For your amusement - a recent UK visit visa refusal

[Tony M]

You may , or may not, be aware that the decision-making process for applications from Thailand has now moved from Bangkok to New Delhi, and now to Sheffield.  One of my concerns with this last move is that the ECOs in Sheffield may have no experience at all of life overseas. If requirements remain the same, then ECOs must complete at least 2 years as an ECO in the UK before being allowed to work overseas.  That said, maybe we should be concerned at the decisions that are coming out of Sheffield.  This is a very recent Sheffield refusal. My bold type emphasis.  Enjoy :

 

The decision
I have refused your application for a visit visa because I am not satisfied that you meet the requirements of paragraph(s) V4.2 of Appendix V because:

 Home Office records show that you have previously been refused a UK visa (Bangkok VAF xxxxxxxx). However each application has to be assessed on its own merits using the information and evidence submitted.

 You are seeking entry to the UK for 1 month to visit family and attend a wedding. You state that your partner xxxxxxxxxxxxxx is providing £2,000 towards the cost of the travel, maintenance and accommodation for your visit and I am satisfied he is able to do so. However, I also have to take into consideration your personal and financial circumstances in Thailand.

 You state that you are employed as a General Office Staff by xxxxxxxxx with a monthly salary of 14,250 THB (£350.72) and have a monthly expenditure of 10,000 THB (£246.12). This leaves you with a monthly expendable income of 4,250 THB (£104.60). You also state you receive an additional family allowance of £4,000 per year. In support of your income you have submitted a personal bank statement from the Siam Commercial Bank (account number ending xxxxx) with a closing balance of 1,005.87 THB (£24.75) on 07/01/2020. I note the final balance of this account shows your financial position over one month prior to your current visa application. It is therefore unclear from the documents provided what your current financial situation is in Thailand or if you would have any finances available to contribute to the cost of this trip. I am not satisfied that you genuinely have the funds available to afford a trip to the United Kingdom at this time or that you have sufficient funds to cover all reasonable costs in relation to your visit.

 

 In light of all of the above I am not satisfied as to your intentions in wishing to travel to the United Kingdom or that you will leave the UK at the end of your visit. Furthermore, I am not satisfied that you have sufficient funds available to cover your costs whilst in the UK without working or accessing public funds. Your application for a visit visa has been refused under paragraphs V4.2 (a), (c) and (e) of the Immigration Rules.

 

I titled this "For your amusement", as the refusal decision has now been revoked after representations to the UKVI.

[Puchaiyank]

These IO folks are simply dissatisfied...buy them a massage...????

[BritManToo]

4 hours ago, Tony M said:

 You are seeking entry to the UK for 1 month to visit family and attend a wedding. You state that your partner xxxxxxxxxxxxxx is providing £2,000 towards the cost of the travel, maintenance and accommodation for your visit and I am satisfied he is able to do so. However, I also have to take into consideration your personal and financial circumstances in Thailand.

 

Should have claimed you were covering all expenses, then her bank account details would have been irrelevant.

[Tony M]

8 hours ago, BritManToo said:

 

Should have claimed you were covering all expenses, then her bank account details would have been irrelevant.

Errr.......yes. That was stated in the application, and the ECO has agreed that the sponsor is able to do so. Are you trying to blame the applicant and sponsor, and not the ECO ?

[BritManToo]

27 minutes ago, Tony M said:

Errr.......yes. That was stated in the application, and the ECO has agreed that the sponsor is able to do so. Are you trying to blame the applicant and sponsor, and not the ECO ?

I'm saying never give the ECO a reason to refuse.

And this guy used 'she doesn't have enough money in her bank' as a reason.

[roo860]

8 hours ago, BritManToo said:

 

Should have claimed you were covering all expenses, then her bank account details would have been irrelevant.

This is what we always state on my wife's visa applications, had 3 successful applications already including one last month.

[baansgr]

7 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

I'm saying never give the ECO a reason to refuse.

And this guy used 'she doesn't have enough money in her bank' as a reason.

