Refusal rate for UK family visit visas after appeals abolished

[Seekingasylum]

The most important point is the appeals were costing the UK government money.

I quote again the Immigration Minister

'Family visitor appeals make up more than a third of all immigration appeals going through the system, with many applicants using it as an opportunity to submit information that should have been included in the first place.

Removing the right of appeal will save £107 million over the next decade, making the process faster and cheaper for applicants and allowing officials to focus on more complex cases, such as asylum claims and foreign criminal deportations.'

He stated there that many appeals were founded on incorrect original applications.

The visitor now has to submit a new application if they are rejected instead of wasting taxpayers money on appeals.

If they cannot afford the visa process then the answer is simple. Get on an aircraft and visit them instead.

Ahh, your gullibility in swallowing this disingenuous claptrap does you proud and perhaps explains just why you appear so obtuse.

The visa regime and allied in country extension system currently in place is the most expensive in the world and as a consequence is self financing netting central government a revenue stream that exceeds the costs of its implementation. The proposition that appeals were mounted in order to adduce further evidence omitted from an application is without any foundation whatsoever and the assertion that the costs arising to the Exchequer can be attributed to the appellant is equally specious. An analysis of family appeal decisions disclosed that in a greater proportion of cases the visa officer had, variously,overlooked submitted documents, had lost said documents, had failed to assess the significance of evidence with reference to current case law and the immigration rules or had simply wrongly applied the rules. Given that the Home Office lost over 50 % of their cases on such a basis it is therefore a corollary that they too bear responsibility for the expense of an appeals system which consistently exposed their incompetence, inefficiency and, on occasions, downright stupidity.

I have often wondered who actually believes the rhetoric and propaganda spewed out by May and her apparatchiks. I think I have my answer now.

[Jay Sata]

7by7 I take it you have never heard of health tourism .

'One in 14 new mothers are maternity tourists: £182m bill for births to short term migrants and visitors
One in 14 mothers giving birth in the UK are temporary migrants or visitors
Costs £182 million a year and accounts for 7% of NHS maternity spending
Health tourism overall costs the NHS £2billion annually'

What facts have you got to suggest the 25% refusal rate does not include a lot of potential visitors who see the UK as a soft touch?

Just google Lagos Shuttle and read the reports of abuse of our NHS at Guys and St Thomas's Hospital in London. Edited August 3, 2014 by Jay Sata

[Bernard Flint]

 

i HAVE HEARD MANY CONVERSATIONS about farang who wants to take lady back, not a clue what to do, some even think they can get the girl to have a job, get paid back pocket, and actualy think it is ok.Some are actualy dole scroungers, who think they can do anything in life, and believe because they earn 20k a year selling dope or illegal cigarettes they can comply, un believable

What has this got to do with family visit visas?

 

 

Different types applying for a visa, are u ok?????????

[Bernard Flint]

 

 

i HAVE HEARD MANY CONVERSATIONS about farang who wants to take lady back, not a clue what to do, some even think they can get the girl to have a job, get paid back pocket, and actualy think it is ok.Some are actualy dole scroungers, who think they can do anything in life, and believe because they earn 20k a year selling dope or illegal cigarettes they can comply, un believable

What has this got to do with family visit visas?

 

 

Plenty.  come,look,see at what you could get and do in the UK.Once there the great temptation is to stay,work the black economy which many do,then a freebie home if and when caught out.

 

For some people they think 5 years without being caught out is enough reason to stay lawfully in the UK . Family visit to the UK from someone from Issan would be like paradise found,more chance of flogging a dead cat than getting them on a returning 'plane

 

Not just Issan, i have known 2 from Bangkok,but they got  jobs as ceo of Barclays Bank, some Issan,Chiang Mai and Lao

Edited August 3, 2014 by Bernard Flint

[Jay Sata]

Here are some historical facts.

The Immigration Appeals Act 1969 and the Immigration Act 1971 granted Rights of Appeal against a wide range of immigration decisions, including refusals to grant entry clearance. However, the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993 removed appeal rights for rejected visitors and short term students.

In October 2000, following disquiet that family members were being refused visit visas without appropriate remedy, the Right of Appeal against refusal of visitors visas for "family visitors" was re-instated under the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. Fees were originally set at £500 for an oral hearing or £150 for an appeal without a hearing. In January 2001 these fees were reduced to £125 and £50 but in May 2002 the fees were abolished entirely.

The number of family visitor appeals increased six fold, to nearly a thousand a week.

