Wrongful Decision At British Embassy

[topfield]

Hi,

Trust many of you , including GU 22, remember the case in April of the Cyprus/ UK man refused a Family Permit for his Thai wife by the ECO with the decision being fully backed by the EC Manager ?

Well thought it would be of interest to you to let you know the outcome.

As mentioned no proof whatsoever was provided to support the refusal on the grounds of 'marriage of convenience' nor was any proper reason given on the refusal notice . Three years previously the same ECO in an earlier case had not just been overuled by the Immigration Appellate Authority where she refused to reissue Family Permits (torn up by the husband/ child's father ), but also told that her reasons were irrelevant and her decision was totally contrary to Immigration law. It was surely not coincidental that the people involved in bringing the earlier case to Appeal against this ECO happened to be the same people involved in the current case and the ECO was fully aware of this from the interview with the wife, so this might explain the ECO'S outlandish and totally illogical and inexplicable decision !

The result :

Just a week ago after waiting a full two months for a reply to a complaint of maladministration at the Bangkok Embassy , UK Visas in London wrote saying they backed the Embassy 100% in their refusal and reiterated that NO Family Permit would be issued nor would any investigation be launched into this most unusual refusal of a Family Permit . UK Visas even tried to justify the refusal of the Embassy to allow the husband to enter the Embassy courtyard while awaiting an interview and making him wait outside in temperatures of over 100 degrees F !

The ECO involved in this matter was the only one ever to turn down a Family Permit at the Bangkok Embassy and there had never ever been a refusal of a Family Permit at the Embassy on this ground before.

Five days later the EU organisation Solvit, which also had been informed of what had happened at the Embassy , stated that the refusal was wholely unjustified and unlawful . They ordered that the Family Permit be issued forthwith and it this was done immediately by the British High Commission, totally overuling the British Embassy in Bangkok. The Thai wife is now in London.

A demand has now been made to both the Bangkok Embassy and UK Visas for a complete apology , full monetary compensation and for an investigation to be launched into this matter and in particular into the motivation of ECO in her totally unjustifiable and unlawful rejection of this EU Family Permit. No reasonable sane person could possibly have decided that this man and his legal spouse were not a totally genuine and sincere middle aged married couple.

The lesson :

It is pointless and a total waste of time to complain or write to UK Visas..they are 'not fit for purpose' to use the Home Secretary's words. ..they not only refuse to investigate cases of maladministration at the Embassy but clearly have no understanding of EU law. Their letter showed a complete lack of knowledge about EU Family Permits.

Most significantly they were shown to have little or no power as they were totally overuled by a higher authority within just days of their "final decision".

The ECO involved has now twice been shown to have acted unlawfully thereby causing much distress to the people involved. Her position as ECO must now surely be in jeopardy once the investigation is completed.

Note : Names of the officials involved in this case have been withheld and many thanks to 'scouser' for his help in this matter.

,

[atlastaname]

I have actually found UK Visas to be helpful and of some use in the past. However , i must say i'm delighted to read of this and only wish i was there to see their faces .

Its a pity the ECO and all those collectivally involved cannot be sued ...or maybe they can. Be nice to think of this ECO being unceremoniously turfed out onto a hot and sweaty Wireless Road with the words "don't come back " ringing in her ears. Of course it won't happen.

Its also a pity that in this current climate where everyone is afraid of their own shadow , you can't name names . Would have been even more interesting.

[vinny]

topfield, are the details of the case available online at the AIT website? Can you give us a link or a reference to search?

[topfield]

PLEASE READ THE NB BELOW AS THIS MIGHT BE THE MOST IMPORTANT AND SIGNIFICANT POSTING EVER TO HAVE BEEN MADE ON THIS WEBSITE SECTION .

You are absolutely right. It is indeed very important to be able to name the ECO concerned as there might be others who will come forward who were wrongly and unlawfully dealt with by this ECO and might be so dealt with in the future. I know of other refusals by this ECO but they were not so blatantly wrong and unlawful .

Please note that this ECO now signs the refusal notices she issues with a totally illegible squiggle and no name written underneath. We can only guess why, as when she started some years ago she wrote her name legibly.

The name of the ECO 'serving' at the Bangkok Embassy is CAROLINE WRIGHT. If the moderator does not want this to be known these he could alter to just her initials.

Of course the current Entry Clearance Manager at the Visa Section who stood by and backed up the disgraceful refusal is GERRY GRANT.