That seems to be how to apply...human nature dictates you want to provide a good case so tend to provide over and above what they require in the belief it makes your case stronger...but as seen it tends to backfire in some circumstances.

[zoza]

2 minutes ago, roo860 said:

This is what we always state on my wife's visa applications, had 3 successful applications already including one last month.

all depends on the mood of the person doing the assessment, or as in our case collecting the paperwork

when we sat down (a Farang asked me to sit by him? and I can only think that he had upset one of the office staff) I noticed some of the Thai staff had a funny look in our direction, everything was ok until my wife handed me the folder that our application had been in, I could tell it was not empty, when I checked every single financial document

had been left in the folder, I asked the lady at the counter what was going on? and showed her all the

paper work, she disappeared and came back and basically shrugged, I tried to phone the number for complaints but could not get an answer... after an hour or so of showing people what had been done.the lady at the counter told me if we applied again I would be allowed to go with the wife from start to finish , we got refused and I went with the wife, and guess what they tried to give the financials back

in the folder but I shoved them back and pretended to Film them.

we had a nice month in the Uk and we intend to attend my sons wedding next year, and I would rather stand for a few hours than accept a seat from a stranger again, still a puzzle to this day...

alls we got was not enough proof of financials and the fact that I reported that my documents were with held several hours before the documents were examined counted for nothing. TIT   

[cornishcarlos]

7 minutes ago, zoza said:

alls we got was not enough proof of financials and the fact that I reported that my documents were with held several hours before the documents were examined counted for nothing. TIT

 

Was this at VFS ??

 

They have nothing to do with what docs you submit, they are just there to receive them.

Your wife should have made sure they got submitted with the rest of the application !!

 

 

[roo860]

3 minutes ago, zoza said:

all depends on the mood of the person doing the assessment, or as in our case collecting the paperwork

when we sat down (a Farang asked me to sit by him? and I can only think that he had upset one of the office staff) I noticed some of the Thai staff had a funny look in our direction, everything was ok until my wife handed me the folder that our application had been in, I could tell it was not empty, when I checked every single financial document

had been left in the folder, I asked the lady at the counter what was going on? and showed her all the

paper work, she disappeared and came back and basically shrugged, I tried to phone the number for complaints but could not get an answer... after an hour or so of showing people what had been done.the lady at the counter told me if we applied again I would be allowed to go with the wife from start to finish , we got refused and I went with the wife, and guess what they tried to give the financials back

in the folder but I shoved them back and pretended to Film them.

we had a nice month in the Uk and we intend to attend my sons wedding next year, and I would rather stand for a few hours than accept a seat from a stranger again, still a puzzle to this day...

alls we got was not enough proof of financials and the fact that I reported that my documents were with held several hours before the documents were examined counted for nothing. 

Pardon me, but I'm a bit confused, are you talking about your experience at VFS in Bangkok?

[zoza]

p.s. this was a few years ago, so hopefully not now as bad as they have changed the company doing this job,

but it still annoys me that Thai people will make their own rules/judgements and ride roughshod over

there fellow Thais if their fragile pride is in their opinion ever so slightly touched.    

[zoza]

sorry people jumped in a bit to soon, yes VFS had a bad reputation in many counties so I have been told.

I was not trying to take over the thread just a red flag to a none red bull , if you know what I mean.

[roo860]

VFS in Chiang Mai are helpful and courteous, excellent service.

[zoza]

 

 

 

 

 

24 minutes ago, roo860 said:

VFS in Chiang Mai are helpful and courteous, excellent service.

I am glad they are keeping some happy, at the time I had dealings with them

I bumped into two French lads at swampy and I did not have to tell them

the company name !!! they told me and the wife ''VFS in Vietnam'' an infamous name at that time.

[Tony M]

1 hour ago, BritManToo said:

I'm saying never give the ECO a reason to refuse.

And this guy used 'she doesn't have enough money in her bank' as a reason.

