Refusal rate for UK family visit visas after appeals abolished

[7by7]

Mistakes can always be rectified without going to appeal.

 
Once again, you show your ignorance of the situation and the rules.
 
Yes, this topic did start out about family visit visas; but the right of appeal for settlement visas will soon be removed.
 
So, I ask you again; do you believe that settlement applicants wrongly refused should simply re apply, at a cost once the exchange rate from USD to Sterling and other expenses are factored in, of around £1000?

Edited August 3, 2014 by 7by7

[Seekingasylum]

The poor sap is probably still looking for the answer TonyM.

[durhamboy]

I think the removal of the right of appeal means that ECOs will not give applicants the benefit of any doubt when it comes to assessing subjective aspects of applications e.g. with visit visas they are probably looking at the reasons given to return to the applicant's home country a lot more thoroughly. The applicant will have to provide a lot more "evidence" of return and this may well be difficult to do.

The problem will become a lot worse when it is extended to settlement visa applications e.g. the ECOs will be looking much more closely at whether a genuine relationship exists and therefore more SV applications will fail.

Over the years visa applicants have been squeezed more and more. There used to be interviews both for visit and settlement visas. These interviews were a good, though not infallible, way to weed out bogus applications. Interviews are now virtually defunct. Also the cost of visas (Especially SVs) have risen dramatically. Finally the right of appeal has been abolished.

So, more circumspect examination of applications on paper only plus the usual level of ECO mistakes will lead to more refusals(as we are starting to see) of otherwise genuine applications for which, at best, those genuine applicants will have to pay another fee or, at worse, never come to the UK.

So Mr. Sata and your cohorts - Britain prides itself on being a fair and just society. Do you think that abolishing the right of appeal contributes to upholding those good British values?

[Jay Sata]

Well it is not me but the government who are reflecting public opinion that the previous system set up up by the Labour government has created massive problems in the UK.

If an applicant for any type of visa can tick all the boxes and satisfy the requirements then there is no problem hence 75% of all family visit visas to the UK are approved.

If there was to be a right to appeal it should be self funded in the applicants country not supported by the UK taxpayer.

I expect all migrants or visitors to the UK to support and uphold our values. We are a secular nation that speaks English and have a fairly liberal attitude to morals and free speech.

Family visit visas have been abused in the past where certain sectors of the immigrant population have brought so called relatives to the UK to work.

My advice is if you are not confident enough to sort out all the paperwork for a visa then use a decent agent.

None of my critics is prepared to discuss the detail of the 25% refusals.

Inside that figure is a minefield.

As I have said so many times before if you can afford to travel halfway across the world to meet and marry you can expect to carry the cost and paperwork of bringing your spouse to the UK.

It is not fair to expect the UK taxpayer to sort out your problems. Edited August 3, 2014 by Jay Sata

[Jay Sata]

I think the removal of the right of appeal means that ECOs will not give applicants the benefit of any doubt when it comes to assessing subjective aspects of applications e.g. with visit visas they are probably looking at the reasons given to return to the applicant's home country a lot more thoroughly. The applicant will have to provide a lot more "evidence" of return and this may well be difficult to do.

The problem will become a lot worse when it is extended to settlement visa applications e.g. the ECOs will be looking much more closely at whether a genuine relationship exists and therefore more SV applications will fail.

Over the years visa applicants have been squeezed more and more. There used to be interviews both for visit and settlement visas. These interviews were a good, though not infallible, way to weed out bogus applications. Interviews are now virtually defunct. Also the cost of visas (Especially SVs) have risen dramatically. Finally the right of appeal has been abolished.

So, more circumspect examination of applications on paper only plus the usual level of ECO mistakes will lead to more refusals(as we are starting to see) of otherwise genuine applications for which, at best, those genuine applicants will have to pay another fee or, at worse, never come to the UK.

So Mr. Sata and your cohorts - Britain prides itself on being a fair and just society. Do you think that abolishing the right of appeal contributes to upholding those good British values?

I think if you asked the average man in the street or took a poll the answer would be yes!