The case refered to, which was the first Family Permit refusal in Bangkok.....the second being the current case which of course never went to appeal as the FP was issued by the British High Commission was Appeal no TH/54141/2003 between Ms Weena Corscaden , her daughter Vinas and ECO Caroline Wright heard at Hatton Cross on 16 January 2004.

NB If this website permits visa officials to be named, this could only be for the good of all applicants as once the Visa section is aware of this NAME AND SHAME policy they will be less likely to issue wrongful and unjustified refusals.

[GU22]

topfield, are the details of the case available online at the AIT website? Can you give us a link or a reference to search?

Perhaps, topfield, you could also provide the link to the case on the Solvit website, as it does not appear on their Recent Success Stories

I am confused by your reference to "the British High Commission". Which High Commission, where? Why was any High Commission involved at all? Did they re-apply in Cyprus? Obviously it would be a lot easier for a Cypriot citizen to obtain a family permit if he and his wife were already resident in Cyprus.

Finally, "Three years previously the same ECO in an earlier case had not just been overuled by the Immigration Appellate Authority where she refused to reissue Family Permits (torn up by the husband/ child's father )..........It was surely not coincidental that the people involved in bringing the earlier case to Appeal against this ECO happened to be the same people involved in the current case......"

So, they got a family permit, but fell out so the husband tore it up, presumably by defacing their passports! They then got back together and applied again? If the decision not to reissue was overruled by the IAA, why did they need to apply again?

[topfield]

topfield, are the details of the case available online at the AIT website? Can you give us a link or a reference to search?

Perhaps, topfield, you could also provide the link to the case on the Solvit website, as it does not appear on their Recent Success Stories

I am confused by your reference to "the British High Commission". Which High Commission, where? Why was any High Commission involved at all? Did they re-apply in Cyprus? Obviously it would be a lot easier for a Cypriot citizen to obtain a family permit if he and his wife were already resident in Cyprus.

Finally, "Three years previously the same ECO in an earlier case had not just been overuled by the Immigration Appellate Authority where she refused to reissue Family Permits (torn up by the husband/ child's father )..........It was surely not coincidental that the people involved in bringing the earlier case to Appeal against this ECO happened to be the same people involved in the current case......"

So, they got a family permit, but fell out so the husband tore it up, presumably by defacing their passports! They then got back together and applied again? If the decision not to reissue was overruled by the IAA, why did they need to apply again?

REPLY to GU22's questions :

The appeal of which details are given above, was because the ECO wrongfully and unlawfully refused to reissue the permits after the huband had torn them out of mother and daughter's passports. [Their rights remained unchanged of course but the ECO could not see this and the husband was pressing the ECO not to reissue the permits]

Yes, the couple were forced to fly to Cyprus where the Family Pertmits were issued through Solvit , as Mr Gerry Grant refused outright to issue them here as he said the marriage was a sham and therefore did not exist ! This was NOT a case of a fresh application in Cyprus as the rules at the High Commission now state the wife would have had to be resident for one year in Cyprus before a Family Permit application could legally have been made.[ This is a new rule following a case last year of a Maroccan who went to Eire to apply for a Family Permit for his wife]

Re your final point...come off it.... reports on a website take time.... the permit was only issued on Thurday or Friday last week !!

Edited July 10, 2006 by topfield

[topfield]

topfield, are the details of the case available online at the AIT website? Can you give us a link or a reference to search?

Perhaps, topfield, you could also provide the link to the case on the Solvit website, as it does not appear on their Recent Success Stories

I am confused by your reference to "the British High Commission". Which High Commission, where? Why was any High Commission involved at all? Did they re-apply in Cyprus? Obviously it would be a lot easier for a Cypriot citizen to obtain a family permit if he and his wife were already resident in Cyprus.

Finally, "Three years previously the same ECO in an earlier case had not just been overuled by the Immigration Appellate Authority where she refused to reissue Family Permits (torn up by the husband/ child's father )..........It was surely not coincidental that the people involved in bringing the earlier case to Appeal against this ECO happened to be the same people involved in the current case......"

So, they got a family permit, but fell out so the husband tore it up, presumably by defacing their passports! They then got back together and applied again? If the decision not to reissue was overruled by the IAA, why did they need to apply again?

