₦airaland Forum

Thehilah4jesus:
Yes please do that right away

Be patience. There is delay because your application was not straight forward. When application is not straight forward there is usually delay in reaching a decision. (They are making verification) and that is taking them time. They will certainly reach a decision and then notify you immediately their investigation or check is finish.

So be patience.

All the best.

jidluk:
My People, after receipt of Visa. Can the money in the account be touched? Hope they do not ask for it at the UK border? Thanks.

All case are not same...... depend on what happen at POE.... Usually they dont asked .... but again .... it is advisable to leave the money in the account.

TheExalted:
A friend went with his wife on Sep 15th, he got collection email on Friday Oct 2nd but the wife's own is not yet ready. Wife was denied entry to UK due to using work visa for tourist. Perhaps reason it's taking long. Anyone has a clue why? My friend collected his visa yesterday at Ikeja.

Your Statement is not clear.... If you said the wife Visa is not ready.... and you went further to say ....The wife was denied entry to UK... can you please clear this.

justwise:
You may have to look outside your area probably other states closer to you.

Stay on with UKNaric. you can pay for Fast Track service. This is a premium service for individuals or companies who require a Statement of Comparability and/or an English Language Assessment in 24 or 48 hours.

The cap for Tier 2 skilled non-EU workers has been hit for the third month in a row, prompting fears that the NHS staffing crisis could worsen. In December and January, the monthly quota was reached for the first time in seven years. This has now continued into the third month prompting calls for a review of the visa cap in light of recent developments.

The visa limits were set 7 years ago when immigration from Europe was booming and many companies and industries could find the workers they need from European countries. With Brexit on the horizon, we have now seen European workers leaving the UK and returning to their home country in the face of increasing uncertainty. In order to fill these gaps in staffing, employers are now looking to recruit from further afield but the Tier 2 skilled worker visa caps are proving problematic.

The cap on skilled workers allows for an annual limit of 20,700 with a fixed number of spaces available every month. Between the date the quota was introduced in 2011 and December 2017, the monthly quota was only reached once. We have now seen a three-month stretch where employees have had their applications rejected. It is expected that this will continue as each month will see fresh applicants in addition to reapplications from the month before.

When the cap was introduced in 2011, the minimum salary for a Tier 2 skilled worker visa was £30,000 or £20,800 for a graduate level role. However, this was increased to £55,000 in December 2017 with evidence showing that anyone applying for this visa category with an advertised salary of less than £46,000 would see their application rejected.

The government has faced calls to ease pressure on key industries by excluding certain roles from the quota. The chief executive of NHS employers, Danny Mortimer has said that NHS organisations are “increasingly concerned at their inability to obtain permits for essential medical colleagues”.

A Home Office spokesperson said: “It is important that our immigration system works in the national interest, ensuring that employers look first to the UK resident labour market before recruiting from overseas. The tier 2 visa route is intended to fill gaps in the labour market. When demand exceeds the month’s allocation of tier 2 (general) visas, priority is given to applicants filling a shortage or PhD-level occupations.”

NHS Health Surcharge Increase


The government has announced that the annual healthcare surcharge will be doubled from £200 to £400. The NHS surcharge is payable by any non-EU migrants who are coming to the UK for 6 months or longer.

For a non-EU spouse of a British citizen applying from outside the UK for a 30-month spouse visa, the applicant would be charged £600 on top of the £1,464 visa fee. When the changes are implemented, this will rise to £1,200.

The discounted scheme for students and individuals applying for the youth mobility scheme will also double from £150 to £300.
This means that non-EU students applying for a study visa will now face a £900 NHS charge for a three-year course.

Your question will be What Are My Options?

April is fast approaching and is the time of year when the UK government increases the Home Office visa fees.

We are expecting that the NHS health surcharge will also increase in April meaning that to avoid paying an increased Visa Fee and Health Surcharge, it is recommended that all applications are made before April.

How Can I Help?

A full Application Package on Tier 2 Minister of Religion specifically where i will manage and undertake the entire process on your application.