The cost reached approximately £1 million a week. The definition of family visitor is so wide that it could include as many as 120 relatives of a middle aged person in Britain.

I suggest you read the government briefing paper to see the logic in removing the right to appeal.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/98432/ia-appeal-rights.pdf Edited August 3, 2014 by Jay Sata

[Seekingasylum]

Er, statistics seem to confuse you. In one post you reference the removal of family visit appeal rights will save the Exchequer £107 millions over the next 10 years yet you now purport to reference the alleged fact family visit appeals cost £52 millions per year?

Irrespective of this nonsense, you still have not dealt with the actuality in that it is the Home Office itself who are the architects of wasted public money, and not the applicant.

But still, last year there were 1.9 million visit visas issued, in addition to which there were over 38,000 family settlement visas issued and 60,000 in country extensions processed.

You are presumably aware of the fees schedule and so I shall let you do the maths. In addition of course you could also factor in points based applications etc.

Contrast that income with the piddling alleged savings of £10 million per year, at least 50%'of which is directly attributable to the Home Office"s poor decision making.

Your problem is that you have no perspective of your own and cannot analyse data without being spoon fed by manipulating political dogmatists pandering to the lumpen populist vote also incapable of thinking for themselves. Edited August 3, 2014 by Seekingasylum

[Jay Sata]

The figures I quote are from government websites and if you read them carefully you will see some are historic.

I see you have chosen to ignore health tourism or accept that inside the 25% refusal rates there are bound to be a lot of so called family visitors who in the past would have come to work in family business's.

You appear to suggest anyone who applies for a family visit visa should be allowed the enter the UK?

£83.00 seems a small amount for this visa and even if refused the applicant can apply again.

As for my perspective I only want the genuine visitors allowed in to the UK and the economic or health tourists prevented from ripping us off.

One of the many reasons for refusing family visit visa's is where a succession of six month in twelve month stays have been used to live in the UK.
See http://www.parliament.uk/Templates/BriefingPapers/Pages/BPPdfDownload.aspx?bp-id=sn06363 Edited August 3, 2014 by Jay Sata

[Seekingasylum]

As I surmised, all fresh air and bluster. Over and out, as they say.

[Jay Sata]

Read the briefing paper.

63% of the successful appeals under the old system were allowed because the applicant submitted additional documentation.

They have the same option under the current regulations by submitting a new application.

I notice you refuse to accept there is such a thing as health tourism or abuse of family visit visas.

The briefing paper also reveals not surprisingly the main countries where family visit visas are refused.

Thailand does not get a mention and I suspect very few if any genuine applicants from the kingdom are rejected.

[Tony M]

Read the briefing paper.

63% of the successful appeals under the old system were allowed because the applicant submitted additional documentation.

They have the same option under the current regulations by submitting a new application.

I notice you refuse to accept there is such a thing as health tourism or abuse of family visit visas.

The briefing paper also reveals not surprisingly the main countries where family visit visas are refused.

Thailand does not get a mention and I suspect very few if any genuine applicants from the kingdom are rejected.

 

For some unknown reason,  you have decided to set yourself up in this forum as some kind if immigration expert, when you actually have no knowledge or experience of immigration at all. All of the "advice" and argument that you offer is gleaned from surfing Google, and you accept it as fact.  Much as you accuse others of refusing to accept your "facts", you have never once accepted any criticism of your lack of knowledge. Nor have you ever acknowledged that the advice you have given in the past has been wrong. You continue to offer "facts", gleaned from your internet searches, without actually understanding what they mean, and often offer those erroneous facts as advice. Thankfully, most here ignore your advice, having learned that it has no value whatsoever.

 

Some of the people who post here, and you can probably guess who they are from the advice and facts that they offer, have actual experience of working with UK immigration, and know the realities. Your own guesses and suspicions that there are "very few if any" genuine applicants who are refused visas is based on what ?  I can certainly give you numerous examples, and documentary evidence, of at least 15 visa applicants who were wrongly refused visas here in Thailand over the past year or so, but forum rules forbid me from doing so.

 

You have now ruined many decent threads in this forum with your trolling. Many threads have been hijacked by you, and some have even been closed. It's time you left this forum to those who have something to offer.  

Edited August 3, 2014 by Tony M

[sustento]

As for summary justice I guess you don't know about parking and speeding tickets?

Parking tickets can be appealed and you can insist on taking a speeding ticket to a Magistrate's court rather than pay the fixed penalty.

[Jay Sata]

I cannot see what the problem is with submitting a new application.