If someone wants to enter the UK they should pay and not the taxpayer.

I'll go a bit further and suggest applicants from some countries for family visas should be bonded to ensure they return.

[AnotherOneAmerican]

I think if you asked the average man in the street or took a poll the answer would be yes!

If someone wants to enter the UK they should pay and not the taxpayer.

I'll go a bit further and suggest applicants from some countries for family visas should be bonded to ensure they return.

I think the average man in the street would think he was talking about all the EU bludgers, who have the right to live and work in the UK.

[Seekingasylum]

Sata, I don't think it is fair that this forum should put up with your dribbling rhetoric and trolling, but we do. Edited August 4, 2014 by Seekingasylum

[7by7]

Well it is not me but the government who are reflecting public opinion that the previous system set up up by the Labour government has created massive problems in the UK.

Public opinion lumps all migrants together; EEA and non EEA; but visitors are not migrants, they are visitors.

 

The appeals system is far older than the last Labour government.

 

What problems did the right of appeal create in the UK?

"If an applicant for any type of visa can tick all the boxes and satisfy the requirements then there is no problem hence 75% of all family visit visas to the UK are approved."

 

Should be no problem; but ECOs make mistakes; as proven by the average 70% of appeals which were successful.

"If there was to be a right to appeal it should be self funded in the applicants country not supported by the UK taxpayer."

 

Most were self funded; but justice should be available to all, not just those who can afford it.

"I expect all migrants or visitors to the UK to support and uphold our values. We are a secular nation that speaks English and have a fairly liberal attitude to morals and free speech."

 

Visitors are not migrants. Are you saying all visit visa applicants should pass an English test? I'm sure that the English, Northern Irish, Scottish and Welsh tourist boards wouldn't agree!

 

What's with the 'our' and the 'we?' Have you stopped being Irish?

"Family visit visas have been abused in the past where certain sectors of the immigrant population have brought so called relatives to the UK to work."

 

You've made this claim before and been asked for evidence; you have not provided it.

 

But, even if true, how will removing the right of appeal for those refused stop those who are accepted abusing the system?

"My advice is if you are not confident enough to sort out all the paperwork for a visa then use a decent agent."

 

Agreed; but that wont stop the ECO from making a mistake.

"None of my critics is prepared to discuss the detail of the 25% refusals.

Inside that figure is a minefield."

What!? The possible reasons for the sudden jump in refusals since appeals were abolished has been discussed many times in this topic.

 

If you want to discuss the specific reasons given by the ECO for each and every refusal; impossible. Those reasons are not published, no one except the entry clearance office concerned, the applicant and anyone the applicant chooses to tell knows them.

 

But if you look at the refusal notices posted in this forum by people seeking advice on what to do, if you look at the case reports from the AIT;  you'll see that ECO mistakes are a far too common reason for refusal. Not the most common, but far too common nonetheless.

 

If the UK wants to be a fair and just society, people whose lives are effected by the mistakes of public servants should be allowed the opportunity to have those mistakes corrected.

 

"As I have said so many times before if you can afford to travel halfway across the world to meet and marry you can expect to carry the cost and paperwork of bringing your spouse to the UK."

As you have been told many times before; irrelevant. This is not a question of what one can and can't afford; it's a question of righting wrongs, correcting ECO mistakes.

Anyone who can't afford to travel to the UK isn't going to be refused a visa, simply because they wont be applying for one; or if they did apply and the funds weren't available to them to pay for the visit then they would be refused and that refusal would be correct.

 

We are talking about justice for people who were incorrectly refused, not people whose refusals were correct.

 

"It is not fair to expect the UK taxpayer to sort out your problems."

It is not fair that visas can be refused on the whim of a public servant who may be having a bad day and not doing their job properly and that people, family members of British citizens and taxpayers, are denied the right to have that mistake corrected.

 

If the government wants to reduce the burden on the taxpayer of appeals it should ensure that ECOs do their jobs properly in the first place by providing more and better trained staff.

Edited August 4, 2014 by 7by7

[loppylugs1]

Think I would go for a judicial review in your case

 

Edited August 4, 2014 by theoldgit
Unnecessarily long follow on quote removed.