Taking detailed instructions from you based on the circumstances of your case

Providing tailored advice on the various options available to you and the expected time frames

Discussing and checking the information required to complete the relevant application form(s)

Completing the application form(s) online

Collating and checking the documentation required to support your application

Advising you on any application fees

Producing a detailed representation letter outlining the circumstances and merits of your application with reference to any relevant legislation and case law in support of your case

Checking before you Submit the letter, the completed form(s) and supporting documentation to the relevant authority

If you would like more information on the Application Package on Minister of religion Tier 2 and Religious Worker Tier 5, you can inbox me


The government has announced that the annual healthcare surcharge will be doubled from £200 to £400. The NHS surcharge is payable by any non-EU migrants who are coming to the UK for 6 months or longer. For a non-EU spouse of a British citizen applying from outside the UK for a 30-month fiance visa, the applicant would be charged £600 on top of the £1,464 visa fee. When the changes are implemented, this will rise to £1,200.

The discounted scheme for students and individuals applying for the youth mobility scheme will also double from £150 to £300. This means that non-EU students applying for a study visa will now face a £900 NHS charge for a three-year course.

The increase will raise an additional £220m a year for the NHS, which is struggling to cope with budget cuts. Ministers said that the increase in NHS surcharge contributions would ensure that migrants put in a “fair contribution” towards the healthcare system. However, it has been criticised as it may negatively impact the NHS by making it more difficult to recruit overseas workers.

These changes aren’t as steep as the Conservatives initially promised, as their 2017 manifesto outlined plans to triple the NHS surcharge. This charge is often linked to the issue of “health tourism”, where people come to the UK, usually for a short time, to access NHS services and then leave. However, the charge will only be applicable to people applying for a visa for longer than 6 months, so it is unlikely to impact health tourism.

In 2016, the government paid £674m to countries throughout Europe for healthcare but only received £49m in return. According to the fact-checking website Full Fact, health tourism only took up about 0.3% of the entire NHS budget for the year.

Health minister, James O’Shaughnessy said: “Our NHS is always there when you need it, paid for by British taxpayers. We welcome long-term migrants using the NHS, but it is only right that they make a fair contribution to its long-term sustainability. By increasing the surcharge so that it better reflects the actual costs of using health services, this government is providing an extra £220m a year to support the NHS.”

UK VISA ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW

What is Administrative Review?

Administrative review is an internal review procedure whereby the Home Office will review its own decision. The administrative review application will be considered by another caseworker who took no part in making the original decision.
What decisions are susceptible to Administrative Review?

This process is available for only certain types of ‘eligible decision’. Decisions eligible for administrative review in the UK are listed within paragraph AR.3.2 of Appendix AR of the Immigration Rules. In short, the decisions which can be challenged are as follows:
• Refusal of leave to remain as a Tier 4 migrant and their dependents for applications made on or after 20 October 2014;
• Refusal of leave to remain as a Tier 1, 2 or 5 migrant and their dependents for applications made on or after 2 March 2015;
• Refusal of an application made under Article 41 of the Additional Protocol to the European Community Association Agreement (ECAA) with Turkey and their dependents for applications made on or 6 April 2015; and
• In-country applications where the decision was made on or after 6 April, unless the applicant applied as a visitor or made a ‘protection’ (i.e. asylum) or human rights claim (certain applications are deemed to raise human rights, including an application for indefinite leave to remain on the ground of long residence under paragraph 276B of the Immigration Rules), in which case these decisions will attract a right of appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber).
On what basis can these decisions be challenged?

These decisions can be challenged only on the basis that there is a ‘caseworking error’ within the refusal decision. Caseworking errors are defined in paragraph AR.2.11:
• the original decision maker’s decision was incorrect (paragraph AR2.11(a)) in decisions to:
a. refuse an entry clearance application on the basis of paragraph 320(7A) or 320(7B) (false representations, false documents or information, failure to disclose material facts or previous breach of conditions);
b. refuse an in UK application on the basis of paragraph 322(1A) (refusal on the basis of false representations, documents or information or failure to disclose material facts) of the Rules ;
c. cancel leave to enter or remain which is in force as a visitor under paragraphs V9.2 or V9.4 of appendix V of the immigration rules;
d. cancel leave to enter or remain which is in force at the border under paragraph 321A(2) (change of circumstances, false representations or failure to disclose material facts);
• Where the original decision maker’s decision to refuse an application on the basis that the date of application was beyond any time limit in these Rules was incorrect;
• Where the original decision maker’s decision not to request specified documents under paragraph 245AA of these Rules was incorrect;
• Where the original decision maker otherwise applied the Immigration Rules incorrectly; or
• Where the original decision maker failed to apply the Secretary of State’s relevant published policy and guidance in relation to the application.
Can fresh evidence be considered in Administrative Review proceedings?

