Visa Applications

[Maizefarmer]

There you go: speed of reply should not be used as an indicator of whether or not an application has been approved or rejected.

Considering Nick's unfortuneate experiance and the somewhat blunt and, by all accounts incorrect assessment ofthe application that he was supporting, it may perhaps be an idea to have a pinned thread on which members can submitt the results of the visa applications they were involved with and supported - under the following headings.

1) Country

2) Type of Visa Applied For

3) Successful or UnSuccessful

4) UnSuccessful - Reasons Given/ Words Used In Letter

5) Did You ReApply - Yes/No

6) OutCome 2nd Time Round

What other criteria could be included.... would be interesting to see some stats comparing applications and refusals and, in the case of refusals, what the reason given was. Just one problem with this - I dont know how accuate it would or could be, considering that only a fraction of applications are from people who are members of the forum.

Personally I think a lot of applicants to the UK get harshly judged, and not withstanding Nicks case (i.e. docs were missing), it was a case with reasons given that could quite easily have been addressed without refusing the application so fast. Although it can quite rightly be said that it isn't the clearance officers responsibility to ensure everything is submitted, it does none the less leave a bad taste in ones mouth regards the attitude that was adopted towards the application - almost a "oh - don't have time for this - no, decline - lets move on to the next one".

Some stats .....

Tim

[the scouser]

For the UK, the latest (2004/5) figures, as published by UK Visas, can be found here.

It's the members' own decision to accept them as being accurate or not, but the thread will be closed if it degenerates into an irrelevant discussion of their veracity.

Scouse.

[atlastaname]

Tim, i think your idea has some merit but it is unlikely to work because i just don't believe that most posters here would be willing to put into print so many personal details.This is a sad reflection of modern day society where everything has to be a secret. Already we have a situation where loads of posters ask our advice but rarely give enough detail to form a proper opinion . This is even more pronounced if they get refused. They post telling us about their refusal but always in their own words. This then always leads us to ask them for more detail or better still , a posting of the exact and complete refusal notice. When this is (rarely) subsequently done , it is usually quite easy for us to see why they were refused and often the fault can then be laid with the applicant as some recent cases have shown . Occasionally the refusal looks harsh , many times it seems reasonable .

Your sympathetic viewing of Nick's case is an understandable human reaction , but what you are missing is that you are not dealing with a body who are going to go out of their way to help you . If you don't provide what is suggested in the guideance notes you may well be refused , not (as you seem to think is right ) the case put on hold whilst the applicant sorts out any problems , ...just refused. You are probably right in your assessment of how they view anyone who is in a grey area , they don't have or want to find time to help. They will refuse and you have to apply again. You must remember these are civil servants who are doing a job for (mostly) the money and perks. They are not interested in your personal circumstances , nor in any disruption to the lives of unnsuccessful applicants .

I don't want this to be seen as a provocative post in any way , but an attempt to enlighten Tim as to my view of the mindset of the Embassy.

So whilst yours is a noval idea, it is doomed to fail unfortunately.

[Maizefarmer]

ATLASTANAME - sadly I think you are right.

AS for the "mindset" observation: you are preching to the converted - I am all to aware of it. I have been here a good few years and know some of those staff on a personal/social levell - our kids go to school together and we socialise together(even went to the wedding of one who married a local Thai) - and I'll leave it at that.

To me Nicks case was a clear case, in the sense that it could have been easily resolved, and were it not for the "mindset" observation you made, it was probebrly a case that would have been resolved

My interest from a stat point of view was to try and get a feel for how often that happened. My feeling is that it happens alot. But fair comment -I see where you are coming from when it comes trying to draw conclusions from stats that are potentialy so open to been presented or used in an inaccurate way.

Tim

[GU22]

As Maizefarmer says, any such statistics culled from members here would be too small a sample to have any meaning.

