Translation of Documents for UK Visit Visa Applications

[Tony M]

I have recently been made aware of a refusal decision, in a visit visa application, on the grounds that the documents were not translated into English. Prospective visa applicants may wish to be aware of this as it is a subject that comes up for discussion in this forum from time to time. The actual wording of the refusal is :

"I have noted the documents that you have supplied in Thai script, however, you have not supplied English translations. I am therefore not satisfied that the documents you have elected to submit relate to you and your circumstances as you describe. This undermines the credibility of your visa application as a whole and calls into question your true intentions in the UK."

[beano2274]

is it dependent on what the documents in question were?

[Tony M]

is it dependent on what the documents in question were?

I'm not sure that would matter. If the ECO can't read the documents, then in theory he doesn't know what they are or what they relate to. His conclusion on that, it seems, is

"This undermines the credibility of your visa application as a whole and calls into question your true intentions in the UK."

[7by7]

The supporting documents guidance has for some time stated

If you submit a document that is not in English or Welsh, it must be accompanied by a full translation that can be
independently verified by the Home Office. Each translated document must contain:
 confirmation from the translator that it is an accurate translation of the original document;
 the date of the translation;
 the translator's full name and signature; and
 the translator's contact details.

Anecdotal evidence suggested that the Bangkok ECOs were only concerned about this when it came to official documents like marriage or birth certificates; but it seems that they are now going to be strict about is and want all documents translated.

[Tony M]

I've been thinking about this ( maybe I shouldn't !). The application was not refused because the applicant did not provide translations ( see the wording), and I think that is because there is no such requirement in visit visa applications. The requirement seems to apply only to "specified" documents under Appendix FM-SE ( in settlement applications). That being so, then the ECO could not, and did not, refuse the application because documents were not translated.

So, the ECO is saying that because some documents that were submitted were not translated, even though there is no requirement for them to be translated, he couldn't place any reliance on them as evidence, as he doesn't know what they say. The moral seems to be, if you want to provide evidence in a visit visa application, and that evidence is in Thai, then get it translated. There is no requirement for you to do so, but the ECO may, or may not accept that. He cannot refuse the application only on the grounds that the documents were not translated, but he can refuse on the grounds that he is "therefore not satisfied that the documents you have elected to submit relate to you and your circumstances as you describe". You will, however, be making it easy for him to refuse an application.

Does that make sense ?

[theoldgit]

Tony, but he/she went on to say "I am therefore not satisfied that the documents you have elected to submit relate to you and your circumstances as you describe. This undermines the credibility of your visa application as a whole and calls into question your true intentions in the UK."

Surely if they are suggesting the document is false they should consider banning the applicant?

I suppose it really depends on what the documents were and what reliance the applicant was placing on them.

[Tony M]

I think the ECO has covered himself. He's not saying that the documents are false, but rather that he doesn't know what they are or what they say. Therefore he can't rely on them as a true reflection of the applicant's claims regarding her intentions.

Maybe an applicant could try to argue that as we are in Thailand, and there is nothing in the UKVI guidance to indicate that Embassy staff don't speak or read Thai, then the applicant has an expectation that documents submitted in Thai will be acceptable ? We know, of course, that the majority of locally engaged staff in the visa section are, or do speak, Thai. Refusing an application because he cannot tell what a document is, is in fact an easy way for an ECO to refuse an application if, for instance, he has little or nothing else to refuse on. In reality, he need only ask one of the local staff what the document refers to, or if a bank statement submitted is actually in the applicant's name. There are, of course, some ECOs, locally engaged or otherwise, who speak and read Thai. If one of those ECOs had dealt with the application, then it may well have been issued. Could that mean that an applicant whose application is dealt with by a non-Thai speaking ECO is actually being discriminated against ? I told you I shouldn't think too much !

Edited December 14, 2014 by Tony M

[7by7]

I've been thinking about this ( maybe I shouldn't !). The application was not refused because the applicant did not provide translations ( see the wording), and I think that is because there is no such requirement in visit visa applications. The requirement seems to apply only to "specified" documents under Appendix FM-SE ( in settlement applications). That being so, then the ECO could not, and did not, refuse the application because documents were not translated.

With respect, Tony, although I understand that there is no requirement for translations in the rules for visit applications; the guidance linked to above does clearly say

If you submit a document that is not in English or Welsh, it must be accompanied by a full translation that can be independently verified by the Home Office.

(My emphasis)

So my advice is, and always has been, to provide such translations; thus avoiding this problem.

Even though we both know of many applicants in the past who have not done so yet been successful.

Maybe they are tightening up on this aspect?

Edited December 14, 2014 by 7by7

[Tony M]

I've been thinking about this ( maybe I shouldn't !). The application was not refused because the applicant did not provide translations ( see the wording), and I think that is because there is no such requirement in visit visa applications. The requirement seems to apply only to "specified" documents under Appendix FM-SE ( in settlement applications). That being so, then the ECO could not, and did not, refuse the application because documents were not translated.

With respect, Tony, although I understand that there is no requirement for translations in the rules for visit applications; the guidance linked to above does clearly say

If you submit a document that is not in English or Welsh, it must be accompanied by a full translation that can be independently verified by the Home Office.

(My emphasis)

So my advice is, and always has been, to provide such translations; thus avoiding this problem.

Even though we both know of many applicants in the past who have not done so yet been successful.

Maybe they are tightening up on this aspect?

I agree 100% that it is good advice, especially now that we have seen a visit visa refused. The quote "If you submit a document that is not in English or Welsh, it must be accompanied by a full translation that can be independently verified by the Home Office." does refer only to applications under Appendix FM-SE though - paragraph 39B(f) of the rules ( that is, in settlement applications). I agree that the guidance for visit visa applications gives sinilar advice, but it is not law, nor did the ECO refer to the guidance in his refusal reasons. Logically, there must be a reason why the UKVI, or the Home Office, hasn't put the same requirement into the general immigration rules, that is for visitors, etc. But I can't think what that reason could be.