Following receipt of an application for administrative review the reviewing officer will not consider any new evidence unless three requirements are met as set out within paragraph AR2.4:
• the application for administrative review is made on the basis of the caseworking errors set out in a), b) or c) above; and
• the evidence is being submitted to demonstrate that the refusal of the application under paragraph 322(2) of the Immigration Rules contains a caseworking error, that is the applicant is seeking to prove that deception was not practiced in the application; and
• the applicant has not previously been served with a decision which relies on the same factual findings:
i. Refusing an application for entry clearance, leave to enter or remain;
ii. To revoke entry clearance, leave to enter or remain;
iii. Cancelling or curtailing leave to enter or remain;
iiv. To remove a person from the UK which results in their leave being invalidated.
The intention of paragraph AR2.4 is to allow an applicant one opportunity to produce new evidence to challenge a finding of deception. The applicant will not be able to introduce new evidence to challenge a finding of deception if they have had an earlier application refused on the grounds of deception.
How do you apply for Administrative Review?

The application for administrative review for in-country decisions is made by completing and submitting a form online. At the stage of submitting the application there is no means by which evidence can be attached. Instead, the applicant will need to make it clear that they are seeking to establish one of the permitted caseworking errors. Having done so, the reviewing officer must request the additional evidence from the applicant and allow a period of 7 working days in which to provide the evidence requested, as confirmed in the Home Office’s Modernised Guidance.
In the event that the Home Office does not follow their published policy and fails to request additional evidence where this is permitted, there may well be scope for challenging the decision by way of judicial review.

10 Common Mistakes You Should Avoid When Applying For Your UK Visa


For many, a key step in deciding to visit or move to the UK is to obtain a visa. Unfortunately however, people frequently fail in this quest. Being a knowledgeable and experienced UK immigration solicitor, I have good knowledge of the most common errors that many people make when filing their visa application with the UK immigration authority (UKBA), especially when they decide not to choose reliable assistance (which includes suitability qualified Immigration Lawyers in the UK, or a specialist Human Rights Solicitors).

Ok! Lets have a count down of the top ten most common mistakes made by applicants:

10: Provision of Misleading or Inconsistent Answers

Applicants must be truthful and consistent in their answering of all the relevant visa questions. There are some whom deliberately provide false and misleading answers, but more frequently, people make honest mistakes: an applicant for example omits to mention a failed visa application from 5 years ago, assuming it would be irrelevant. Applicants must realise that provision of incorrect information – whether deliberate or mistakenly – is very likely to result in a failed application and, more seriously, it could also potentially have an adverse effect on their future applications. If you instruct a UK Immigration Lawyer, we can correctly guide you through the application questions to avoid such problems.

9: Non-provision of Mandatory Supporting Documents

Your visa application is merited on the documents that you include in support. Immigration rules can be very strict: failure to provide the correct specified document could result in major administrative delays or even refusal of an application. Instructing a knowledgeable, good Human Rights Solicitor / Immigration lawyer in the UK who has knowledge of the precise requirements in this regard often proves imperative.

8: Provision of Unnecessary Additional Information

An assumption that the provision of additional information to the UK Immigration department always works in one’s favour is erroneous indeed. Unnecessarily ‘Bulking up’ the application can also result in delayed decision making and more importantly; in certain circumstances, it may trigger additional related questions and you may find that your answer does not work in your favour at all! If in doubt please run your application via a good UK immigration lawyer whom will explain to you precisely what is and what is not required to be disclosed in order to improve your chances.