REPLY to GU22's questions :

The appeal of which details are given above, was because the ECO wrongfully and unlawfully refused to reissue the permits after the huband had torn them out of mother and daughter's passports. [Their rights remained unchanged of course but the ECO could not see this and the husband was pressing the ECO not to reissue the permits]

Yes, the couple were forced to fly to Cyprus where the Family Pertmits were issued through Solvit , as Mr Gerry Grant refused outright to issue them here as he said the marriage was a sham and therefore did not exist ! This was NOT a case of a fresh application in Cyprus as the rules at the High Commission now state the wife would have had to be resident for one year in Cyprus before a Family Permit application could legally have been made.[ This is a new rule following a case last year of a Maroccan who went to Eire to apply for a Family Permit for his wife]

Re your final point...come off it.... reports on a website take time.... the permits were only issued on Thurday or Friday last week !! Oops...permit not permits !

[GU22]

The appeal of which details are given above, was because the ECO wrongfully and unlawfully refused to reissue the permits after the huband had torn them out of mother and daughter's passports. [Their rights remained unchanged of course but the ECO could not see this and the husband was pressing the ECO not to reissue the permits]

So in the eyes of the husband the marriage was over?

From what you have written, the situation appears to be as follows. (I'm sure you'll correct any errors I make.)

Cypriot man marries Thai woman and applies for and is issued with a family permit so she and her daughter can live with him in the UK. For some reason, he then changes his mind, and tears the permits out of the passports. He also effectively tells the ECO that the marriage is now over, and that he no longer wants them to live with him in the UK. Is this correct?

If so, then all the evidence would suggest hat the marriage is over! In which case I would say that the ECO was quite correct in not re-issuing the permits. If someone holds an EU/EEA family permit on the basis of marriage to an EU/EEA citizen and that marriage ends then, as far as I am aware, their right to enter and live in the EU/EEA ends. If this belief of mine is wrong, perhaps you would be kind enough to direct me to the appropriate part of the regulations.

Presumably she then got new passports for herself and daughter, as I can't see any passport control anywhere being happy to accept a passport with pages torn out.

Then she reconciled with her Cypriot husband, and moved with him to Cyprus having first got Cypriot visas for her and her daughter. Correct?

Once resident in Cyprus they then appealed to Solvit, who for some reason decided to ignore the outlandish behaviour by the husband, and instructed the British High Commission in Cyprus to issue them with a family permit. Correct? Maybe they neglected to inform Solvit of the husbands frequent changes of mind with regard to his desire to live with his wife?

So, if what I have understood from your report is correct, all the fault lies with the husband, surely? He tore the permits out of their passports, he told the ECOs in Bangkok that the marriage was a sham and he did not want her to live with him in the UK.

The fact that they later reconciled and moved together to Cyprus is irrelevant as far as the refusal by the Bangkok visa section to re-issue the permits is concerned. They had been told by the husband that the marriage was over and he was not going to accommodate or support or have anything to do with them any more. There was, from what they had been told, no reason for her to have the permit anymore, let alone any right to one.

Topfield, I am not here to defend the ECOs at all costs. If they act incorrectly or even mistakenly then I will complain about it. But a few simple questions to you have shown that your original report is sadly lacking in important details. Yet you used that to, as you put it, name and shame two individuals who are unable to defend themselves.

You say that Scouse was involved in this? Maybe, if he has the time and inclination, he can tell us what really happened, without all the hyperbole. Then we'll be able to form a proper judgement.

[topfield]

Dear GU 22,

You have as usual got all the facts confused exactly as last time and scouser had to come to the rescue with his sane sensible advice. Clearly you are not a trained (retired) solicitor as I am, and tend to get everything mixed up.

For the very last time I will explain again and this time please read carefully.

1. A UK CYPRUS dual national aged 64 a widower married for 35 years met and married a Thai lady aged 47 single with house car and good job.

2. They applied at the Embassy for the family permit producing the passports and all required documents listed by scouser.

3. Caroline Wright the ECO without requesting any further evidence or interviewing the husband turned down the application saying the marriage was a sham. No reason whatsover was given on the refusal notice only that she believed the marriage was one entered into purely for immigration purposes and it was not a genuine marriage despite the marriage certificate being produced.

I trust the above is clear and non confusing. Now we go on.