The figures Scouse linked to show that in 2004/5 the British embassy in Bangkok alone dealt with 43,511 applications, of which only 5.9% were refused. I don't know how many members TV has, but I don't think it's that many!

One aspect of the application process that's recently changed is the facility to refuse on the initial application alone. The immigration rules do clearly state that the onus is on the applicant to ensure that all the relevant information is provided, but not everyone is au fait with the requirements as some members here are. I personally feel that if there is some question of doubt about an application then the applicant should be given the opportunity to counter that doubt at an interview. This does happen in most cases, but it should happen in all.

I guess it's the result of another cost cutting measure by this government. With regard to public services Blair's attitude seems to be "Do what's cheap," not "Do what's right."

[the scouser]

I guess it's the result of another cost cutting measure by this government. With regard to public services Blair's attitude seems to be "Do what's cheap," not "Do what's right."

I was talking to an ECO based on the sub-continent recently, and he explained that, at his office, the ECOs are expected to fully consider 24 applications each per day. This includes reading and assimilating the application form and supporting documentation, conducting checks, and writing any refusal notice if needs be. On the basis of a 7-hour day, and assuming the ECO works flat out for the entire 7 hours, this only gives 17.5 minutes per application, which is clearly not conducive to considered decision-making, and that is why people get refused solely on the ground that insufficient supporting documentation has been submitted, rather than being given an opportunity to adduce it.

Scouse.

[Resonant]

I guess it's the result of another cost cutting measure by this government. With regard to public services Blair's attitude seems to be "Do what's cheap," not "Do what's right."

I was talking to an ECO based on the sub-continent recently, and he explained that, at his office, the ECOs are expected to fully consider 24 applications each per day. This includes reading and assimilating the application form and supporting documentation, conducting checks, and writing any refusal notice if needs be. On the basis of a 7-hour day, and assuming the ECO works flat out for the entire 7 hours, this only gives 17.5 minutes per application, which is clearly not conducive to considered decision-making, and that is why people get refused solely on the ground that insufficient supporting documentation has been submitted, rather than being given an opportunity to adduce it.

Scouse.

Hi there,

I'm new here so please excuse me if I stumble

It would be interesting to know how many ECO's are based in the British embassy in Bangkok.

Any ideas anyone?

[the scouser]

I've no idea what it is now, but it used to average out at about 4. You then have the locally engaged staff and the ECM, so you might be looking at a visa section with about 12 people working in it.

Scouse.

[GU22]

I've no idea what it is now, but it used to average out at about 4. You then have the locally engaged staff and the ECM, so you might be looking at a visa section with about 12 people working in it.

Four ECOs!!!!!!! Is that all!!!!!!

Taking Scouse's 7 hour day for 5 days a week, each ECO works 35 hours a week.

I don't know how much holiday they get, but let's say that, including public holidays etc, it's 5 weeks a year. In which case each ECO would work for 47 weeks a year. 47 x 35 = 1645 hours per year; 1645 x 4 = 6580 'ECO' hours per year.

In 2004/5 there were 43,511 applications. Divide that by 6580 means each ECO dealt, on average, with 6.6 applications per hour. That's less than 10 minutes per application; it's amazing how few times they do make the wrong decision.

Why not employ more ECOs? I wouldn't have thought that Bangkok was considered a hardship post. The government would doubtless argue that it would cost too much.

Using the 2004/5 figures again, let's look at the money the government makes from visas.

40,475 non settlement applications at a minimum fee of £50 = £2,023,750.

3,036 settlement applications at £260 = £789,360.

Total £2,813,110.

12 members of staff. I don't know what there salaries are, of course, but I reckon an equivalent grade in the UK would be on about £20K. Of course, there are other staff costs, accommodation etc., but I bet the Thai staff aren't paid anywhere near £20K. So let's say an average cost of £20K per staff member per year.

12 x 20,000 = £240,000.

That leaves £2,573,110 profit in just one year for Gordon Brown!