7: Not carrying the Appropriate Fee or Not Making the Right Form of Payment

Many people do not realise that UKBA visa fees are subject to much change. Some unfortunately fail to either provide the right amount of fees (particularly in cases involving additional dependents), or they fail to make the right form of payment: more and more visa application centers, for example, no longer accept cash payments. A lack of awareness of such facts could potentially mean you would lose your appointment, causing you unnecessary stress and disappointment. You should refer to the appropriate sources for the correct information regarding fees, or even better: hire an immigration solicitor to act for you so that he will correctly guide you through any of such issues.

6: Invalid Application: Submission of an Outdated or Incorrect Application Form

This may be the most common cause for a visa being refused. There are countless UK immigration application forms for the different categories of visa. An example of a common error is people using form FLR(M) instead of FLR(O) when making an application as a spouse relying on Human Rights outside the rules. Additionally, UK immigration application forms are subject to frequent change, sometimes up to 3 or 4 times per year. You must apply using the most recent application form when making a visa application. If you don’t, then expect your application to be returned and more often than not the fee not reimbursed. This is one of the main reason people inadvertently overstay their leave as by the time they return the application the person would have become an Illegal immigrant having overstayed since the last leave expired. Before you send that application check it with a good UK Immigration Lawyer

5: Bad Timing: Out of Time Applications

Some people unfortunately are not aware of the serious consequences of applying for a visa after their most recent leave has already expired. The points based system, for example, specifically requires applicants to have had existing leave when having made their new visa application. Most significantly, making an out of time application results in a loss of appeal rights all together, should your application fail. Don’t risk having to return to your home country to apply for new entry clearance (or even being banned from making any further application!) merely because you became an over-stayer in the UK: instruct the Best Immigration Lawyers In the UK that you can early on to avoid such hassle.

4: Over-confidence: Google Whizzes and Trying to “Wing It”

Many people wrongly assume UK immigration law is straightforward enough to be done by a layperson. On the contrary, visa applications can be complex and lengthy and it is therefore imperative for applicants to certainly not under-estimate the process by just “googling” the relevant rules and procedures themselves. Although the Internet is indeed the place to find much useful and correct information, there are also countless immigration “forums” on which much erroneous material is unfortunately passed around. This adds more complexity to an individual’s case and people can end up seriously confusing themselves. You may be surprised how many ‘straightforward’ UK visa applications get rejected daily! Take it from a specialist UK Human Rights Solicitor; there is more to most of the UK immigration rules than what is published online, you need to have a good insight to the ever-changing UK Immigration Rules, recent tribunals, high court and European Court decisions, all of which affect your visa application outcome.

3: Over-defensiveness: Unnecessary Distrust in the System

Just as there are people who seem to be too confident in their understanding of immigration law, on the opposite end of the spectrum there are also those who become extremely paranoid and pessimistic about the application processes as a whole. Often this is because they may have heard visa failure stories from other people around them. This is honestly unnecessary especially if you have engaged a good expert immigration lawyer in the UK or a Human Rights Solicitor to act on your behalf: they will know the process inside and out. A good UK Immigration Solicitor should be able to explain the process to you in simple term that alleviates some of these worries.

2: Not Having an Objective Analysis of Their Application

Tying in with our 4th point, some applicants shoot themselves in the foot by deciding not to have a third party objectively analyse their case, resulting in the making of critical errors that weakens their UK immigration application. Rather than engaging an Immigration or Human Rights Solicitor once you find yourself needing to appeal a refused UK visa application, you may find that instructing a third party from the outset – ideally an experienced and qualified immigration lawyer – will result in a much smoother and hassle free process, costing you less money in the long-run.

and finally…

1: Price over Quality: Hiring “Fraudsters” or Incompetent and Under-qualified UK Immigration “Agents”, Advisors and Solicitors

You may have already guessed it, but just in case you didn’t: the most common mistake people make is not to instruct a qualified and knowledgeable UK immigration solicitor to help them avoid all the above blunders. Unfortunately, however, a growing number of applicants who do decide to seek assistance, may find themselves dealing with fraudsters claiming to be ‘experts’ or ‘agents’ in UK immigration law, when in truth they have no authority to represent you in your matter. Additionally, there are also a large number of under-qualified “immigration lawyers” whom although sometimes charge lower fees, often do not have the same depth of knowledge in immigration as some of the best UK Immigration Lawyers or Human Rights Solicitor (see the article about the difference between a lawyer and a solicitor). You should ask yourself this question: how much does this application matter to you? Unfortunately, many people will come to realise that going for the cheapest rather than best legal help one can afford is a decision that can have dire consequences.

