Appealing visa refusal

"The very best of British" Mate. (from a Paddy)

IMO it is a sick way to treat honest law abiding Brit Citizens, the way you have been treated, when the "System" is being screwed in so many other ways by IMO "undeserving" immigrants.

Dublin is "full" ? of Bulgarian Gyppo pickpocketing SCUM and "full" of bludgers from "far and wide". So UK is not alone in this €Land transition.

My hope is that the campaigne to adjust the Homo-Office thinking may bear fruit.

Tom

PS : I say "may" but I think it will be successful.

Well I hope it all works out in your favour mate As Tom says its sickening to think that someone who has done all that is required of them has to go through this time consuming, expensive process when other less deserving folk can just rock up, spout some human rights nonsense and get in right away. I know its hard but stay postive. you seem to have your head screwed on right with this and have the right attitude for dealing with this process. So again - good luck to you both.

State of the UK isn't funny and you probably have more chance of getting into the UK after coming from a house we blew up in Afghanistan than from the Philippines. I am in a similar boat with income mind but from the other way round I don't want to declare mine to the UK as its none of their business. The fact I can and have lived abroad for 5 years should be enough to say I can support my wife and family.

Good luck on the appeal I am not sure how well appeals go through but hoping it gets sorted asap.

Your appeal form must be received within 28 days of the date you were served with the notice of decision.

You will need to decide which type of hearing you wish to have undertaken.
"On papers" means that the appeal will be decided on the information you provide on the appeal form and any other documents submitted as evidence.
"Oral hearings" take place in the UK and mean that the applicants sponsor and / or representative may attend.Oral hearings are informal affairs and allow the applicants sponsor and/or representative to 'have their say'.
Personally I believe Oral hearings to be much better in that their is a flexibility for nuance, meaning and understanding.

Given that yours was an application to settle permanently in the UK, do be prepared that the appeal process may take considerably longer than 4-6 months.

Once the AIT has received your appeal form, they will send you a notice of receipt. Once the visa section receives this notice of receipt, the Entry Clearance Manager will review the decision to deny your visa, based on evidence you provided in your form AIT-2, along with any new supporting documents you provided.
If the Entry Clearance Manager is satisfied that your application now meets the requirements for entry, he will overturn the decision to deny you, and your clearance to enter the UK will be issued.
If the Entry Clearance Manager does not overturn the decision, an Entry Clearance Officer will write a statement explaining why the decision to refuse your visa was upheld. This will be mailed to you by the AIT.

There are two tribunals:-
- a First-tier Tribunal
and
- an Upper Tribunal.

There is an Immigration and Asylum Chamber in each.

The Immigration and Asylum Chambers hear appeals on asylum, immigration, and nationality matters.
The role of the First-tier Tribunal is to hear and decide appeals against decisions made by the UK Border Agency's officers in the UK or at diplomatic posts abroad who can issue visas.

One or more immigration judges may hear an appeal.
They are sometimes accompanied by non-legal members of the tribunal. Immigration judges and non-legal members are appointed by the Lord Chancellor and are independent of the government.

If you make an appeal, you will usually attend the hearing with your legal representative. The UK Border Agency will also have a legal representative at the hearing.

The immigration judge, or panel, will decide whether your appeal against the decision is successful or not (this is known as the decision being 'allowed' or 'dismissed'). The tribunal's decision will be given to you in writing. It is called a 'determination'.

In certain circumstances you may be able to challenge a decision made by the First-tier Tribunal by applying to the Upper Tribunal.
The UKBA may also apply to the Upper Tribunal to challenge a First-tier Tribunal decision.

If an appeal has been considered by the Upper Tribunal, in some circumstances it may be possible to challenge the decision by applying to the Court of Appeal.

If you are confident in your appeal you should always consider seeking guidance from a level 3 immigration advisor who is able to carry through the full appeals process right up to Court of Appeal.