There is no limit to the number of times a potential visitor can apply.

The current government introduced simple rules to contain the open door policy left by Labour who nearly wrecked the UK.

I see none of my critics have been brave enough to discuss the abuse via health tourism. Edited August 3, 2014 by Jay Sata

[loppylugs1]

At the end of all this it is about numbers,the govt. has put a figure on how many immigrants it wants in the country. I fully believe the  family visit visa is a way of attempting to circumvent those numbers,especially from the likes of Thailand

[Tony M]

I cannot see what the problem is with submitting a new application.

There is no limit to the number of times a potential visitor can apply.

The current government introduced simple rules to contain the open door policy left by Labour who nearly wrecked the UK.

I see none of my critics have been brave enough to discuss the abuse via health tourism.

 

Firstly, why should your critics discuss health tourism ?  This thread isn't about health tourism, but you think it should be.   Do you even understand what hijacking a thread means ?

 

Secondly, just because you "cannot see the problem" doesn't mean you are correct. But, as always,you seem to think that you are.  What it does mean is that, by having to rely on Google to be able to contribute to the forum, you are incapable of independent thought, and have no knowledge or experience to rely on. Your argument also means that you think there should be no limit to the number of times that the ECO can refuse an application, on any grounds he wishes to put forward, without the applicant or sponsor having the right to challenge those decisions. Are you saying that someone should just have to keep applying for visas after an ECO has made an unlawful or incorrect decision ?  

 

As I have said in many other threads, I will not prolong any arguments with you. You are now just trolling, as you usually do, and this thread will probably go the same way as many other threads that you have ruined by your "contributions".  End of.

Edited August 3, 2014 by Tony M

[Jay Sata]

At the end of all this it is about numbers,the govt. has put a figure on how many immigrants it wants in the country. I fully believe the  family visit visa is a way of attempting to circumvent those numbers,especially from the likes of Thailand

I agree with you on the visa's being used to circumvent the immigration process Loppy.

People who cannot muster £18500 or who have a partner unable to pass the language test settle for the second best option of six months in and six months out.

One or two regulars on here seem to think they have the right to challenge what has been approved by Parliament.

We have no breakdown of the 25% visa failures but the consultation paper revealed the bulk were from the obvious places where the average person cannot afford a holiday let alone a ticket to the UK.

[theoldgit]

OK, I've kept out of this for now, but a couple of posters seem to be unable to keep to the topic of the rise in refusal of applications since the right of appeal has been removed.

Any further off topic posts will be removed without warning.

So please keep future posts on topic, and can I respectfully remind members that the topic is about the removal of appeal rights for family visit visas, not health tourism or parking tickets.

Thanks to Tony M for initially posting the facts and my sincere apologies for allowing the thread to degenerate.

[Jay Sata]

I cannot see what the problem is with submitting a new application.

There is no limit to the number of times a potential visitor can apply.

The current government introduced simple rules to contain the open door policy left by Labour who nearly wrecked the UK.

I see none of my critics have been brave enough to discuss the abuse via health tourism.

 
Firstly, why should your critics discuss health tourism ?  This thread isn't about health tourism, but you think it should be.   Do you even understand what hijacking a thread means ?
 
Secondly, just because you "cannot see the problem" doesn't mean you are correct. But, as always,you seem to think that you are.  What it does mean is that, by having to rely on Google to be able to contribute to the forum, you are incapable of independent thought, and have no knowledge or experience to rely on. Your argument also means that you think there should be no limit to the number of times that the ECO can refuse an application, on any grounds he wishes to put forward, without the applicant or sponsor having the right to challenge those decisions. Are you saying that someone should just have to keep applying for visas after an ECO has made an unlawful or incorrect decision ?  
 
As I have said in many other threads, I will not prolong any arguments with you. You are now just trolling, as you usually do, and this thread will probably go the same way as many other threads that you have ruined by your "contributions".  End of.

So because I offer an alternative opinion you accuse me of trolling.

The rules have been changed and there is no right to appeal. The quickest and cheapest option is to submit a new application. That is the government stance and in my opinion the correct one.

You and others seem to continually blame immigration officers for doing their job. Edited August 3, 2014 by Jay Sata

[theoldgit]

I will now add my two satangs worth, ECO's do have to make decisions based on the evidence supplied, and I suspect that it the majority of cases they get it right, but they they are human beings and not infallible so they can, and do make mistakes.

I believe that natural justice should allow a mistaken decision to be challenged, I think it's an obscenity to suggest that in the case of an incorrect refusal then the applicant should simply reapply, and pay a second fee.