The message is clear then: If you are unsure at any stage of your UK Visa application process, you should consider seeking professional legal help by a qualified and competent UK immigration legal professional. Next time you file for a visa application to the UK immigration authority, make sure to make contact with a reliable and experienced solicitor or Human Rights lawyer. And given that you can get free initial advice from one of the Best Immigration Lawyers in the UK, a fully qualified Immigration and Human Rights Solicitor, you have no excuse not to!!!!

It is same

The Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration (ICIBI) report on a re-inspection of the administrative review process, published in July 2017 was published on 13 July 2017.

Pursuant to section 16 of the Immigration Act 2014 the Home Secretary is required to request the Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration to inspect the process of Administrative review.


The report should address:


“(a)the effectiveness of administrative review in identifying case working errors;


(b)the effectiveness of administrative review in correcting case working errors;

(c)the independence of persons conducting administrative review (in terms of their separation from the original decision-maker).


The first report was published in May 2016 and was analysed in a previous blog post. The report looked at customer service standards, consistency in approach, learning and cost savings. The report made 14 recommendations. 13 were accepted and 1 partially accepted.

The re-inspection process examined 175 ARs considered between 26 May and 26 December 2016 and between 23 March 2016 and 31 March 2016, interviewed staff and managers at various locations.

As set out at 1.4 of the report: “The sampling of AR applications focused on:
• the quality of decisions
• audit trails of decisions and actions on the electronic record systems
• whether full reconsiderations were being conducted
• whether caseworkers were taking into account all of the applicant’s concerns
• the independence of the AR decision maker from the initial decision maker”.

Recommendation 1 identified the need to make the deadline to seek an administrative review clearer. The report now accepts that, through guidance, the Home Office have made the deadline to apply for an AR clear. Paragraph 3.4 of the report states: “Inspectors found that the most recent AR guidance (updated in April 2016) provided full details to applicants to explain the time limits and set out clearly when an application is deemed to have been received”.

Recommendation 2 of the first report was to “ensure caseworkers take all reasonable steps to check the actual date of receipt of the eligible decision before rejecting applications on the basis that they are out of time”.

The re-inspection identified that “Clarifications in policy and revised training have led to improvements in decisions being correctly made as to the receipt of decision and eligibility to apply for an AR being calculated correctly”.

Recommendation 3 read: “Ensure that CID notes and AR invalidity notices state clearly why an AR application was determined to be invalid.- record keeping the report found”. The re-inspection report concluded that administrative caseworkers understood the importance of making accurate notes on electronic systems. The re-inspection continued: “However, the file sample indicated that in a significant number of cases the notes made by staff validating in-country AR applications were inadequate”. As a result recommendation 3 remains open for the in-country administrative review work.

Recommendation 4 dealt with fee waivers, this was re-inspected and was closed.

Further training and supervision to the same level as those making the original decisions has led to the closure of recommendation 5.

Recommendation 6 suggested that structure, grading and staffing (in terms of knowledge and experience) of the administrative review team in in Manchester should be revisited. The revisit considered this had been addressed and this recommendation was now closed.

Recommendation 7 advised “producing a revised statement about the processes for overseas and ‘at the border’ ARs explaining how independence and separation from the original decision-maker are ensured where there is no “separate, dedicated team of reviewers”.

Following re-inspection, this remains open in relation to overseas administrative reviews but closed in relation to in country administrative reviews. The report concluded: “UKVI needs not only to complete and evaluate the structural changes it committed to making, but also to demonstrate that its document retention, case notes and refusal notices are good enough to enable a “full reconsideration” of the entry clearance applications for which ARs are requested”.