There are no restrictions at all to prevent you making a fully compliant re-application for settlement visa.
Kuya, only you will know in your heart whether to do this or not.

I do hear and understand your views on the wording and potential understanding of the rules.
My own personal opinion is that the specific documentary requirements for the financial requirements are quite clear in stating what constitutes a compliant application and what does not.

Just trying to help

That's a jolly good question and one I have been asking (almost rhetorically) for some time. A fluctuating income was a way of life for me for some 27 years. It is only recently, since 2007, that I have been on a fixed income. Like I said, the whole oil industry both here and abroad works on bonus systems where around half of ones yearly salary is paid in bonuses that are only paid for a days work. So if for some reason one works just a few days in one month then ones monthly salary is considerably reduced compared to working, say, 3 weeks in the month.

If I was in a similar position now and my wife was applying for a spouse visa / fiancee visa then I would have to fight such a decision. I used to sometimes have problems applying for a mortgage and had to move heaven and earth to make my case heard to the building societies. So this kind of thing isn't exactly new to me. Once the building society realised that my gross income was more than adequate, once the penny dropped in their heads, then I got the mortgage I asked for.

Do try giving Kate Green an email as she is not only working on behalf of her own constituents on similar matters but is also working on behalf of those outside her constituency on similar matters too.

No.

Kuya, you need to look at the specific details of the Financial Requirements. I have no idea what actual amounts were used by the ECO for the calculation.
From the information you've divulged I would say that the ECO followed the 'rules' (to which they are prohibited from any discretion) and that the ECO used the amount of gross pay stipulated.

Your correct specific category is A

Given that the ECO's calculation resulted in £17,715.00 it appears that the "lowest level in those 6 months" would be £17715.00/12 = £1476.25

I'm not suggesting any right or wrong, just repeating the specifics of the requirement as stipulated. It seems to me that you submitted a payslip at £1476.25
If this was the case then the ECO has correctly followed instruction and therefore the statement is not erroneous.

By the way, your 2011-2012 P60 was already out of date per the Financial Requirement as it was a reflection of the income received up to 5th April 2012

Hi, Really hope it works out for you. It should do but they seem to have an agenda now to make life as difficult and as expensive as possible for the genuine applicant. Its easier for them to target the genuine applicant as your giving them all the papers etc to use as a stick to beat you with. On the other hand the illegals juts get amnesties and all the benefits because that involves hard work to trace these people!!
When your wife eventually gets here, she will have to pass many irrelevant tests (life in the UK test) Language tests. The life in uk test is a nightmare as its just meaningless nonsense but you just have to do it and its not easy, so you need to prepare for all of this. Then there are the visa update costs etc etc... Not easy my friend.!!

To me this is wrong and I feel Kuya has a case. It's just the hassle, stress, time and possibly cost in making ones case count that is the problem. Clearly the regulations make no allowance for those whose income is high but are not on a fixed income.

Easier said than done I guess but if I had been applying under the new rules and earning what is effectively an irregular income then I would have done one of two things:

1] Made sure that I worked a pattern whereaby I earned over the £1550 threshold for a consecutive 6 months or:

2] Consulted with and or used a level 3 OISC Immigration adviser.

I still believe there are ways that an irregular income can be put across in an application, but haven't spoken to anyone who works as a qualified Immigration advisor for some time so I have to say I don't actually know. But surely worth a quick call. They don't charge for a limited amount of advice.

There were quite a number of years where I earned very little in a single month as I took vacation, yet still beat the £18600 requirement by a country mile, at the end of the year and still paid tax at the higher rate of 40%. Quite ironic. Would I therefore have paid tax at the higher rate yet failed to get my wife into the UK on the basis of not earning £1550 in a solitary month?

Laughable.

Yes. I have to agree, that surely is erroneous. Your gross income isn't £17715 pa.

Also, how would the Inland Revenue (or HRMC as it appears to be called these days) see your gross income? They seem to want it both ways.