[7by7]

I don't have a case; at present.

 

But thank you for the advice.

[durhamboy]

I think the removal of the right of appeal means that ECOs will not give applicants the benefit of any doubt when it comes to assessing subjective aspects of applications e.g. with visit visas they are probably looking at the reasons given to return to the applicant's home country a lot more thoroughly. The applicant will have to provide a lot more "evidence" of return and this may well be difficult to do.

The problem will become a lot worse when it is extended to settlement visa applications e.g. the ECOs will be looking much more closely at whether a genuine relationship exists and therefore more SV applications will fail.

Over the years visa applicants have been squeezed more and more. There used to be interviews both for visit and settlement visas. These interviews were a good, though not infallible, way to weed out bogus applications. Interviews are now virtually defunct. Also the cost of visas (Especially SVs) have risen dramatically. Finally the right of appeal has been abolished.

So, more circumspect examination of applications on paper only plus the usual level of ECO mistakes will lead to more refusals(as we are starting to see) of otherwise genuine applications for which, at best, those genuine applicants will have to pay another fee or, at worse, never come to the UK.

So Mr. Sata and your cohorts - Britain prides itself on being a fair and just society. Do you think that abolishing the right of appeal contributes to upholding those good British values?

I think if you asked the average man in the street or took a poll the answer would be yes!

If someone wants to enter the UK they should pay and not the taxpayer.

I'll go a bit further and suggest applicants from some countries for family visas should be bonded to ensure they return.

Jay, to answer your answers to my post :-

1. The average man in the street may well say yes. Immigration is a complex and emotive subject which many people have a "knee-jerk" reaction too. However, I think many people would say "no" to the question when given the exact facts of what they are being asked to comment on.

2. The taxpayer features a lot in your posts here. Now I do not know the costs to the UK taxpayer of an appeal in the country of application but I suspect it is minimal. My understanding of the appeal is that it is carried out by embassy staff so, as far as I can see, as they are salaried employees the likely ADDITIONAL cost of an appeal is any overtime that they would have to claim for in order to investigate the appeal. Now with regard to Settlement Visas seeing as the cost is an extortionate c.£1,000 then any appeals would really be self-funded out of the profit made on all SV applications.

3. Maybe a bonding system would work. Some countries have that e.g. in Singapore if you want a domestic helper from another country then you deposit a bond which is repaid when they return to their country at the end of the contract. The advantage of such a system should mean a lot less refusals. However, with regard to visit visas I could see that as being a bridge too far for many people. With regard to settlement visas - when would the bond be repaid....at ILR? Citizenship?

[Jay Sata]

As I have pointed out before 75% of family visit visas are granted without a problem.

 

Here is the government thinking on the situation.

 

 

Immigration Minister Mark Harper said:

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.

Faster decision making

Previously, the right of appeal was being used by applicants to submit further information to support their claim, instead of making a fresh application.

Under the new system, anyone refused a visit visa may reapply as many times as they like and can provide additional information in support of their application.

A decision will also be received much more quickly through this method – typically 15 days in comparison to the appeal route, which can take up to eight months.

With 46,000 visit visa appeals received last year alone, removing the burden of these appeals should allow visa staff to make decisions quicker and lead to an improved customer service.

 

What was happening under the old system was Jo Bloggs thought he could fill out the application correctly and did not want to spend money on an agent. When the application was refused he then appealed with more info or used an agent to do the work.

 

The other important point is the appeal took around 8 months whereas a new application is 15 days. 

 

 

Edited August 5, 2014 by theoldgit
Large font changed

[Jay Sata]

As I have pointed out before 75% of family visit visas are granted without a problem.

 

Here is the government thinking on the situation.

 

 

Immigration Minister Mark Harper said:

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.

Faster decision making

Previously, the right of appeal was being used by applicants to submit further information to support their claim, instead of making a fresh application.

Under the new system, anyone refused a visit visa may reapply as many times as they like and can provide additional information in support of their application.