Recommendation 8 sought to “ensure that all AR reviewers address all substantive issues raised by the applicant and that CID (or CRS)17 notes and decision notices accurately reflect this”. This was linked to recommendation 9, which the Home Office partially accepted to, which sought to “clarify guidance regarding the requirement for reviewers to correct all errors contained in the original decision (not just those identified by the applicant in their AR application), including carrying out further checks where they identify these were not done correctly by the caseworker who made the original decision”

The reinspection concluded: “File sampling indicated that in-country AR reviewers were considering all of the issues raised by the AR applicant in all cases. However, because of poor record keeping, inspectors could not establish whether this was the case with all overseas and ‘at the border’ AR reviews. Although all three areas needed to improve their record keeping in respect of the reason(s) for AR decisions and the action(s) taken, inspectors were satisfied that the specific issue covered by Recommendation 8 had been resolved by ‘in country’ and can be considered closed, but it remains open for ‘at the border’ and overseas ARs”.

This continues at 3.67: “Revised guidance had clarified when a full reconsideration was required and when not, and what reviewers were required to do about rectifying any errors they identified. Therefore, Recommendation 9 is closed. However, file sampling identified that full reconsiderations were still not being conducted for all the cases where they should have been, so quality assurance needs to improve to ensure compliance with the guidance”.

Recommendation 10 dealt with processing times. The re-inspection found at paragraph 3.76: “The Home Office did not provide an update by autumn 2016 as promised, and the re-inspection found no evidence of a policy or formal process being in place to prioritise ARs, except where they risked breaching the Customer Service Standard. Therefore, Recommendation 10 remains open”

Recommendation 11 “Put in place formal, robust Quality Assurance procedures for all ARs (including decisions regarding the validity of applications) that takes account of the grade and experience of the reviewer and the complexity of the original decision”.

Recommendation 11 was closed for in country applications but following re-inspection this “remains open for overseas and ‘at the border’ ARs. Both UKVI (in respect of overseas ARs) and Border Force (in respect of ‘at the border’ ARs) need, as a matter of urgency, to document their quality assurances processes and to ensure that the quality assurance checks are completed and recorded formally”.

The re-inspection remind us at paragraph 3.91 that “The original inspection raised concerns at how the outcomes of ARs, quality assurance and litigation were captured and shared, and whether the Home Office was learning from these events in order to achieve continuous improvement”. This led to recommendations 12, 13 and 14. The report noted the need to use quality assurance to improve the quality and consistency of outcomes by using feedback and the need to capture and feedback to the original decision maker. Based on the re-inspection findings, recommendations 12 and 13 remain open for overseas and ‘at the border’ ARs, but can be closed for in-country ARs and recommendation 14 remains open for the Home Office as a whole.

The re-inspection report stresses the need to capture all data in order to see how the system is working. At paragraph 3.108 the re-inspection report states: “The Home Office needs to do more to analyse why these are being conceded or lost, not just for the immediate learning, but to validate the introduction of the AR system”.

It is hoped that continued and much needed improvements to the system will mean that individuals do not need to resort to expensive and unnecessary litigation in order to correct avoidable errors in the administrative review process. Time and money must be invested into quality decision making. There are not only financial costs arising from poor decision making but a wrong decision can have life changing implications for many individuals.

The Home Office thanks the Independent Chief Inspector for his report.
We are pleased that the Independent Chief Inspector for Borders and Immigration (ICI) has
acknowledged the improvements that have been made in the Administrative Review case
working areas within the Home Office since the last inspection. In particular, it is pleasing to
note that six of the original fourteen recommendations have been closed. We recognise the
work needed to close the remaining eight across all three work areas that have been inspected,
namely, UKVI In-Country, Border Force and UKVI International. We are grateful that the ICI
acknowledged that the handling of Admin Review considerations by the In-Country team had
improved considerably and it is noted that they felt progress had been slower for overseas and
at the border case working areas.

We are grateful to the ICI for highlighting the further work that is required in addition to what has
already been done to demonstrate delivery of an efficient, effective and cost saving replacement
for the previous appeals mechanism and their suggestion of appointing one senior responsible
owner (SRO) for the Administrative Review system.
It is important to recognise that whilst there is some congruence with the two UKVI areas,
Border Force reactively consider these decisions at port as part of their function in securing the
UK borders. On that basis, it would make sense to allow Border Force operations to continue to
manage the process as they do currently and consider the question in the context of UKVI
operations.

