Recommendation 4

The AR fee may be waived if an applicant is able to demonstrate that, as a result of exceptional circumstances, they are unable to pay the fee. The guidance states:

“You must consider applications for fee waivers due to exceptional circumstances on a case by case basis and on their own individual merits… If the claim did not meet the high threshold for a fee waiver, you must advise the migrant that the request for a fee waiver has been refused and invite them to pay the fee within 7 working days of the day of the request. If the migrant fails to pay the fee by the end of this period, you must reject the application for non-payment of the fee.”

The original inspection discovered that the Home Office had difficulty in applying the guidance because of the way the online system worked. Where applications did not qualify for a fee waiver and were rejected for non-payment, applicants were advised to make a fresh application within the number of days remaining from the original 14 days allowed (not counting the time elapsed between submission of the application and rejection).

These issues led to Recommendation 4, which the Home Office accepted.

Where the applicant failed to qualify for a fee waiver, ensure the invalidity notice informs them they may reapply with the fee within seven days.

Re-inspection findings

Applications made in-country and ‘at the border’

Inspectors found no issues relating to fee waiver rejections, and no instances of an applicant being given incorrect information relating to fee waivers, either in the sample files or during the onsite phase of the re-inspection. Staff told inspectors that they would always provide the applicant with the opportunity to pay the fee if a fee waiver was not appropriate, and a senior caseworker (Executive Officer) was always involved in the decision making and quality assurance process for those cases.

Applications made overseas

No fee is payable in relation to AR applications submitted overseas, so this recommendation did not apply.

Conclusion

Inspectors saw no evidence that the issues identified in the original report were still occurring, and steps had been taken to ensure that applicants were aware of their rights with regard to fee waivers. Consequently, Recommendation 4 is now closed.

Recommendation 5

At the time of the original inspection, the majority of staff in the in-country AR team had no previous experience of PBS casework and limited experience of immigration casework. While staff and managers considered their training to have been adequate, sampling of cases indicated considerable scope to improve their understanding of relevant Immigration Rules, guidance and practice.

Border Force training on ARs consisted of a presentation lasting for up to three hours. At the time of the original inspection, not all staff who carried out ARs had received the training, and those who had considered it inadequate as it had focused on legislation and policy rather than dealing with the practical aspects of reviewing cancellation decisions. Staff new to dealing with ARs relied on the Border Force ‘Operations Manual’, which they found useful, and consulted their colleagues. However, the ‘Operations Manual’ did not include guidance on completing electronic records, and staff had fed this back.

Inspectors had also found that neither the training nor the manual addressed whether AR reviewers should carry out their own verification checks or should limit their considerations to the information available to the original decision maker. This led to inconsistency, with some reviewers carrying out verification checks and others not.

Recommendation 5 addressed the training of AR reviewers. It was accepted by the Home Office.

Provide training for AR reviewers that is consistent with the training provided to original decision-makers.

Re-inspection findings

Applications made in-country

Since the original inspection, managers at the United Kingdom Visas and Immigration (UKVI) Manchester AR ‘hub’ had invested a significant amount of effort into staff training. Inspectors found that, while initial decision makers and AR decision makers do not receive identical training packages, the latter are trained to an appropriate level to enable AR consideration. In addition to initial training packages, regular workshops and training events help them to develop their skills. Inspectors found that a thorough and consistent performance management process was in place to identify staff who needed further development or support. Caseworkers told inspectors that they felt that adequate training was given to fulfil their roles, and when needed they were able to seek assistance from more experienced colleagues. Of the 52 in-country ARs examined by inspectors, 47 were found to be in line with guidance, which supported the view that most staff had received sufficient training.

Applications made ‘at the border’

Border Force AR decision makers are all Higher Officers involved in the daily operational control of ports of entry, and inspectors found that AR decision makers were familiar with policy and guidance and trained to an equivalent level to initial decision makers. Inspectors met with Border Force Operational Policy managers and reviewed existing AR policy, and were satisfied that the existing policy was comprehensive and regularly maintained. Inspectors also interviewed AR decision makers at Heathrow Airport and found that staff were satisfied that they had been provided sufficient training to conduct an AR consideration. This was reflected in the outcomes of sampling where, of the 25 ‘at the border’ ARs examined by inspectors, 21 were conducted in line with policy and guidance.

Applications made overseas

Recommendation 5 did not relate to AR applications submitted in relation to entry clearance decisions, where they were handled by fully-trained Entry Clearance Managers.

Conclusion

Staff in the two areas identified in the original recommendation felt that they had received consistent training, and inspectors found that regular workshops and retraining sessions were being delivered. More should be done to ensure sharing of best practice across the business areas, and all three business areas were examining how this could be done as a formal process. Although not all AR decision makers were trained to the same level as the original decision maker, inspectors found that they possessed sufficient knowledge to undertake their roles effectively and efficiently, as demonstrated by the level of decision-making accuracy. As a result, Recommendation 5 is closed.

Please post all these in one thread

https://www.nairaland.com/4016277/inspection-administrative-review-processes