The decision was totally inexplicable. When the husband asked the ECO why she believed their marriage was phony and a sham she refused to reply saying only in a very nasty and cold way

" your wife will NEVER come to England "

In view of this totally wierd and inexplicable refusal it was decided to investigate whether there could have been any other reason for the ECO's totally erronious and unlawful decision. Scadplus, the EU website lists seven tests to indicate if a marriage is a sham and the wife fell foul of not a single one of these tests.There had been 164 Family Permit applications and all were gtanted except the Cypriot case and two cases on 2003/4.

The same ECO it was then discovered had been involved in the earlier refusals . In that earlier case which I wont go into as you will get even more confused , the ECOs decision had been thrown out by the IAA and that same ECO had been taken to task by the Adjudicator who in his written decision stated the reasons given for the refusal were irrelevant and the decision to refuse was unlawful.

Clearly the ECO could not have been pleased to see her decision and the reason given therefore knocked back in this way. It was then noticed that the signature of the ECO in the April case was totally and completely different to the one in the 2004 decision and we all know officials do not alter their signature willy nilly.

Suddenly a possible motive was discovered for the insane and inexplicable and most exceptional refusal of the Cyprus man's wife's FP...indeed the first one ever to be refused for this reason at the Embassy ! The ECO during the interview had discovered that the Cypriot man and his wife were indirectly connected to, and responsible for the earlier appeal in which the ECO was so brusquely overuled How they were connected must remain confidential in accordance with the couple's wishes.

So now I trust you can put two and two together.

There was no possible logical or legal reason for the ECO in Bangkok to have refused the Family Permit as it complied fully with the rules and SOLVIT on reading the facts of this case and the parties involved made an immediate order requesting the FP be issued forthwith thereby overuling and squashing the unlawful decision of the ECO. End of story. Phew !

[GU22]

Which is completely differant to what you posted earlier.

If the permit was never issued, how could the husband tear it out the passport? Why was he pressing the ECO not t re-issue a permit you now say was never issued?

No wonder I get confused when your story keeps changing.

[topfield]

TO explain again : the first section of this posting relates to events that occured with the family permit refusal in April this year of the Cypriot man's wife, and is the main purpose of this posting.

The second section deals with a possible motive for the refusal and goes back to events that occured in 2003/4 . These do NOT go into detail as the old case is only relevant to the question of motivation ie the overuling of the ECO's decision and the severe knockback in the 2003/4 case.

What the two applications and refusals have in common are :

1. the same ECO issued the refusal notices in contravention of EU law.

2. both decisions of the ECO were quashed and the Family Permits issued despite every attempt of the ECO to prevent the people concerned entering the UK.

I trust this is clear to most readers of this posting as it was to scouser.

I am truly sorry that GU 22 is unable to follow what happened and as with most postings he gets hopelessly confused poor soul and asks questions about irrelevant matters , but trust other readers of this posting are easily able to follow what happened and the happy end result.

When this matter is finally sorted out a report will be posted on this site as to whether a full apology was given and the compensation demanded paid .

Thank you.

[GU22]

What the two applications and refusals have in common are :

1. the same ECO issued the refusal notices in contravention of EU law.

2. both decisions of the ECO were quashed and the Family Permits issued despite every attempt of the ECO to prevent the people concerned entering the UK.

So if both applications were refused, can you explain

The appeal of which details are given above, was because the ECO wrongfully and unlawfully refused to reissue the permits after the husband had torn them out of mother and daughter's passports(my emphasis)

If the permits were never issued, how could the husband do this? If he did, and the relationship was over then why do you say that the wife and daughter were still eligible for the permits?

Is this the same couple, the same Cypriot husband but a different Thai wife, friends or relatives of the original couple or something else?

I'm sorry if I am getting confused, but if you simply posted the facts and left the emotion out, your posts would be easier to follow!

[donx]

TO explain again : the first section of this posting relates to events that occured with the family permit refusal in April this year of the Cypriot man's wife, and is the main purpose of this posting.

The second section deals with a possible motive for the refusal and goes back to events that occured in 2003/4 . These do NOT go into detail as the old case is only relevant to the question of motivation ie the overuling of the ECO's decision and the severe knockback in the 2003/4 case.

What the two applications and refusals have in common are :

1. the same ECO issued the refusal notices in contravention of EU law.

2. both decisions of the ECO were quashed and the Family Permits issued despite every attempt of the ECO to prevent the people concerned entering the UK.

I trust this is clear to most readers of this posting as it was to scouser.