The applicant and sponsor didn't give the ECO a reason to refuse, and the ECO didn't give any lawful reason to refuse the application. The amount of money in the applicant's bank is irrelevant. The sponsor had already said he would pay, and the ECO agreed, in the refusal notice, that the sponsor had enough money to do so. That is why the UKVI overturned the refusal decision when the ECO's unlawful reason for refusal was pointed out to them. 

[sandyf]

10 minutes ago, Tony M said:

The applicant and sponsor didn't give the ECO a reason to refuse, and the ECO didn't give any lawful reason to refuse the application. The amount of money in the applicant's bank is irrelevant. The sponsor had already said he would pay, and the ECO agreed, in the refusal notice, that the sponsor had enough money to do so. That is why the UKVI overturned the refusal decision when the ECO's unlawful reason for refusal was pointed out to them. 

You are making an argument without the full information.

The OP stated the sponsor had agreed to £2000 but did not state what the full cost of the trip would be. It would not be unreasonable for the ECO to assume the applicant would be required make up the difference, so the decision cannot be seen to be unlawful. You have conveniently overlooked this sentence "or if you would have any finances available to contribute to the cost of this trip."

The appeal was probably based on the sponsor willing to pay the full amount of the trip and on the basis of being able to do so the refusal was reconsidered.

 

As posted previously the safest approach is for the sponsor to commit to all costs involved. In 9 applications I have never submitted any financial information regarding my wife.

[BritManToo]

2 hours ago, Tony M said:

The applicant and sponsor didn't give the ECO a reason to refuse, and the ECO didn't give any lawful reason to refuse the application. The amount of money in the applicant's bank is irrelevant. The sponsor had already said he would pay, and the ECO agreed, in the refusal notice, that the sponsor had enough money to do so. That is why the UKVI overturned the refusal decision when the ECO's unlawful reason for refusal was pointed out to them. 

3/4 of the refusal notice is about her not having enough money.

Rightly or wrongly.

[cornishcarlos]

7 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

3/4 of the refusal notice is about her not having enough money.

Rightly or wrongly.

 

Which is why it is always a goo idea, as sponsor, to say you will cover the entire cost of the trip...

Providing you can back that up with proof of finances !!

[Tony M]

2 hours ago, sandyf said:

You are making an argument without the full information.

The OP stated the sponsor had agreed to £2000 but did not state what the full cost of the trip would be. It would not be unreasonable for the ECO to assume the applicant would be required make up the difference, so the decision cannot be seen to be unlawful. You have conveniently overlooked this sentence "or if you would have any finances available to contribute to the cost of this trip."

The appeal was probably based on the sponsor willing to pay the full amount of the trip and on the basis of being able to do so the refusal was reconsidered.

 

As posted previously the safest approach is for the sponsor to commit to all costs involved. In 9 applications I have never submitted any financial information regarding my wife.

You are right, I didn't you give the full information.  However, the sponsor's bank statements and savings showed considerably more than the 2,000 he was paying for the trip. The 2,000 GBP is just an estimate of the cost. In view of what was written in the refusal notice, it wouldn't have mattered if he had stated 10,000 GBP as his contribution, as the ECO thinks the applicant should be able to contribute too. There is a question on the application form which asks how much the applicant is contributing towards the cost, and that was answered as "nil" (actually, as 1 GBP as the form doesn't accept "nil").  Funding was not in question. 

 

There was no appeal, as there is no right of appeal against the refusal of a visit visa. An intervention was requested, on the grounds that the decision was unlawful, as there is no requirement within the immigration rules for an applicant to pay anything towards the cost of a visit if there are adequate funds available from a sponsor. There is nothing in the immigration rules to say that an applicant must be able to contribute towards  the costs, and that makes the reason for refusal unlawful. Otherwise applicants who don't have an income or savings could never get a visa. The UKVI revoked the refusal decision because the ECO's statements and decision were unlawful. It's that simple. 

 

It's interesting , though, that you and others are arguing for the ECO, when the ECO was plainly wrong in his reasons for an unlawful refusal. It kind of demonstrates that the UKVI can make, and get away with, some very poor decisions, and that some people would likely accept them as "good" decisions.