A decision will also be received much more quickly through this method – typically 15 days in comparison to the appeal route, which can take up to eight months.

With 46,000 visit visa appeals received last year alone, removing the burden of these appeals should allow visa staff to make decisions quicker and lead to an improved customer service.

 

What was happening under the old system was Jo Bloggs thought he could fill out the application correctly and did not want to spend money on an agent. When the application was refused he then appealed with more info or used an agent to do the work.

 

The other important point is the appeal took around 8 months whereas a new application is 15 days. 

 

 

Source for the info

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/general-grounds-for-refusal-about-this-guidance

Edited August 5, 2014 by theoldgit
Large font changed

[Jay Sata]

Here are the numbers for the government guidance family visit refusals briefing to Parliament prior to the act. 

 

 

Table 31: Top five nationalities refused family visit visas as a proportion of applications received from that nationality, 2010

Percentage of applications refused

Pakistan

48%

Zimbabwe

46%

Afghanistan

42%

Uganda

39%

Bangladesh

38%

Only includes nationalities with an application volume of at least 1,000

www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/sn06363.pdf

 

Afghanistan is not a country one thinks of having a lot of tourists who can afford a trip to the the folks in the UK but my critics will be no doubt have a curt reply.

 

As for the other countries well make your own mind up.  

 

 

 

 

[7by7]

Repeating the party line again and again does not make it right.

 

Maybe Mark Harper should have concentrated his mind on his department's rules on employing foreign workers; then he wouldn't have had to resign!

 

'Many' applicants may have been submitting extra paperwork; but not most and certainly not all.

 

Where an applicant has come from is irrelevant to all except a racist.

 

If applicant and sponsor cannot afford the visit then they would be rightly refused; we are talking here about those wrongly refused being denied justice; which using Harper's figures are around 32,000 people per year.

 

Again, using Harper's figures, guess how much each family visit appeal actually cost the taxpayer. £255. I suggest appealing a fixed penalty speeding ticket costs more than that; would you abolish that right as well?

 

Yes, reapplying would be quicker than a full appeal, but many appeals never got to the AIT as the refusal was overturned in post by the ECM and, more importantly, for justice to be done and seen to be done, a fundamental principle of the UK's democracy, people should have the option of an appeal or reapplying.

 

Even more so when the right of appeal is abolished for settlement applications.

 

I know you like to come on with the big 'I am' and boast on here about your wealth, but most people do not have £1000 to throw away every couple of months to make repeated settlement applications until the ECO gets it right.

 

Though in your arrogance you will doubtless say that those people shouldn't be bringing their partner to live in the UK with them!

Edited August 5, 2014 by 7by7

[loppylugs1]

Repeating the party line again and again does not make it right.

 

Maybe Mark Harper should have concentrated his mind on his department's rules on employing foreign workers; then he wouldn't have had to resign!

 

'Many' applicants may have been submitting extra paperwork; but not most and certainly not all.

 

Where an applicant has come from is irrelevant to all except a racist.

 

If applicant and sponsor cannot afford the visit then they would be rightly refused; we are talking here about those wrongly refused being denied justice; which using Harper's figures are around 32,000 people per year.

 

Again, using Harper's figures, guess how much each family visit appeal actually cost the taxpayer. £255. I suggest appealing a fixed penalty speeding ticket costs more than that; would you abolish that right as well?

 

Yes, reapplying would be quicker than a full appeal, but many appeals never got to the AIT as the refusal was overturned in post by the ECM and, more importantly, for justice to be done and seen to be done, a fundamental principle of the UK's democracy, people should have the option of an appeal or reapplying.

 

Even more so when the right of appeal is abolished for settlement applications.

 

I know you like to come on with the big 'I am' and boast on here about your wealth, but most people do not have £1000 to throw away every couple of months to make repeated settlement applications until the ECO gets it right.

 

Though in your arrogance you will doubtless say that those people shouldn't be bringing their partner to live in the UK with them!

 

Is this directed at me?

 

  Your last statement...

"Though in your arrogance you will doubtless say that those people shouldn't be bringing their partner to live in the UK with them!"