The current position in UKVI is that a request for a review of a decision made in country under
the Points Based System is undertaken within Immigration and Protection Directorate and a
request for a review of an overseas entry clearance decision is dealt with by Visas and
Citizenship Directorate.

The Administrative Review decision making that was previously done
overseas has recently been repatriated to the UK. Now that repatriation is complete, UKVI will
consider whether all Administrative Review decisions can be made in a single unit. In the
meantime, UKVI will appoint a single SRO with responsibility for holding both sides (in country
and overseas) to account and ensuring coordination and consistency of process.
As this re-inspection involved three different work areas within the Home Office and highlighted
points particular to these areas, there follows a more specific response from each of the three
areas involved.

UKVI (In- Country) Response

We are pleased that the ICI has recognised the significant improvements made to the in-country
administrative review operation since the initial Inspection Report published on 26 May 2016,
and that these have been reflected in this report.

The Re-Inspection found that the handling of in-country ARs had ‘improved considerably’ and of
the 14 recommendations made, only three remain open for the in-country team, of which only
one relates specifically to in-country handling

(recommendation 3).
The ICI made positive comments about the improved training, performance management and quality assurance
delivered within the in-country team were welcome. It was also pleasing that the improved
feedback mechanisms instigated by the in-country team with the initial case-working teams and
litigation operations were recognised explicitly within the ICI report.
We are grateful to the ICI for identifying areas for further improvement for in-country, notably in
relation to case notes on rejected applications. The Manchester in-country team has already
instigated measures to address these issues, and will not be complacent in seeking further
improvements in addition to those that have been made in the last 12 months.

3
Of the remaining two points outstanding (recommendations 10 & 14), these both cut across
broader Home Office. Taking each in turn, the prioritisation of processing times of applications
within in-country is currently undertaken in line with the original Statement of Intent that was
made in conjunction with the Immigration Bill (2013). The Statement of Intent defined Admin
Review applications were to be considered within 28 days of the application being made, which
means the operations are compliant with policy guidelines. The final point (14), relates to how
both Admin Review and the original immigration decision are assessed for improvements,
including learning from when Pre-Action Protocols (PAPs) or Judicial Review (JR) cases are
conceded. We are pleased that the report acknowledges that the in-country team has worked
hard to ensure that quality assurance and litigation data is now used to improve decision quality
in this area.

However this recommendation has been left open by the ICI as they state further work is
required by the Home Office to demonstrate that it had delivered an ‘efficient, effective and costsaving
replacement for the previous appeals mechanisms’. We can confirm to the ICI that we
are undertaking analysis of the changes made to appeals and Administrative Review and we
expect to publish the findings in due course.

Border Force
We are pleased that ICI acknowledged the progress made by Border Force in the way that it
handles administrative reviews, since its last inspection. They found in particular that
administrative review decision makers were knowledgeable, policy was comprehensive and
regularly maintained and that independence and separation of reviewer to original decision
makers was being maintained.

Following the last inspection Border Force carried out a systematic review of the administrative
review processes in place across each region to ensure that they were open, independent and
robust. Border Force Heathrow established a central case work unit in June 2017 which is now
responsible for reviewing all administrative review applications and other Border Force regions
have introduced improvements to ensure their processes continue to be open and independent.
Border Force Operational Assurance are developing an administrative review policy assurance
to address the issues highlighted by there-inspection around record keeping, quality assurance
review procedures and lessons learned activity. A review of all admin review cases is being
undertaken in conjunction with regional assurance managers to establish whether
administrative reviews are being conducted thoroughly and whether feedback and lessons
learned activity are being recorded and shared appropriately.

This will conclude in November
2017 and any further activity will be managed by the Operational Assurance Action Group which
oversees all Border Force lessons learned activity. Border Force are also carrying out a review
of guidance to assess whether a refresh is required and briefing will be provided to staff to
reinforce the need for accurate record keeping and to ensure all substantive issues raised by
applicants are fully addressed. This will be concluded by August 2017.