[theoldgit]

16 minutes ago, Tony M said:

It's interesting , though, that you and others are arguing for the ECO, when the ECO was plainly wrong in his reasons for an unlawful refusal. It kind of demonstrates that the UKVI can make, and get away with, some very poor decisions, and that some people would likely accept them as "good" decisions.

 

As an HMI said to me a few years ago, after an IO at Gare du Nord gave you know who a hard time when we we were returning to London after a short trip to Paris, and when I pulled him up for his attitude to madam and his lack of knowledge, he turned on me, only to be corrected.  

The HMI, who we were staying with in Kent, said that he was really saddened by the quality of the IO's now being recruited and their lack of training and experience, it would seem that, as you alluded to in your OP, things haven't changed much.
Whilst I can appreciated other members posting on their fairly limited experiences, they are not indicitive on what you're dealing with on an almost daily basis, I'm just glad you were able to intervene.
I hope the ECO will learn from their mistake and receive the appropriate guidance, I just wonder how many more of these unlawful decisions slip through the net, without somebody being there to help applicants right a wrong.   

[Tony M]

2 hours ago, theoldgit said:

 

As an HMI said to me a few years ago, after an IO at Gare du Nord gave you know who a hard time when we we were returning to London after a short trip to Paris, and when I pulled him up for his attitude to madam and his lack of knowledge, he turned on me, only to be corrected.  

The HMI, who we were staying with in Kent, said that he was really saddened by the quality of the IO's now being recruited and their lack of training and experience, it would seem that, as you alluded to in your OP, things haven't changed much.
Whilst I can appreciated other members posting on their fairly limited experiences, they are not indicitive on what you're dealing with on an almost daily basis, I'm just glad you were able to intervene.
I hope the ECO will learn from their mistake and receive the appropriate guidance, I just wonder how many more of these unlawful decisions slip through the net, without somebody being there to help applicants right a wrong.   

As you say, there is a a problem.  The fact that the UKVI have completely distanced themselves from their "customers" doesn't help, of course. It is impossible to contact the UKVVI direct, and it has to be done through "partner agencies". And, of course, there doesn't seem to be any accountability for unlawful decision-making within the UKVI.  I doubt very much if the ECO will learn from his mistake. Why would he, when he is virtually untouchable ?

[KhaoNiaw]

26 minutes ago, Tony M said:

As you say, there is a a problem.  The fact that the UKVI have completely distanced themselves from their "customers" doesn't help, of course. It is impossible to contact the UKVVI direct, and it has to be done through "partner agencies". And, of course, there doesn't seem to be any accountability for unlawful decision-making within the UKVI.  I doubt very much if the ECO will learn from his mistake. Why would he, when he is virtually untouchable ?

This is an interesting thread. Is it possible for you to divulge exactly how you did make representations and get the decision revoked? 

[sandyf]

5 hours ago, Tony M said:

It's interesting , though, that you and others are arguing for the ECO, when the ECO was plainly wrong in his reasons for an unlawful refusal.

You are wrong on both counts. i am not arguing anything for the ECO, I am arguing against a post that was distorted and lacked clarity, and still does, while trying to make out they had got one over on the system.

You have still not substantiated the use of the term "unlawful", "unreasonable" maybe, but then that is UK immigration in a nutshell.

[Tony M]

4 hours ago, sandyf said:

You are wrong on both counts. i am not arguing anything for the ECO, I am arguing against a post that was distorted and lacked clarity, and still does, while trying to make out they had got one over on the system.

You have still not substantiated the use of the term "unlawful", "unreasonable" maybe, but then that is UK immigration in a nutshell.

Is it really necessary to "substantiate" the use of the term lawful to you ? I think most people actually understand the term lawful as being "within the law".  Any decision in an immigration application must be within the law, in accordance with the published immigration rules, and that is also what lawful means in this decision. The refusal notice contains no reason(s) for refusal that fall(s) within the immigration rules.  It is therefore unlawful.  If you are unable to understand the meaning of the word lawful, as opposed to "reasonable", in immigration decisions, then I can indeed see why you have a problem with clarity. 