 

  Now that does say it all,so you think Joe Bloggs should go forth in the world and marry anyone at will (maybe a backhander included)  anyone that is and bring them back into the UK,yeah right, now that is why the marriage/visitor rules are being beefed up,to prevent such happenings,cannot come quickly enough either

 

PS  could get divorced without letting immigration know and do it all over again a few months later,now I might have a go at this one

Edited August 5, 2014 by loppylugs1

[Waterloo]

 

Repeating the party line again and again does not make it right.

 

Maybe Mark Harper should have concentrated his mind on his department's rules on employing foreign workers; then he wouldn't have had to resign!

 

'Many' applicants may have been submitting extra paperwork; but not most and certainly not all.

 

Where an applicant has come from is irrelevant to all except a racist.

 

If applicant and sponsor cannot afford the visit then they would be rightly refused; we are talking here about those wrongly refused being denied justice; which using Harper's figures are around 32,000 people per year.

 

Again, using Harper's figures, guess how much each family visit appeal actually cost the taxpayer. £255. I suggest appealing a fixed penalty speeding ticket costs more than that; would you abolish that right as well?

 

Yes, reapplying would be quicker than a full appeal, but many appeals never got to the AIT as the refusal was overturned in post by the ECM and, more importantly, for justice to be done and seen to be done, a fundamental principle of the UK's democracy, people should have the option of an appeal or reapplying.

 

Even more so when the right of appeal is abolished for settlement applications.

 

I know you like to come on with the big 'I am' and boast on here about your wealth, but most people do not have £1000 to throw away every couple of months to make repeated settlement applications until the ECO gets it right.

 

Though in your arrogance you will doubtless say that those people shouldn't be bringing their partner to live in the UK with them!

 

Is this directed at me?

 

  Your last statement...

"Though in your arrogance you will doubtless say that those people shouldn't be bringing their partner to live in the UK with them!"

 

  Now that does say it all,so you think Joe Bloggs should go forth in the world and marry anyone at will (maybe a backhander included)  anyone that is and bring them back into the UK,yeah right, now that is why the marriage/visitor rules are being beefed up,to prevent such happenings,cannot come quickly enough either

 

PS  could get divorced without letting immigration know and do it all over again a few months later,now I might have a go at this one

 

 

There is a world of difference between tightening visa rules and taking away the right of appeal! 

[7by7]

 

Repeating the party line again and again does not make it right.
 
Maybe Mark Harper should have concentrated his mind on his department's rules on employing foreign workers; then he wouldn't have had to resign!
 
'Many' applicants may have been submitting extra paperwork; but not most and certainly not all.
 
Where an applicant has come from is irrelevant to all except a racist.
 
If applicant and sponsor cannot afford the visit then they would be rightly refused; we are talking here about those wrongly refused being denied justice; which using Harper's figures are around 32,000 people per year.
 
Again, using Harper's figures, guess how much each family visit appeal actually cost the taxpayer. £255. I suggest appealing a fixed penalty speeding ticket costs more than that; would you abolish that right as well?
 
Yes, reapplying would be quicker than a full appeal, but many appeals never got to the AIT as the refusal was overturned in post by the ECM and, more importantly, for justice to be done and seen to be done, a fundamental principle of the UK's democracy, people should have the option of an appeal or reapplying.
 
Even more so when the right of appeal is abolished for settlement applications.
 
I know you like to come on with the big 'I am' and boast on here about your wealth, but most people do not have £1000 to throw away every couple of months to make repeated settlement applications until the ECO gets it right.
 
Though in your arrogance you will doubtless say that those people shouldn't be bringing their partner to live in the UK with them!

 
Is this directed at me?

 

As it follows on from Jay Sata's posts, quoting all three of which would have been a waste of bandwidth, and as it refers to points he made in each of those posts; I would have thought it obvious to whom it is directed.
 

Your last statement...
"Though in your arrogance you will doubtless say that those people shouldn't be bringing their partner to live in the UK with them!"
 