And that's from just one visa section, by no means the busiest one.

And this Labour government had the nerve to introduce the exorbitant charges for FLR, ILR etc., saying that those using the service should pay for it. We already were! With a tidy profit!

That is the real injustice in the system!

[the scouser]

You're not far off with the salaries, although I'd say it's nearer £26-27000 now for an ECO.

Again, I don't know if things have changed within the last few years, but the Foreign Office staff used to do 3-4 years in London followed by 3-4 years abroad, unless you volunteered to go somewhere no other bugger wanted to go, in which case you could live permanently abroad.

Evidently, it's difficult to survive in London on £27000.00 a year, so the stints abroad were always the money earners: you get your full salary and don't have to pay NI contributions after one year (effectively a 10% pay increase). On top of that, you get a cost of living allowance and your accommodation is provided gratis, leaving you free to rent out your pad back in Blighty. In addition, if you are married, your spouse and kids get to come with you, with the kids being educated locally, again at the embassy expense. On top of all this, you have the guaranteed business class flights home (I think 2 per year) and medical costs.

The perks were even better if you were on a short-term posting (4 months or less), as you'd be paid a daily subsistence rate which depended upon whether the post was classified as hardship. Hardship did not equate to the likelihood of you being shot and killed, but how easy it was, for example, to pick up pot of Marmite, or some PG Tips, from the local supermarket. Consequently, the Philippines 4 years ago was a hardship post and I used to get 75 notes per day, 7 days a week, on top of my salary. I couldn't possibly spend it all....

Ah, the good old days

Anyway, I digress, whereas GU22's overall point is sound, it not a simple as adding up the ECO's collective salaries. At a very rough estimate, I'd say a married ECO with 2 kids might cost the embassy upwards of £60000.00 per year.

Scouse

[GU22]

Thanks, Scouse.

That still leaves a lot of dosh for the treasury, though.

[Maizefarmer]

For what it worth, in Bangkok there is:

Full Time

ECM: 1

ECO: 4

Local staff (meaning Thais): 5

Part Time

3 others

Amongst the above UK national staff are staff who are here fulltime i.e. married to Thai's - if you get a message to contact so-and-so at the embassy about a visa application, and the surname is Thai - their english is so good because they are actual/originaly UK staff

Tim

[atlastaname]

After reading Scouse's quick overview of the life of an ECO and looking out the window at the heavy wind and rain right now in the UK, i have to say ... i really would like to give it a shot .

[Maizefarmer]

You aint serious are you ..... it must be a boring job at the best of times. Horse for courses I guess, even if the atmosphere of working in a civil service dpeartment can be stifling.

Oh, and by the way - this forum is read by the consular section and the comments do get noted time to time - with an effort to match them up to applicants? - wouldn't know - they after all only human like us.

Tim

[atlastaname]

No really i would like it . But then again i have always worked in a office-like environment so that part of it comes naturally. And they do get loads of public holidays etc. I would probably get sacked after a while for allowing too many visas tho , because having been on the wrong end of a refusal i know the agony it causes and would be too likely to err on the side of generosity. !!

Your second comment is interesting . I too have always believed they do read this forum , its obvious isn't it really . In which case they must have a chunky file on me after all the comments i have made. Unfortunately for them me and my partner have all the visas we need and they can't do anything about it , if indeed they have worked out which one it is .

I would love to meet the ECO who refused us initially on the street in Bangkok one day . And indeed the charming (!) ECM as well. I would have a word or two to say to them.!!

[the scouser]

Oh, and by the way - this forum is read by the consular section and the comments do get noted time to time

Of course they do. They've got to go somewhere to learn how to do their job.

Scouse.

[Maizefarmer]

I would imagine some of my comments have been printed out and stuck up on the Staff Notice board as well - I know some contributions from other members have been the subject of discussion on occassion.

