedding just cart the wedding lock, stock and barrel to Thailand. Problem solved Jay!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Donutz]

 
There is an alternative if the applicants visa to visit family and friends for a three or four week trip is refused.

The family or friends can visit him or her in their own country.

Problem solved.

You refer to visitors from Thailand but of course this rule applies to all applicants who require a visa and not just Thailand.

In the past 6 month visit visa's have been used as a method of getting cheap labour in to work in takeaways and restaurant's.

I'm sorry but that silly argument is the same some politicians and the immigration department use: "if you cannot have your family join you here for short/long/indefinite stay you can always go to join your family in their country". Errr, and what if that country has the same or even more strict rules for forwigners who wish to visit or live there? Then you would have no where to go and would have to remain seperated for who knows how long!

People should be able to be together, especially family members, if they do not pose a threat in any way. If countries are afraid of foreigners taking away jobs, performing criminal activities or leeching of the wellfare system then they should do something about closing such loopholes. For instance more checks to prevent fraud (higher catch rate), decreasing the visa time to 3 months for normal tourist visas (6 months seem fine to me though if a tourist such as a pensioner can show the trip is genuine and affordable) etc.

I doubt anybody here advocates that there is no need to fight abuse, but combating that is a whole different thing than closing the right of appeal. Officers make mistakes, sometimes they may rush things, they might be a bias etc. so atleast there should be the option of appeal. How would you feel if you could not appeal any decision by some authority (police ticket, taxes, some decision by the municipality, any mandatory checks such as the example with the car you mentioned etc.? They made a mistake or ''mistake" that works against you, too bad, go to court if you think your injustice has been done? I sure would not want to live in such a totalitarian state.

If people appeal a refused visa that is obviously declined for the right reasons, then it should be very easy for the senior person/department to uphold the decision. If it's not so straight forward, a second review makes perfect sense. If too many appeals are overturned then the official who apparantly is doing a piss poor job should feel the consequences.

I don't know what % of people used to appeal or how many won their appeal or won their case when they dragged it to court (which in the UK you'd need to pay yourself too). From what I gather in Dutch forums, only a number of people decide to appeal anyway, thinking it will be a waste of time (thinking a senior will pretty much stick to the decision by the junior officer), because they fear it will be of negative effect for future applications (WTF?!!) or because they don't know about right of appeal to begin with. From what I gather only a relatively small number of people thus do appeal, but those who do appeal often succeed. Suggesting that in many cases people with a strong case will appeal a decision they disagree with. I don't know about the UK but I can imagen a similar pattern there. Some here shared some statistics, perhaps they can shed a light.

Regardless even with absurd numbers such as for example 95% appeals and 95% of those appeals having the refusal decision upheld, appeal should be a right as a matter of principle to protect genuine applicabts against sloppy work by some official. No person should have absolute authority with only a slim chanche of being corrected, which will be the case if people will need to go to court over visa refusals. Most probably will apply again or not bother again even if the refusal made little sense at all. And this forum shows it's fair share of refusals which seem a bit odd.

[Donutz]

Quote from Jay Sata :-

"There is an alternative if the applicants visa to visit family and friends for a three or four week trip is refused.

The family or friends can visit him or her in their own country.

Problem solved."

Wow it must be great living on Planet Sata where problems can be resolved soooooo easily. Never mind the reasons for wanting to visit the UK. Refused visa? Never mind, just reverse the process. No problem if, say, the visitor from Thailand is coming for a friend's wedding just cart the wedding lock, stock and barrel to Thailand. Problem solved Jay!!!!!!!!!!!!

Indeed, but I suppose in Sata's world you could always have the marriage or funeral in the other country, simply have the bride/groom/deceased shipped over to the foreign country...