  Now that does say it all,so you think Joe Bloggs should go forth in the world and marry anyone at will (maybe a backhander included)  anyone that is and bring them back into the UK,yeah right, now that is why the marriage/visitor rules are being beefed up,to prevent such happenings,cannot come quickly enough either

Why should any one from anywhere be denied the right to marry whomsoever they choose, and if that person is a foreign national why should they be denied the ability to live together in one another's countries?

Provided they satisfy a few basic rules; one of which, as far as the UK is concerned, is showing that the relationship is genuine.

 

I suggest you read up on the settlement rules before commenting on them; you'll look less foolish that way.
 

PS  could get divorced without letting immigration know and do it all over again a few months later,now I might have a go at this one

Yet again you show your total ignorance of the immigration rules and the workings of UKVI. They do keep records, you know!
 
In addition, if you had even the most basic knowledge of the settlement rules you would know that a couple have to live together for 5 years before the foreign spouse/partner can apply for ILR, and if the relationship breaks down before then the foreign spouse loses the right to live in the UK and has to leave.

However, this is a discussion on the right of appeal, not the settlement rules. There's been plenty of debate on those elsewhere on this forum.

Edited August 5, 2014 by 7by7

[loppylugs1]

 

As it follows on from Jay Sata's posts, quoting all three of which would have been a waste of bandwidth, and as it refers to points he made in each of those posts; I would have thought it obvious to whom it is directed.
 

Your last statement...
"Though in your arrogance you will doubtless say that those people shouldn't be bringing their partner to live in the UK with them!"
 
  Now that does say it all,so you think Joe Bloggs should go forth in the world and marry anyone at will (maybe a backhander included)  anyone that is and bring them back into the UK,yeah right, now that is why the marriage/visitor rules are being beefed up,to prevent such happenings,cannot come quickly enough either

Why should any one from anywhere be denied the right to marry whomsoever they choose, and if that person is a foreign national why should they be denied the ability to live together in one another's countries?

Provided they satisfy a few basic rules; one of which, as far as the UK is concerned, is showing that the relationship is genuine.

 

I suggest you read up on the settlement rules before commenting on them; you'll look less foolish that way.
 

PS  could get divorced without letting immigration know and do it all over again a few months later,now I might have a go at this one

Yet again you show your total ignorance of the immigration rules and the workings of UKVI. They do keep records, you know!
 
In addition, if you had even the most basic knowledge of the settlement rules you would know that a couple have to live together for 5 years before the foreign spouse/partner can apply for ILR, and if the relationship breaks down before then the foreign spouse loses the right to live in the UK and has to leave.

However, this is a discussion on the right of appeal, not the settlement rules. There's been plenty of debate on those elsewhere on this forum.

 

 

At the end of the day with you banging on about the "unfairness" of it all, I think for even you, you must realise that this mission of yours is a pointless exercise,just heaps of pointless "bandwidth" being churned out.

 

  As far as I can see Jay Sata has never mentioned his worth,it is only I that your scorn was poured forth on this very subject . What was it? "pigs might fly"  that you yourself quoted? ,well they have certainly flown past your tent flap and shitted up the entrance

 

[7by7]

Jay Sata has often made references to his wealth and superiority to us mere mortals in past topics; as I'm sure you are close enough to him to well know.

 

If you consider this topic to be pointless then maybe you should stop wasting your precious time and leave it.

[Jay Sata]

Jay Sata has often made references to his wealth and superiority to us mere mortals in past topics; as I'm sure you are close enough to him to well know.
 
If you consider this topic to be pointless then maybe you should stop wasting your precious time and leave it.

I do not discuss my personal affairs on sites like this nor do I think it is of any interest.

You appears to have some sort of complex regarding what you perceive to be people's status in society as if it was some sort of tag that denies them an opinion.

Please stick to facts if you want to debate the figures which I posted earlier and stop trying to take this discussion to a personal level.

I see you appear to have this ongoing agenda that you know more than Entry Clearance Officers employed by HM government. You also appear to suggest they make regular and repeated mistakes.