ATlastaname - nope you'll never know who actually processed the application you sponsored because they all always nearly signed off by Howard - who acts as the buffer between the applicants and the ECM Grant. So its Howards name you are more than likely to see on any email or fax corrospondance

Tim

Edited October 20, 2006 by Maizefarmer

[GU22]

they must have a chunky file on me after all the comments i have made. Unfortunately for them me and my partner have all the visas we need and they can't do anything about it , if indeed they have worked out which one it is .

I doubt very much that they'd bother. You're not that important. But then, none of us here are.

40,000+ applications a year. Applications from TV members are a drop in a very large ocean.

They may read this site, and others like it; but I'm sure it's just so they can have a laugh at the rubbish some people post.

[atlastaname]

In my case i think they will remember . As it was costing me so much money i made sure they were bombarded daily with the case via UK Visas and other ways, and certainly Ms Howard will recall it in detail. So will Steve Taylor (if anyone here ever dealt with him you WILL remember him) who i believe is now causing misery for the Taiwanese.

Of course they read this and other sites , and if they do laugh as GU22 suggests at what is posted (and the consequent misery they have caused ), then they are indeed as bad as i have always thought some of them to be .

[Ollie]

For Gawd's sake! Embassy staff, ECO's amongst them, are civil servants following a rule book. The (true) adage in the public service, is that if someone (sadly) passes away at their desk, someone can take over and say, "next" with no disruption to service. Its actually what enables Government to function (with the notable exception of the incompetents at the HO and DWP).

They are processors. There is only so much leeway they have, only so much personal interpretation they can apply. Thats not a criticism, just a fact. They will make mistakes from time to time. They will have to ignore half the tosh they hear (for the 1000th time and still smile sweetly at the latest person trying it on, even if it has no bearing on their application).

I can't understand why anyone is seeking to make them into ogres? And yes, a posting in Bangers must be great. Its better than Belize (some may say). They won't get brownie points by rejecting x applocations leading to x appeals. They might actually be taken to task for their application of the rules. It might actually affect their future career!

Its as always, don't blame those applying the rules, blame those seeking to break them and making it harder for the genuine applicants.

[GU22]

Exactly, Ollie.

Those who rant on about ECO's taking great delight in causing misery by arbitrarily refusing applicants do nobody any favours. Such rants tend to come from those who have bollixed an application in the past and can't accept that they are to blame. All they do is cause unnecessary worry for new applicants and sponsors, and drive them into the clutches of the so-called visa agents who hang around outside the VAC.

The figures show that nearly 95% of applications are successful. If one searches through the archives of this and similar forums one will see that in the overwhelming majority of refusals the fault for a refusal lies with the applicant or sponsor; not with the ECO.

[Maizefarmer]

Using visa agents is not a good idea - and some of the embassy webistes have warning notices on them to dicourage applicants from going down that route.

Other than to pay a professional for help to translate/read/understand properly the various questions asked on visa application forms, to use a visa agent in an attempt to make the application look or otherwise give an impresion that is anything other than 100% honest is to render the application a waste.

The embassies see it every day, and short of been able to identify the respective agents from the repeated styles of applications (both in terms of handwriting & types of answers to various questions), I am pretty certain they know an agency application when they see it.

Applications should be your own truthful and contain nothing more than the applicants input.

And look, do you really think agencies care wether you get your visa or not - not a chance, all they care about is getting some money from you and moving on.

Tim

PS - I am not talking about those agencies that combine airline ticket purchase with delivery and collection of visa applications & passports to & from embassies, but about those that purport to offer a "visa service" for a fee, under the impression that using them increases an individuals chances of actually getting the visa. Waste of time, waste of money.

[the gent]

According to Maizefarmer the Embassy warns against using ' agents ', a caveat endorsed by him since he regards the use of agents as being a waste of time and money. Of course the ingenue among us may well be financially better off by avoiding the clutches of avaricious charlatans but such a sweeping generalisation does an injustice to those who do operate businesses according to sound professional ethics.