Look, the immigration rules clearly state just how the Financial Requirement can be met and will be assessed.
Whether it's right or wrong is not the issue for the ECO or the ECM. That can be be determined by a tribunal judge if the case goes to appeal.

You can agree or disagree as much as you like. You can put forward all manner of reasoned arguments, but the immigration rules are what they are and the UKBA staff are bound by them with no discretion for financials

It has nothing to do with how HMRC view it, it has nothing to do with how your MP views it.

The methodology is stipulated by UKBA in determining whether the financial requirement has been met. Period.

Exactly.

It has to be remembered that ECOs and ECMs are not responsible for the rules or even the guidelines; they merely interpret them to the best of their ability. I don't think they are heartless people, just people who have a job to do, and to work within the rules and guidelines their employer gives them. If the ECO has made an aritmetic mistake in Kuya's case, let's hope that it is sorted out by an ECM without having to go to a tribunal.

There is still the issue of whether the guidelines properly interpret the rules, but that is not for the ECO or ECM to determine There is then the bigger issue of whether the rules are in line with other requirements, such as ECHR Article 8. Again, ECOs and ECMs cannot consider that either. I am not sure what a tribunal judge can consider; I guess he can make a determination on whether the guidelines follow the rules but can he also determine if the rules abide to to ECHR article 8? It may require a Judge in another Court to do that.

I just thank God that we live in a country where these things can be challenged by the ordinary man, without fear of retribution and that we have an independent judiciary who can challenge Government decisions. The unfortunate thing is that these challenges can take time and many of us want to bring our loved ones into the country now. Patience is a virtue.

Rules is rules. Of course. But that doesn't mean that they are correct or appropriate and it doesn't mean that they cant be changed or refined for the good. What we are looking at is an oversight in the rules. Clearly someone who earns £50K a year and fails to succeed as a potential sponsor to a filipinas spouse visa application because they didn't work one month in a calendar year is clearly stupid. And I have full sympathy for people in that minority in the same way as I have sympathy for those in the Brit / Filipina minority per se. One can just imagine the ECO saying:

"your sponsor earns £50,000 per annum but I am sorry to say that he only earned £1500 in the month of November and according to regulation xyz, your sponsor clearly cant support you financially and therefore I have no alternative but to refuse your spouse visa application".

LOL

I use the HRMC comparison to emphasise the stupidity and irony of the situation.

I wouldn't accept the law as it stands. I am sure it can be and will be changed. The rules are being amended as we speak, are they not and under the right pressure will no doubt change again. Many seem to believe that the £18600 threshold itself wont last long.

A quick phone call to a good immigration adviser would undoubtedly clarify. Okay, it may not deliver the response that we seek but it is certainly worth a try.

I have no axe to grind, no sides to take and no opposing views. I just try to keep things simple and on track to achieve the desired objective.

John, humour me. Just as an example lets consider the English Language test requirement. That is clearly stipulated by UKBA. You can argue all you want and state stupidity of the rules etc etc etc, many folks do, but most people go ahead with it despite that fact that their partners have achieved degree level qualifications taught in English. Why?
Because that is the pathway to achieving the objective.

I have no desire to keep banging on the same drum

But at least you sent it. Well done for that.
The ECM is under no formal obligation to read or act upon it. Mostly though they do read them. Well the good ECM's at least.
It's a good idea for a number of reasons, not least because it's self-motivating to do something immediately. It can also save a whole load of stress and time, especially in cases where the ECO has clearly fallen short and made simple errors, which used to happen quite often.
These current rules leave precious little discretion for caseworkers or ECO's

Nothing ventured nothing gained.

A brief (but well planned) telephone call to good advisor is also a good idea that costs nothing.
As is a letter to the Regional Operations Manager at the Manila Hub

The ECM (and ECO) will be called upon to reconsider and to justify the refusal decision anyway as part of the formal appeals procedure.