Rights of Appeal Removed

[lastlid]

10 May 2012

"A clause in the Crime and Courts Bill, published today, will remove the full right of appeal for those applying to enter the UK as a family visitor. Subject to Parliamentary approval and Royal Assent, this change is expected to come into force by 2014. Refused applicants will still be able to appeal on limited grounds of human rights or race discrimination.

In June 2012 we will also introduce secondary legislation which will tighten the family and sponsor definitions in family visit visa appeals. Subject to Parliamentary approval, these changes are expected to come into force in July 2012. Those applying to visit a cousin, uncle, aunt, niece or nephew will no longer have access to a full right of appeal, and to use that appeal right, the family member being visited in the UK must have settled, refugee or humanitarian protection status.

These changes will only affect applicants who have been refused a visa to visit family members. No changes are being made to the rules governing who can qualify for entry to the UK as a visitor and genuine visitors are welcome.

Consultation
Between July and October 2011, the Home Office carried out a consultation on whether applicants refused a family visit visa should have a full right of appeal. 39 per cent of respondents felt that a full right of appeal should not be retained for this category and 28 per cent felt that it should. 33 per cent didn't comment.

The Independent Chief Inspector will continue to monitor visa refusals where applicants have no full right of appeal and the UK Border Agency will use this feedback to improve our application and decision making processes.

Further changes following the 2011 family migration consultation will be announced in due course.

As well as removing the full right of appeal for family visit visas, the Crime and Courts Bill also includes provisions relating to UK Border Agency investigatory and other powers".




http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/sitecontent/newsarticles/2012/may/28-family-appeal

[joebloggs]

:NoNo: they've been talking about this for a long time, seeing at least 1/3rd of appeals are won, 1 out of 3 was unjustly refused, so how can these 1/3 of people get justice now ? :cwm23:

I'm sure many more visit and family visit visa's will be refused now as there will be no right to appeal and no come back on the ECO who refused it, not that there is any warning given to or any reprimand for ECO's who wrongly refused a visa. how about 3 strikes and your out of your job ??

this is :icon_lol: Those applying to visit a cousin, uncle, aunt, niece or nephew will no longer have access to a full right of appeal, and to use that appeal right, the family member being visited in the UK must have settled, refugee or humanitarian protection status.
that's probably half your family can no longer have the right to appeal :angry:

the only part that i can agree on is 'the family member being visited in the UK must have settled, refugee or humanitarian protection status.' the problem is virtually anyone in the uk could sponsor a visit visa.


i can see court cases again here :angry: and Cameron the loser he is losing again :rolleyes:

[Iani]

Further changes following the 2011 family migration consultation will be announced in due course.

Well here goes the thing where they want to put up the income to "rich" levels :rolleyes:

[joebloggs]

Consultation
Between July and October 2011, the Home Office carried out a consultation on whether applicants refused a family visit visa should have a full right of appeal. 39 per cent of respondents felt that a full right of appeal should not be retained for this category and 28 per cent felt that it should. 33 per cent didn't comment.
[/I]


who was consulted ? 39% felt that a full right of appeal should not be retained for this category, only because it didn't effect this 39%, or were members of far right groups like the BNP, as for the 28% who thought it should, maybe it effects them or know someone it effects..

[lastlid]

who was consulted ? 39% felt that a full right of appeal should not be retained for this category, only because it didn't effect this 39%, or were members of far right groups like the BNP, as for the 28% who thought it should, maybe it effects them or know someone it effects..

How many were consulted? 39% of 20 is 8 people.....

[lastlid]

Did he just have a chat with a few mates in the pub?

[joebloggs]

so if your refused contact your MP, make them aware, this is the only way you will not get fobbed off !


http://www.parliamentonline.co.uk/pdo.nsf/vpmq/B03396442DF4D394802579FB0033CFFD

Col. 199: Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab): One is immigration. The Government will deeply regret their decision to take away the right of appeal for family visits. I am looking round the Chamber. The hon. Members for Brentford and Isleworth (Mary Macleod), for Croydon Central and for Harrow East (Bob Blackman)—I am sure that there are others, but I pick those because I know a bit about their constituencies —will have huge immigration case loads in their surgeries, as many Labour Members have. The fact is that taking away the right of appeal will hugely increase Members' case loads. We are happy to do more work, but the fact is that we will send those people back to make further applications. The Minister for Immigration is not in the Chamber at the moment and other Ministers do not deal with immigration work, but the facts are very clear: 50% of the appeals against decisions to refuse family visits are won in the immigration tribunal, which means that decision making is not as good as it should be. If we take away the right of appeal, we will take away people's only option to have their relatives come here to attend family occasions, funerals and weddings.