The problem does not lie in the mainstream but within the cracks of the system where the unwary, the simpleminded or the just plain unlucky may find themselves. Informed representation can assist in circumstances where the individual acting alone may often fail. Given that a refusal rate of 6% in an annual base of 40,000 applications accounts for some 2,400 unhappy folk I would surmise that there is considerable potential for rigorous examination of a system that may not wish to have all its inadequacies exposed to the public gaze. Indeed, the alarming statistic that nearly 70% of appeals were upheld by adjudicators seems to bear this out.

Sure there are sharks out there but exhorting all and sundry to eschew any professional help is doubtful advice at best.

Edited October 22, 2006 by the gent

[Thai-Spy]

Using visa agents is not a good idea - and some of the embassy webistes have warning notices on them to dicourage applicants from going down that route.

Other than to pay a professional for help to translate/read/understand properly the various questions asked on visa application forms, to use a visa agent in an attempt to make the application look or otherwise give an impresion that is anything other than 100% honest is to render the application a waste.

The embassies see it every day, and short of been able to identify the respective agents from the repeated styles of applications (both in terms of handwriting & types of answers to various questions), I am pretty certain they know an agency application when they see it.

Applications should be your own truthful and contain nothing more than the applicants input.

And look, do you really think agencies care wether you get your visa or not - not a chance, all they care about is getting some money from you and moving on.

Tim

PS - I am not talking about those agencies that combine airline ticket purchase with delivery and collection of visa applications & passports to & from embassies, but about those that purport to offer a "visa service" for a fee, under the impression that using them increases an individuals chances of actually getting the visa. Waste of time, waste of money.

You raise some very good points, Tim. We've always counseled our clients that in general visa agents and visa services are a mixed proposition. One thing an established visa agency provides is their familiarity with the documents and the sequence of the process. In that context they can indeed help prevent rejections and denials because of simple oversights. However the fees involved are generally out of scale with the actual services provided.

(We might even indulge in conspiracy theory and suggest that visa agents are out of favor with the embassies simply because they reduce the number of automatic rejections and force civil servants to actually earn their paychecks... But we won't.)

[GU22]

Given that a refusal rate of 6% in an annual base of 40,000 applications accounts for some 2,400 unhappy folk I would surmise that there is considerable potential for rigorous examination of a system that may not wish to have all its inadequacies exposed to the public gaze.

The system is subject to independent scrutiny. Those refusals that have a right of appeal are, if the applicant wishes, scrutinised by the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal and those that aren't are subject to review by the The Independent Monitor. There is also the UKvisas user panel, members of which are:-

Association of Regulated Immigration Advisers (ARIA) - www.aria-uk.org

CBI - www.cbi.org.uk

Churches Together in Britain and Ireland (CTBI) - www.ctbi.org.uk

Commission for Racial Equality - www.cre.gov.uk

Council for British Pakistanis (Scotland)

English UK - www.englishuk.com

Hindu Council UK - www.hinducounciluk.org

Immigration Advisory Service (IAS) - www.iasuk.org

Immigration Law Practitioners' Association (ILPA) - www.ilpa.org.uk

International Bar Association - www.ibanet.org

Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants - www.ibanet.org

Law Centres Federation - www.lawcentres.org.uk

Law Society - www.lawsociety.org.uk

Medical Foundation - www.torturecare.org.uk

Muslim Council of Britain - www.mcb.org.uk

National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux - www.citizensadvice.org.uk

National Organisation of Asian Businesses

National Union of Students - www.nusonline.co.uk

Office of the Immigration Services Commissioner (OISC) - www.oisc.org.uk

Refugee Legal Centre (RLC) - www.refugee-legal-centre.org.uk

Refugee Council - www.refugeecouncil.org.uk

UKCOSA - www.ukcosa.org.uk

United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees - www.unhcr.org.uk

West Indian Standing Congress.