I've never been in the position of deciding on visa applications but I would imagine that when it came to an annual assessment of an ECO's work, the number of their refusal decisions that were overturned on appeal would have an impact on their assessment, so I wonder how they now assess.

[Richard W]

The data we have is inadequate, but a simple analysis suggests that the jump in the number of refusals is misleading. My analysis is subject to rounding errors, but here goes:

Before, of 100 applications, 81 were granted, 8 were refused and not appealed, 7 were refused and unsuccessfully appealed, and 4 were refused but granted on appeal.

Now if appeals are replaced by reapplications and reapplications have the same outcome as appeals, where before we had 100 applications, we now have 111 applications, with 1×8 + 2×7 + 1×4 = 26 refusals, a refusal rate of 23.4% (I know, false precision). This compares with an actual refusal rate of 25%.

Now, there is a lot that reduces the validity of this analysis:
1) There may have been an upward trend in the number of refusals - this would add over 1% to the refusal rate.
2) There is a possibility of 2nd reapplications
3) There may be transition effects in this data - which makes the apparent jump more alarming
4) Incorrect immigration directorate instructions which will result in repeated refusals where an appeal would have resulted in the application being granted.
5) Reapplication is cheaper than an oral appeal (the preferred option), so this may have increased the number of reapplications.

[Seekingasylum]

Read the briefing paper.

63% of the successful appeals under the old system were allowed because the applicant submitted additional documentation.

They have the same option under the current regulations by submitting a new application.

I notice you refuse to accept there is such a thing as health tourism or abuse of family visit visas.

The briefing paper also reveals not surprisingly the main countries where family visit visas are refused.

Thailand does not get a mention and I suspect very few if any genuine applicants from the kingdom are rejected.

There you go again. Why would you wish to reference a briefing paper as if it were some inconvertible proof. That disingenuous piece of flummery is drafted for lay people like you but no lawyer or immigration practitioner worth their salt would regard it as anything other than smoke blown up their fundament.

The test to be applied by visa officers in considering an application is to weigh evidence on the balance of probabilities i.e. a thing is more likely than not. On many occasions officers fail to apply this test properly and refuse accordingly. They also may overreach themselves and refuse an application on mere suspicion alone.

The appellant cannot adduce fresh evidence in the appeal but he may quite legitimately submit further evidence related to matters that were discovered in the original application. Thus, in cases when documentary evidence or material pertaining to relationship were considered deficient by the visa officer which led to the refusal the appellant may well produce more of the same when his bundle is prepared for the hearing. Now, in his ruling the Judge may allow the appeal on whatever grounds stated but that does not licence the Home Office to glibly infer his determination was as a consequence of the additional evidence. It simply isn't the case. In many, many cases the additional evidence was quite redundant and added little to the application which was more often than not refused because the visa officer could not grasp the concept of the balance of probability.

Now, of course, the visa officer can do pretty much as he likes and at nest the applicant has to find another £1000 to satisfy his whim.

Incidentally,if you wish to start a thread on health tourism feel free

[Jay Sata]

I will now add my two satangs worth, ECO's do have to make decisions based on the evidence supplied, and I suspect that it the majority of cases they get it right, but they they are human beings and not infallible so they can, and do make mistakes.

I believe that natural justice should allow a mistaken decision to be challenged, I think it's an obscenity to suggest that in the case of an incorrect refusal then the applicant should simply reapply, and pay a second fee.

I've never been in the position of deciding on visa applications but I would imagine that when it came to an annual assessment of an ECO's work, the number of their refusal decisions that were overturned on appeal would have an impact on their assessment, so I wonder how they now assess.

Surely a new application is quicker and cheaper than an appeal.?

That was part of the argument for abolishing the right to challenge the refusal.

Incidentally I am puzzled over the sum of £1000 suggested by Seekingasylum. Edited August 3, 2014 by Jay Sata

[Seekingasylum]

Surely, you cannot be that obtuse. My application has been refused ultra vires but the good news is I cannot appeal and just have to pay another £1000 for another shot at it which might be knocked back on slightly different grounds which would be as ultra vires as the previous decision.

Settlement applications cost over £900 but by the time one faffs about submitting it at Trendy it's a grand. By next year settlement visa applications will no longer attract a right of appeal

[7by7]

<snip>
People who cannot muster £18500 or who have a partner unable to pass the language test settle for the second best option of six months in and six months out.

Which they are legally entitled to do under the rules, and nothing to do with this topic anyway.
 