That will be a big mistake by the Government. The previous Government were about to make the same mistake. I think that the proposal comes not from Ministers but from officials. I can recall talking with Charles Clarke about it—he happened to be watching a Norwich match at the time—when colleagues and I went to see him, and he took our point. I said, "Take away the right of appeal, and you will deny our citizens, people who live in this country, the chance to get their relatives here for their family occasions."

The Government will regret what they are doing. The Prime Minister addressed 1,000 people at the launch of Conservative Friends of India 10 days ago. I am glad that he did so—he made a very good speech—but he did not tell them about this proposal. Every single person attending that event will have a relative who wishes to come here to visit them and so will be inconvenienced by and feel distressed about what is proposed. We are putting pressure on the entry clearance officers, who themselves are having their numbers cut because of Government decisions. I ask Ministers please to look at this again. It is extremely important that they do so.

Col. 223: Mark Hendrick: As somebody who gets a good number of immigration cases, I have noticed that there are more and more refusals. I think that is linked to the artificial limits that the Government are putting on to non-EU immigration rather than necessarily the eligibility of people to travel to this country for events such as those that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. I would be interested to hear the Home Secretary's comments on that.

Col. 248: The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Jonathan Djanogly): On immigration, the right hon. Member for Leicester East and others expressed concerns about the removal of a full right of appeal in family visa visit cases. As he will know, new evidence is often submitted on appeal that should have been submitted with the original application. The appeal then in effect becomes a second decision based on new evidence. The key point is that no other visit visa attracts a full right of appeal, and therefore this represents a disproportionate use of taxpayers' money. Its removal was fully supported during consultation.

Keith Vaz: Will the Minister and the Home Secretary, who is also present, receive a delegation of Members of this House with an interest in these issues? I think a deal can be struck that will be fair to our constituents and that will help the appeal process. We want to look at the quality of the decision making as well as the appeal process. If the Minister is prepared to do that, and if the Home Secretary, through the Minister for Immigration, is prepared to meet the Chair of the Justice Committee, myself and others who have an interest in these issues, I think we can come to a compromise that is acceptable to all sides.

Mr Djanogly: Yes—[Interruption.] The Home Secretary has just advised me that the Immigration Minister would be delighted to meet the right hon. Gentleman and discuss this issue in the detail it deserves.

[andy222]

Hmmm interesting. My feeling is it they will go ahead with this. No smoke without fire as the saying goes.

[lastlid]

Hmmm interesting. My feeling is it they will go ahead with this. No smoke without fire as the saying goes.

I am inclined to agree.

[Iani]

Am I missing something guys - you saying that you feel they will go ahead with it? I mean, as far as I can see, this is a done deal - it WILL happen.

Well the July one for stopping appeals for certain type of family visit is. The one to go through parliament to stop ALL family visit appeals won't happen until next year, since it needs parliament time. Gut feeling is it probably will happen but might be watered down a bit to ensure fairness (recommendation to make the application forms clearer as to what evidence is expected for example).

The fact 50% are overturned is a huge indication something isn't right - either the forms are too complicated or the decision officers need better training. Stopping appeals is like sticking a bucket under the leak, instead of turning off the water and repairing the burst pipe.

[joebloggs]

The fact 50% are overturned is a huge indication something isn't right - either the forms are too complicated or the decision officers need better training. Stopping appeals is like sticking a bucket under the leak, instead of turning off the water and repairing the burst pipe.

the reason why people are refused is no one knows what the criteria is to get a visa, because really is no set criteria, most of it is at the discretion of the case worker, so someone might be granted a visa and another case worker might refuse them, so it is unfair.

if the gov set and published what exactly was needed say for a visit visa (£xxx per week to fund your stay) and end the :censored: about they dont believe you will return before your visa expires, why did the gov scrap the planned deposit system they had planned, you dont go back you lose your deposit and ban them for life.