So, as can be seen, visa sections are not working away hidden from public gaze.

Indeed, the alarming statistic that nearly 70% of appeals were upheld by adjudicators seems to bear this out.

Most refusals are due to poorly prepared applications, e.g. missing documents, and/or those being interviewed giving incomplete or contradictory answers. Appellants are allowed (encouraged?) to introduce new evidence at their appeal. Therefore what's alarming, if the gent's figures are correct (I've not checked), is that 30% of appeals are refused! Having cocked it up the first time and been given another chance you'd think that they would get it right. Especially as any one submitting an appeal should also be seeking professional advice. Edited October 22, 2006 by GU22

[Ollie]

(We might even indulge in conspiracy theory and suggest that visa agents are out of favor with the embassies simply because they reduce the number of automatic rejections and force civil servants to actually earn their paychecks... But we won't.)

That makes you or your company sound like pr**ts. I'm sure you're not.

Nice touch in PR.

[the scouser]

It's a difficult one to call: but, generally speaking, the people who set themselves up as immigration advisers in Thailand have no knowledge of UK immigration law and policy, which, after all, is what governs whether the applicant gets the visa (or not). That's no to say there aren't charlatans in the UK, but they are supposedly "accountable" to either the Law Society or The OISC.

From a personal point of view, I just can't abide people being misinformed.

Scouse.

[GU22]

We've always counseled our clients that in general visa agents and visa services are a mixed proposition. One thing an established visa agency provides is their familiarity with the documents and the sequence of the process. In that context they can indeed help prevent rejections and denials because of simple oversights.

In fact, that is all an agent in Thailand can do. Most of these 'agents' are not qualified and have no more knowledge nor expertise than any poster on a site such as this (With the exception of Scouse, who actually is qualified.)

However the fees involved are generally out of scale with the actual services provided.

Agree with you there. Any advice such an agent can give you can also be found on sites like this, or by reading all the official guidance on the Embassy and VAC sites. All for free.

(We might even indulge in conspiracy theory and suggest that visa agents are out of favor with the embassies simply because they reduce the number of automatic rejections and force civil servants to actually earn their paychecks... But we won't.)

Just as well you wont. The embassy and other official sources do not advise against using an agent, but they do counsel caution in choosing one. From Guidance - General information for Visitors Visa Applications

Should I ask an agent or an immigration adviser to help me apply for my visa?

You should be careful about using an agent or an immigration adviser as they cannot issue visas, or influence the outcome of your application. There have been cases where agents and immigration advisers have given people poor advice and overcharged them.

If you are not sure how to make your application, or if you want advice about travelling to the UK, you should read the appropriate guidance on this website, or contact our visa section.

When should I get advice?

If your application is not straightforward, and you have already read the appropriate guidance and contacted us, you might want to get help.

How do I get advice?

As well as the sources of advice recommended earlier, you can get advice from various other organisations. There are contact details at the end of this guidance for the organisations that you, or your sponsor in the UK, can contact to help you find a suitable immigration adviser.

Will my application be guaranteed if I have an immigration adviser?

No. Your application will depend on whether you qualify to enter the UK under the Immigration Rules and whether you give the Entry Clearance Officer all the necessary information and documents. A good adviser can help you fill in your application form and make sure that you include all the relevant supporting documents.

Are all immigration advisers qualified to give advice on immigration matters?

No. Some advisers are qualified to give advice on immigration law and related matters, whereas others will only be able to help you fill in your application form. You should get details of their services before asking an immigration adviser to help you. If you plan to use an organisation that charges for its services, we advise you to check their fees first.

There are many so-called advisers who do not want their clients (victims?) to see the official guidance, and there are even some who attempt to convince their clients that the application will go smoother if they do use an agent.

Unfortunately, even agents based in the UK and OISC registered!