Please look again at for example the figures I posted re the Afghanistan refused visas and explain how such a poor war torn country semi ruled by the Taliban has family members with ample funds who would like to visit the UK and have a reason to return.

We are discussing refusal rate for family visit visas in general not refused Thai family visas. Edited August 8, 2014 by Jay Sata

[theoldgit]

I don't want to close another thread because of attitudes and bickering but we're fast heading that way.

 

So please stop the bickering.

 

This is an important issue to many people, this is a Thai based forum and the new rules affect many people in this country, so lets please keep this debate focussed on our core members who are interested in Thailand applicants. 

[7by7]

I see you appear to have this ongoing agenda that you know more than Entry Clearance Officers employed by HM government. You also appear to suggest they make regular and repeated mistakes.

I have never said that I know more about the immigration rules than ECOs; though it is obvious I know more about them than you!

As the number of granted appeals where the Home Office offered no evidence and as the number of appeals overturned by the ECM before the case even goes to the full appeal show; they do make mistakes.
 

Please look again at for example the figures I posted re the Afghanistan refused visas and explain how such a poor war torn country semi ruled by the Taliban has family members with ample funds who would like to visit the UK and have a reason to return.

We are talking about family visits, and it is quite possible that an Afghan citizen has family living in the UK.

Also, not every Afghan citizen is destitute; though unfortunately many are.

Funds for the visit can come from the applicant, the sponsor, both, a third party or any combination of these. So what the applicant themselves can or cannot afford is irrelevant as long as sufficient funds are available for the visit from another acceptable source.

As I have repeatedly said, if an applicant or their sponsor do not have the means with which to pay for the visit, then a refusal would be correct. Why do you ignore that?

The figures you quoted show refusals as a percentage of applications and the figure for Afghanistan was 42%.

42% of what? 100? 1000? 10,000? I wonder why the briefing note chose not to say.

If Afghanistan had had only one application and that application was granted, the success rate would be 100%!

Percentages mean nothing without knowing the actual figure.

Talking of figures:

 

we are talking here about those wrongly refused being denied justice; which using Harper's figures are around 32,000 people per year.
 
Again, using Harper's figures, guess how much each family visit appeal actually cost the taxpayer. £255. I suggest appealing a fixed penalty speeding ticket costs more than that; would you abolish that right as well?

I see you have ignored those figures.

Care to comment on them now?

[Jay Sata]

Afghanistan,Zimbabwe,Uganda etc.

The high refusal rates speak for themselves.

You appear to have the opinion these are not basket case countries where very few people know what a holiday is let alone fly thousands of miles to the UK. Forged documentation is also the norm in the countries that feature in the table presented to the house.

In fact according to the briefing paper there is still an opportunity to appeal.

'Members of Parliament can ask UK Visas and Immigration on behalf of a constituent to review a family visitor visa refusal decision. However it will only agree to conduct a review if the representations highlight compelling compassionate circumstances or a potential mistake in the original decision.'
http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/research/briefing-papers/SN06363/abolition-of-family-visitor-visa-appeal-rights

I would be interested to see some figures to illustrate what you suggest is a substantial number of Thai family visit refusals. Edited August 9, 2014 by Jay Sata

[bobrussell]

The appeals process is there to allow correction of errors. Removal of this right is bound to increase the refusal rate unless suitably improved quality control of decisions is introduced. 

 

Appeals should always be available for all and any decision but the appeals process cost should be paid by the applicant (in full). If successful this should be refunded plus any reasonable costs that the applicant may have incurred.

 

Get a decision right and there should be no grounds for appeal. Make mistakes and the applicant should not be out of pocket. 

 

Charge £300 for each appeal and reject the appeal if it is used just to present new information.

 

Should improve quality of decisions and just might be another little earner for Her Majesty's Government!

[bobrussell]

Where does the discussion of 'basket' case countries come into it?

 

If someone can demonstrate they qualify for a visa and the application process is correctly carried out then the application country is irrelevant. Countries with a higher level of dodgy applications should have a higher rejection rate. It suggests the process is working and fair.

 

Nothing to do with the appeal process which should be there to demonstrate fairness.