One or two regulars on here seem to think they have the right to challenge what has been approved by Parliament.

Of course we have that right; we live in a democracy! What has been approved by Parliament is always open to challenge and I trust always will be.
 

We have no breakdown of the 25% visa failures but the consultation paper revealed the bulk were from the obvious places where the average person cannot afford a holiday let alone a ticket to the UK.

You keep on bringing this up as justification for removing the right of appeal.

 

Whether or not the location of the applicant is somewhere where the average person cannot afford a holiday in the UK, and being ThaiVisa specific I would suggest that the average Thai is such a person, is, as repeatedly said to you, irrelevant.

 

We are talking about family visit visas, not general ones. This means that the applicant is sponsored by a British citizen who lives in their home country with them or a UK resident. Both of whom are more likely to be earning more than the average wage in the applicant's country of residence and so more likely to be able to afford a UK visit.

 

If people can't afford a trip to the UK, with or without the help of a sponsor, then they are unlikely to be applying for a UK family visit visa; and if they did then they would be rightfully refused.

 

But we are not talking about people who are rightfully refused; we are talking here about people wrongly refused being denied the right to have that wrong righted.

 

Again; people who can't afford to come to the UK anyway are, as said, irrelevant to this topic.

 

Got it now?

 

As are health tourists; as Seekingasylum said, if you want to discuss those, and the measures to prevent same, both existing and proposed, start a new topic and we can do so there.

 

You do seem to have garnered some support here from a couple of members; unfortunately for you, based on what they have posted, they are as ill informed about the UK immigration rules and other relevant law as yourself and are basing their remarks on the same ignorant prejudices as you.

 

As you have embarked upon a road of merely incessantly repeating your repeatedly refuted or off topic arguments, I see no point in responding to you further until and unless you post something new.

[Richard W]

I see you have chosen to ignore health tourism or accept that inside the 25% refusal rates there are bound to be a lot of so called family visitors who in the past would have come to work in family business's.

According to the Home Office briefing, the major abuse related to the right of appeal is arriving and then applying for asylum. There is no explanation of why the right of appeal should be significant for such an abuse.

One of the many reasons for refusing family visit visa's is where a succession of six month in twelve month stays have been used to live in the UK.
See http://www.parliament.uk/Templates/BriefingPapers/Pages/BPPdfDownload.aspx?bp-id=sn06363

What has that got to do with the right of appeal?

[Tony M]

I admit that this is slightly off topic, but the principle of removing the right of appeal, be it in family visit or settlement applications, remains the same.  Mr Sata will no doubt wish to give his opinion, and I welcome it.

 

This is a very recent genuine refusal reason in a settlement application. Mr Sata's argument, which I assume will apply when the right of appeal for settlement visas is also removed very soon, will presumably be that the applicant can re-apply.  

 

Mr Sata, was the ECO's decision correct ?  If yes, then should the applicant be able to appeal, or just take a new English test, and re-apply ?  If no, then is it your argument that the applicant should not have any right of appeal, and should have to re-apply without being able to challenge the decision ?  

 

"You are not exempt from the English language requirement under paragraph  E.ECP 4.2. In addition you are not a national of a majority English speaking country listed in paragraph GEN 1.6    Therefore, under the rules, you are required to have passed an English language test ( level A1 of the Common European Framework) with a provider approved by UKBA or hold an academic qualification recognised by NARIC UK to be the equivalent of a Bachelor’s or Master’s degree or PhD in the UK, which was taught in English.  You have produced an ETC TOEIC certificate, but as of 5^th April they were no longer a recognised provider by UKBA. Your application was submitted on 16^th April and therefore this certificate cannot be considered.

 

You have provided no other evidence of your ability to speak English. I therefore refuse……….."

Edited August 3, 2014 by Tony M

[Jay Sata]

Surely, you cannot be that obtuse. My application has been refused ultra vires but the good news is I cannot appeal and just have to pay another £1000 for another shot at it which might be knocked back on slightly different grounds which would be as ultra vires as the previous decision.

Settlement applications cost over £900 but by the time one faffs about submitting it at Trendy it's a grand. By next year settlement visa applications will no longer attract a right of appeal

I was referring to family visit visas which cost £83 which is around 4000 baht.

Not exactly a huge sum and certainly not enough to warrant an appeal as was the case under the old rules.