The following post appeared on another forum late last year

Personally I would stay away from visa agencies. I saw one "UK" OISC registered agent's website (which has a Bangkok based satellite office) declaring:

.. British Embassies also look favourably on a visas application made by an OISC adviser on behalf of a client.[sic]

That, I cannot for one second believe. Either the applicant is eligible for entry clearance or they are not - irrespective of who helped in the application process! It is the applicant the Embassy are interested in, not the agent.

The same website makes other claims which I personally find extraordinary and misleading;

You will notice that immigration and nationality application forms such as SET(M) and the British Citizenship application now contain a space for the OISC adviser to enter their name and number and that they advise you to use a an OISC adviser which makes sense given the costs involved not only in monetary terms but also in worry and inconvenience if an application is rejected due to not having been completed correctly.

I believe this wording is very misleading. The space to which they refer is for any agent to put their details. What the Form SET(M) actually says is:

This form is designed to let you make your own application. If you engage an immigration adviser, you should take care when choosing one. The Office of the Immigration Services Commissioner (OISC) regulates immigration advisers.

An applicant is not encouraged to use an agent of any type. Nowhere in the guidance does it recommend an agent be engaged to assist in the application.

The space on the form for the "OISC adviser to enter their name and number" actually says:

Is a representative assisting you with your application? If yes please insert their OISC Registration Number if they have one

So even visa agents who are registered with the OISC can also manipulate and misrepresent the actual legal safeguards and provisions (whether intentionally or otherwise) in an effort to give themselves a commercial advantage!

The author of that post is a highly qualified barrister.

(Obviously, I am not inferring anything about any member here who is a OISC registered adviser. I am sure that his activities are completely above board and honest.)

The point of all this is that if the application is perfectly straightforward, as the vast majority are, then there is no need to pay an agent for advice. If there is something unusual about the circumstances and you feel you may need expert advice that forums such as this can't provide then seek out a suitably qualified adviser in the UK. Even then, check them out carefully before engaging their services and parting with any money. Get referances from previous clients, and if they wont provide them then go to another adviser who will.

[atlastaname]

If the Gent's figures are true , and we must assume he didn't just pluck them out of the air as he is an experienced poster here, then its alarming indeed . But not for the reasons that GU22 suggests, but for the reason that 70% of appeals are allowed. Thats 70% of refusals that shouldn't have been. Of course some of the refusals were correct and thats why 30% were not allowed even at appeal, but the vast majority were overturned and that will be a mixture of some (an unknown quantity) that just plain shouldn't have been refused anyway (thus the ECO's were WRONG) and others , again an unknown quantity within the 70% , that were overturned because more documentation was produced. Chances are that this documentation/ explanations could have been available to the ECO had he/she asked for them or given more time to the applicant to produce them rather than just refuse.

Either way you look at it , GU22's precious ECO's got it wrong more times than they got it right with refusals that went to appeal. Now that is alarming , but some here will never see that in their blind defence of the system

[GU22]

Either way you look at it , GU22's precious ECO's got it wrong more times than they got it right with refusals that went to appeal.

The ECO can only make a judgement based on the evidence presented to them in the documents and the interview. If the decision is overturned at appeal without the appellant presenting any new evidence then this would show that indeed the ECO did make the wrong decision. However, if new evidence is presented and it is this new evidence that sways the appeal in the appellants favour than this would indicate that the ECO made the right decision, based upon the evidence presented to them at the time.

Anyone know how many appellants produced no new evidence for the appeal, and how many of those were successful? Very few, if indeed any, I suspect.

Chances are that this documentation/ explanations could have been available to the ECO had he/she asked for them or given more time to the applicant to produce them rather than just refuse.

Atlastaname, you seem to think that the ECOs are omniscient mind readers. If the applicant does not produce relevant evidence, doesn't even mention that such evidence exists, then how do you expect the ECO to know about it and so ask to see it?

The onus is on applicant, and any sponsor, to provide all relevant information. If they don't, then how is that the ECOs fault?