UK immigration appeal fees

[Tony M]

The threatened increase in fees for appeals against visa refusals is happening on 10th October.  Massive increases that will undoubtedly reduce the number of appeals :

 

The response announces our intention to:

increasing the fee payable for an application to the First-tier Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) for a decision on the papers from
£80 to £490

increasing the fee payable for an application to the First-tier Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) for an oral hearing from £140 to
£800

 

There is a link to FreeMovement for further details :

 

https://www.freemovement.org.uk/government-confirms-fees-immigration-tribunal-hearings-will-skyrocket/?utm_source=FM+master+list&utm_campaign=1dfa29d5b1-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_DAILY&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_792133aa40-1dfa29d5b1-105100321&mc_cid=1dfa29d5b1&mc_eid=2b5f179930

[Donutz]

As a Dutchy this does not concern me but it does make me feel

sorry for UK/EU citizens and their foreign families. The whole ideal to charge for an appeal is wrong, there should be atleast one chanche to protest on visa/immigration decisions. Authorities such as ECO's can make mistakes, cretainly if they are pushed to work faster (ie: seeking less contact with the applicant to sort some minor questions out) or if it conerns a type of immigration such as the EU/SS route. 

 

I would expect that this does not stand up in court if taken up all the way to the EU court. They ruled that Dutch immigration fees of around 800 euro's were unacceptably high as it would make the process too expensive especially for low income groups. I can only imagen that this aplies even more so to the first appeal as those costs would stack on the initial immigration/visa costs. 

 

It very much seems in conflict with keeping justice accesable to lower incomes. Those groups with lower income can get subsidies to go to court with a lawyer in most western nations -not sure how free to low cost lawyers for low income households work in the UK tough-. But if you'd frustrate the very first step, appeals, which eventually could be taken to court, with insane fees then you are being injust against your citizens. 

 

But with Brexit it will almost certainly be too late to take this up with the EU court of justice before the UK is out and even if it could all be done in time it would not last for long. 

 

And I wouldn't expect much support from the public, who generally lump sums all visa and immigration topics to 'them asylum seekers and other immigrants from India, Pakistan and such' . I wonder how the British public would feel if all UK services and appeals would be made to cover all costs... Would be fun* if you apply for a housing permit or appealing against a rejection of such a permit.

 

*This word might be used in a sarcastic matter. 

 

Poor Britons, but thanks for sharing Tony. 

 

[SaintLouisBlues]

Charging for an appeal is a price signal to discourage frivolous appeals. If appeals are free or extremely cheap every single decision against an applicant is going to be appealed. Imagine the bottlenecks that will cause

[Donutz]

30 minutes ago, SaintLouisBlues said:

Charging for an appeal is a price signal to discourage frivolous appeals. If appeals are free or extremely cheap every single decision against an applicant is going to be appealed. Imagine the bottlenecks that will cause

If you wish to take that approach of high fees to discourage silly appeals you would need to fully return all such fees if an appeal overturned a decision. More over you would need to have a system in place to keep appeals open to low income people as not to effectively stop them from appealing or strongly discouraging them in cases were they think they are right but are not 100% sure and thus would risk losing a costly appeal.

 

Stopping silly appeals of people who know they do not stand a chanche but who only wish to drag things out or to annoy the authorities as some sort of revenge, sure we don't want that as it wastes time and money better spent on genuine cases. But are high, very high fees for applications and appeals the way to do that? How can people be granted what is their right and have a silly decision or error overturned without having to pay extra money to be granted a just and proper decision?

[bobrussell]

This makes it pretty much lose, lose for the applicant but win, win for the government.

I have sympathy with the view that it should not be too easy to appeal and there should be a cost to be considered. The other  side of this is the government should be risking significant compensation where the applicant wins!

There are powers to reduce these fees in exceptional circumstances!

 

Lower fees but the risk of costs being awarded would concentrate the minds of all those involved!

 

[7by7]

In most civil cases the loser has to pay the winners costs; I can see no reason why an immigration appeal should be any different.

 

Unfortunately, although foreknowledge that costs may be awarded against one if one loses may prevent frivolous appeals, will it concentrate the minds of ECOs and other decision makers?

 

After all, if UKVI lose it wont be the original decision maker who has to pay; it will be UKVI. That is the taxpayer; you and me!

[Donutz]

True but UKVI and the ministry it is part of do not have an endless budget. If the UK is anything like the Netherlands, budget cuts to the our MFA, HA, Justice etc. meant less services, higher fees, outsourcing. But if that money would then all go to waste over court cases and such things they would be wasting money and their own budget. 

 

So yes, say we would find it justified that a citizen who appeals any permit ranging from residency permits to permits regarding housing (installing solar panels for instance), should pay the full cost. Then obviously it would only be fair if those who lose their appeal or final appeal, to repay all the costs to the winning side. If the government department lost that would mean paying back all costs and it would cost it part of the annual budget. That would be somewhat fair was it not that the lower incomes would be discouraged from seeking justice. And I thought the age of class division was behind us...