 

Why do you say that the post was distorted ?  It is a true copy of the refusal notice (subsequently revoked by the UKVI because it was unlawful). I'm happy to post the refusal notice here, with personal details redacted. So what are you alleging was distorted ?

 

You say that I was trying to make out that someone "got one over on the system" ?  What are you talking about ?  You sound like we should accept the "system" as the way things have to be, and that it is okay for ECOs to make unlawful, or even (to use your words) unreasonable decisions, and that we shouldn't try to get poor decisions revoked "because it tries to get one over on the system".  This was posted as an example of poor, and unlawful, decision-making by an ECO, and you still seem to be arguing for the ECO.

[sandyf]

10 hours ago, Tony M said:

Is it really necessary to "substantiate" the use of the term lawful to you ? I think most people actually understand the term lawful as being "within the law".  Any decision in an immigration application must be within the law, in accordance with the published immigration rules, and that is also what lawful means in this decision. The refusal notice contains no reason(s) for refusal that fall(s) within the immigration rules.  It is therefore unlawful.  If you are unable to understand the meaning of the word lawful, as opposed to "reasonable", in immigration decisions, then I can indeed see why you have a problem with clarity. 

 

Why do you say that the post was distorted ?  It is a true copy of the refusal notice (subsequently revoked by the UKVI because it was unlawful). I'm happy to post the refusal notice here, with personal details redacted. So what are you alleging was distorted ?

 

You say that I was trying to make out that someone "got one over on the system" ?  What are you talking about ?  You sound like we should accept the "system" as the way things have to be, and that it is okay for ECOs to make unlawful, or even (to use your words) unreasonable decisions, and that we shouldn't try to get poor decisions revoked "because it tries to get one over on the system".  This was posted as an example of poor, and unlawful, decision-making by an ECO, and you still seem to be arguing for the ECO.

You can make all the excuses you want but it is fairly certain the next time an application is completed the answers will be given a bit more consideration.

Reality is the application created doubt and the subsequent refusal, a well prepared application would have avoided the problem in the first place.

The decision making process may well be flawed, but that does not make it unlawful, misinterpretation is another matter altogether.

[theoldgit]

34 minutes ago, sandyf said:

Reality is the application created doubt and the subsequent refusal, a well prepared application would have avoided the problem in the first place.

 

The reality is that the ECO got it wrong, thankfully for the applicant, Tony M was able to intervene and the UKVI managers overturned the decision, hopefully the ECO will be more careful in future and follow the guidance given to decision makers, though I would't hold my breath.

[Tony M]

31 minutes ago, sandyf said:

You can make all the excuses you want but it is fairly certain the next time an application is completed the answers will be given a bit more consideration.

Reality is the application created doubt and the subsequent refusal, a well prepared application would have avoided the problem in the first place.

The decision making process may well be flawed, but that does not make it unlawful, misinterpretation is another matter altogether.

I'm sorry to say this, but you don't have the faintest idea what you are talking about, and you are digging yourself a deeper hole.  You have no idea how well prepared the application was. It is 100% clear that the ECO made an unlawful decision, but for some reason you cannot accept that. Are you now saying that the ECO  did not make an unlawful decision, but he merely "misinterpreted" the law ?  Seriously ?

 

I tried to explain that a decision must be in accordance with the law (in this case the reasons for refusal must be within the immigration rules) and it wasn't. That is clear from the refusal notice which has no elements of lawfulness in it at all.  You clearly cannot understand that. Perhaps you can get a job at UKVI too.  You also conveniently forgot to answer any of the points in my last post.

 

I suspect that you are, for whatever reasons, trolling this post, and I request the moderator to either lock it or delete it if he sees fit. I'm happy to go on discussing the finer points of the difference between lawful and misinterpretation with you.  Or you can go and troll elsewhere.

[theoldgit]

I agree that it’s now time to close this thread, thanks very much to the OP for posting the information in the first instance. ????