[7by7]

Afghanistan,Zimbabwe,Uganda etc.

The high refusal rates speak for themselves.

When expressed only as a percentage they say nothing. It is only when the actual number of applications is known that the percentages have any meaning; other than to be used for propaganda.

Two applications; one refused. that's a refusal rate of 50%; but what does that prove?

"You appear to have the opinion these are not basket case countries where very few people know what a holiday is let alone fly thousands of miles to the UK."

I would like you to show me where I have expressed such an opinion!

"Forged documentation is also the norm in the countries that feature in the table presented to the house."

Use forged documents in an application and you will, if discovered, be rightly refused and, again rightly, lay yourself open to being banned from applying again for 10 years.

But we are talking about people who have been wrongly refused; why do you keep on bringing up examples of correct refusals as if that proves your argument?

"In fact according to the briefing paper there is still an opportunity to appeal.

'Members of Parliament can ask UK Visas and Immigration on behalf of a constituent to review a family visitor visa refusal decision. However it will only agree to conduct a review if the representations highlight compelling compassionate circumstances or a potential mistake in the original decision.'
http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/research/briefing-papers/SN06363/abolition-of-family-visitor-visa-appeal-rights"

Are refused applicant's told this? No.

Are their sponsor's in the UK? No.

 

In fact the refusal notice tells them that they can't appeal!

 

So how are people supposed to know this route is open to them?

"I would be interested to see some figures to illustrate what you suggest is a substantial number of Thai family visit refusals."

I would like you to show me where I have suggested that there is a substantial number of Thai family visit refusals!

 

I would also like to see a response from you on my comments about Harper's figures. Figures which show that each family visit visa appeal actually cost the taxpayer a mere £250!

 

That's the Minister at the time's own figures, not mine nor anyone else's.

 

Bob's suggestion above of a fee to cover this cost, to which I would add that the fee is to be refunded if the appeal is granted, would be a far, far fairer way of addressing the issue of cost to the taxpayer than the sledgehammer of abolishing the right of appeal altogether.

 

But that wouldn't allow the government to say that it is 'doing something' about immigration!

[Richard W]

 

Afghanistan,Zimbabwe,Uganda etc.

The high refusal rates speak for themselves.

When expressed only as a percentage they say nothing. It is only when the actual number of applications is known that the percentages have any meaning; other than to be used for propaganda.

 

While the briefing paper does not give the number of applications, it does say that there were at least 1000 applications from each nationality listed.  The ranking is by nationality, not by the country where the application was lodged or the applicant was resident.

[7by7]

Fair point; especially about the nationality/country of residence of the applicants.
 
It also does not say, as far as I can see, how many of those refusals were appealed and overturned.
 
The tables on pages 10 and 11 do show the worldwide total number of refusals and the total number of successful appeals.
 
For example; 2010; 423,047 applications, 89,341 (21.11%) refused and 25,600 (rounded by them to the nearest 100) successful appeals.

The table does not show how many refusals were appealed, but shows 28.65% were successfully appealed.

 

That percentage is not strictly accurate as some of the appeals concluded in 2010 would be from refusals in 2009 and some of the refusals appealed in 2010 would not have had their case heard until 2011. But I think it's fair to assume they balance each other out.

 

 

Edited August 9, 2014 by 7by7

[Jay Sata]

One of the core points I'm trying to make is that not all applications are equal.

In the case of the majority of those lodged in Thailand it is probably fair to say they are genuine family visit applications.

However there will also be those where the applicant,having failed to enter as a spouse ,then tries to use the system to stay in the UK for six months out of twelve. In short a bit like the Thai tourist visa run.

Applications from third world countries are more likely to be for economic and not genuine reasons.

48% of applications from Pakistan are refused. That is an amazing number and given the number of people in the UK with a relationship to that country it suggests something more than just a few errors on the part of the ECO's processing the applications.

As for suggesting a fee for appeal why would that make sense when another application is cheaper and quicker?

There are some interesting statistics here

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/299998/fam-mig-con-findings.xls Edited August 9, 2014 by Jay Sata