I am truly sorry that GU 22 is unable to follow what happened and as with most postings he gets hopelessly confused poor soul and asks questions about irrelevant matters , but trust other readers of this posting are easily able to follow what happened and the happy end result.

When this matter is finally sorted out a report will be posted on this site as to whether a full apology was given and the compensation demanded paid .

Thank you.

I have to agree with GU22. Your story is confusing. I don't even see a posting from scouser in this thread as you allude. Was his post removed?

[Ollie]

Not only that, I prefer solicitors who remain objective and stick to points of law, not those who get emotional, too involved, aggresive, subjective and feels it befits their profession to score points on a forum!!!

Edited July 11, 2006 by Ollie

[Mossfinn]

TO explain again : the first section of this posting relates to events that occured with the family permit refusal in April this year of the Cypriot man's wife, and is the main purpose of this posting.

The second section deals with a possible motive for the refusal and goes back to events that occured in 2003/4 . These do NOT go into detail as the old case is only relevant to the question of motivation ie the overuling of the ECO's decision and the severe knockback in the 2003/4 case.

What the two applications and refusals have in common are :

1. the same ECO issued the refusal notices in contravention of EU law.

2. both decisions of the ECO were quashed and the Family Permits issued despite every attempt of the ECO to prevent the people concerned entering the UK.

I trust this is clear to most readers of this posting as it was to scouser.

I am truly sorry that GU 22 is unable to follow what happened and as with most postings he gets hopelessly confused poor soul and asks questions about irrelevant matters , but trust other readers of this posting are easily able to follow what happened and the happy end result.

When this matter is finally sorted out a report will be posted on this site as to whether a full apology was given and the compensation demanded paid .

Thank you.

I have to agree with GU22. Your story is confusing. I don't even see a posting from scouser in this thread as you allude. Was his post removed?

I believe he is referring to either the original post or a pm that scouse must have sent to unravel the the problem when it first arose, but I could be wrong as I am a little confused in the 'fog of war'.

Moss

[slimsam]

So we have..

A thai woman who wants to come to England even though she married a man from Cyprus.

Family Permits (torn up by the husband/ child's father ),

How the Cypriot man and his wife were indirectly connected to the earlier appeal must remain confidential.

All sounds dodgy to me !

[moonoi]

Seem perfectly clear to me. Lets see if my understanding is correct and make it easier for others to understand

It seems the confusion stems from people mixing up 2 differant cases:

Case 1 involving the refusal in April

Case 2 a refusal back in 2003/2004

These cases involved differant people ie. they are not the same couples.

Those involved in Case 2 were the ones where the FP got torn out of there passports and replacements refused to be reissued.

What I understand from Topfield is that they are related in 2 ways.

1 the ECO is the same

2 both couples are known to each other

Topfield alludes to the reason for the refusal in April for Case 1 is because the ECO was aware of there involvement in assisting the Case 2 couple. Kind of a revenge thing I think

Also the Case 1 couple the husband is a UK/Cypriot dual national so slimsam nothing dodgy there at all

Hope I got that right and hope its a little less confusing than Topfields post

Appologies if I misunderstood something and confuse people further

Edited July 13, 2006 by moonoi

[fisherd3]

It is true that dealing with the Embassy/Consulate (I refer to the UK version) is a complete waste of time. If they say no for a wholly illegal reason, as they surely do a lot of the time, you have no recourse for a tourist visa.

For this reason it is prudent to involve your M.P. in your application from the word go. This is the only way you can receive some external authoratative support, and avoid getting that stamp in the back of the applicants passport which is a killer for future applications, whatever they say to the contrary. (Because it indicates that the ECO believes the applicant lied in their original application, and even all the top boys on this forum say lying means a rejected application and lots of bad Karma for the future).

[GU22]

An MP can have no influence over an application unless s/he knows the applicant or sponsor personally. Even then, all they can do is offer a character reference. No MP would get involved in an initial application for any other reason, and certainly no MP would make any attempt to influence the ECO.

The UK civil service is independent of Parliament, and long may it be so.

However, if an application is refused and there have been clear breaches of the immigration rules by the ECO, visa section etc., then involving your MP may be some assistance. But remember, the AIT is independent too.

avoid getting that stamp in the back of the applicants passport which is a killer for future applications

A refusal stamp will have no bearing on a future application, as the experience of my wife, stepson and stepdaughter, as well as many members here and thousands worldwide prove.