I did not know we are also discussing settlement visa appeals. Edited August 3, 2014 by Jay Sata

[Jay Sata]

I admit that this is slightly off topic, but the principle of removing the right of appeal, be it in family visit or settlement applications, remains the same.  Mr Sata will no doubt wish to give his opinion, and I welcome it.
 
This is a very recent genuine refusal reason in a settlement application. Mr Sata's argument, which I assume will apply when the right of appeal for settlement visas is also removed very soon, will presumably be that the applicant can re-apply.  
 
Mr Sata, was the ECO's decision correct ?  If yes, then should the applicant be able appeal, or just take a new English test, and re-apply ?  If no, then is it your argument that the applicant should not have any right of appeal, and should have to re-apply without being able to challenge the decision ?  
 
"You are not exempt from the English language requirement under paragraph  E.ECP 4.2. In addition you are not a national of a majority English speaking country listed in paragraph GEN 1.6    Therefore, under the rules, you are required to have passed an English language test ( level A1 of the Common European Framework) with a provider approved by UKBA or hold an academic qualification recognised by NARIC UK to be the equivalent of a Bachelors or Masters degree or PhD in the UK, which was taught in English.  You have produced an ETC TOEIC certificate, but as of 5^th April they were no longer a recognised provider by UKBA. Your application was submitted on 16^th April and therefore this certificate cannot be considered.
 
You have provided no other evidence of your ability to speak English. I therefore refuse.."

As you say slightly off topic but the answer to the above seems simple unless I have missed something?

The application failed because the English test was not valid.

Therefore a new test and application is required. Edited August 3, 2014 by Jay Sata

[Tony M]

 

I admit that this is slightly off topic, but the principle of removing the right of appeal, be it in family visit or settlement applications, remains the same.  Mr Sata will no doubt wish to give his opinion, and I welcome it.
 
This is a very recent genuine refusal reason in a settlement application. Mr Sata's argument, which I assume will apply when the right of appeal for settlement visas is also removed very soon, will presumably be that the applicant can re-apply.  
 
Mr Sata, was the ECO's decision correct ?  If yes, then should the applicant be able appeal, or just take a new English test, and re-apply ?  If no, then is it your argument that the applicant should not have any right of appeal, and should have to re-apply without being able to challenge the decision ?  
 
"You are not exempt from the English language requirement under paragraph  E.ECP 4.2. In addition you are not a national of a majority English speaking country listed in paragraph GEN 1.6    Therefore, under the rules, you are required to have passed an English language test ( level A1 of the Common European Framework) with a provider approved by UKBA or hold an academic qualification recognised by NARIC UK to be the equivalent of a Bachelors or Masters degree or PhD in the UK, which was taught in English.  You have produced an ETC TOEIC certificate, but as of 5^th April they were no longer a recognised provider by UKBA. Your application was submitted on 16^th April and therefore this certificate cannot be considered.
 
You have provided no other evidence of your ability to speak English. I therefore refuse.."

As you say slightly off topic but the answer to the above seems simple unless I have missed something?

The application failed because the English test was not valid.

Therefore a new test and application is required.

 

 

You have missed a lot, but that is what I have come to expect.  But of course, according to you, ECOs are rarely, if ever, wrong, and the government stance to remove the right of appeal in all visa refusal decisions is correct.   Perhaps you need your Google button for this one.

[7by7]

 

Surely, you cannot be that obtuse. My application has been refused ultra vires but the good news is I cannot appeal and just have to pay another £1000 for another shot at it which might be knocked back on slightly different grounds which would be as ultra vires as the previous decision.

Settlement applications cost over £900 but by the time one faffs about submitting it at Trendy it's a grand. By next year settlement visa applications will no longer attract a right of appeal

I was referring to family visit visas which cost £83 which is around 4000 baht.

Not exactly a huge sum and certainly not enough to warrant an appeal as was the case under the old rules.

I did not know we are also discussing settlement visa appeals.

 

 
So, what is your opinion on the removal of the right of appeal for settlement applications?
 
We have seen many cases on this forum of people who have had their settlement applications wrongly refused and that refusal overturned, either at the ECM review or by the First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber). Both of which will no longer be possible once the right of appeal is removed.
 
Do you believe that these people should simply re apply, at a cost once the exchange rate from USD to Sterling and other expenses are factored in, of around £1000?

[Jay Sata]

Mistakes can always be rectified without going to appeal.

If the ECO was incorrect in his dismissal of the validity of the English test then a simple letter to his superiors should do the trick.

We are discussing family visit visas here and my opinion is there is no justification for the costs of an appeal against the minor sum of £85 for a new and better prepared application.