UKVI (International) Response
We are grateful to the Independent Chief Inspector for highlighting potential areas for further
improvement on the work already completed in our area and accept the Independent Chief
Inspector’s views on the following points:
Notwithstanding a delay in transitioning all overseas Admin Review’s (AR) to the International
Casework and Quality Assurance Team (ICQAT), UKVI was compliant with Home Office
guidance that a different person to the initial decision maker carried out the AR in all cases. The
re-inspection team identified that the work was underway to transfer the remaining overseas

4
AR's to the by the end of April 2017. This transfer is now complete and all overseas AR’s are
processed by ICQAT ensuring a separate, dedicated team of reviewers, therefore meeting the
original recommendation. The re-inspection team opined that a full re-consideration of the
original decision by the AR reviewer might be impacted by UKVI’s document retention policy, to
retain documents only relevant to the original decision. ICQAT AR reviewers will continue to
conduct a full re-consideration of the decision including full referral to retained documents.
ICQAT AR reviewers also have the option to seek further information from the applicant or
sponsor to enable a full reconsideration to be completed.

We accept the Independent Chief Inspector’s view that record keeping in some cases was
insufficient in justifying the outcome of the review. We also accept the view that determining
whether all substantive issues had been addressed was impacted by the absence of the AR
being retained. Whilst the re-inspection team noted anecdotal comments from Entry Clearance
Managers on reviewing certain aspects of a case only and that such a practice could mean that
AR reviewers were not correcting all errors in every instance or conducting the required full
reconsideration, we have considered that the ICI team did not find evidence when reviewing the
sample that confirms that all errors were not being corrected. All overseas ARs are now
processed centrally by the International Casework and Quality Assurance Team (ICQAT),
ensuring greater consistency. Guidance will be re-circulated to ICQAT AR reviewers reminding
them of the AR case-work requirements on record-keeping.

We accept the Inspectors’ views that there was an absence of formal process to prioritise AR
applications. All overseas ARs are now processed centrally by the International Casework and
Quality Assurance Team (ICQAT), ensuring greater consistency. ICQAT have processes in
place to prioritise AR applications based on factors such as course start dates. A record of this
is kept within the ICQAT AR Decision Log which formalises the process. We will continue to
review the effectiveness of this approach and refine appropriately.

We accept the Inspectors’ views that of the 50 cases examined there was no recorded evidence
of quality assurance having been undertaken. All overseas AR’s are now processed centrally by
the International Casework and Quality Assurance Team (ICQAT), ensuring greater
consistency. Since the creation of ICQAT three thematic reviews have been undertaken by the
team and the findings have been shared with visa decision making centres globally. An
overseas Decision Quality Framework (DQF) has been designed akin to that used by the incountry
QAT team. The DQF is one of a suite IT products being developed to improve existing
quality assurance processes across all post decision routes. The DQF product is currently in IT
development, pending testing which is scheduled to take place during the latter part of June
2017.
Finally we accept the Inspectors’ views that ICQAT had taken a number of steps to ensure that
the learning from AR outcomes and quality assurance is recorded and shared. The transferring
all remaining overseas AR’s to ICQAT was completed in April 2017. This provides a global
oversight of AR outcomes and will support more comprehensive DQ analysis and effective
feedback loops. A suite of IT products, a Queue Management System (QMS), Decision Quality
Framework (DQF) and an MI Reporting Tool are being developed to facilitate this. The QMS is
currently under testing and the DQF (as reported above) is scheduled for testing in the latter
part of June 2017.

The MI Reporting Tool will follow. Once these products are fully integrated,
ICQAT will have a platform to be able to draw enhanced MI and quickly identify and respond to
trends driving changes to the assurance program. These IT products are agile in nature and will
be used for all post decision routes including PAPs and JRs which ICQAT plan to transfer from
overseas by the end of 2017.

TLS CONTACT NIGERIA LAGOS AND ABUJA (ALL YOU NEED TO KNOW)

TLS contact is a commercial company that works with the UK visa and immigration to provide services to people applying for visa to the United Kingdom (TLSContact Nigeria)
In Nigeria, TLS allows visa applicants to select any of the following location that is convenient for them:
ABUJA
VICTORIA ISLAND, LAGOS
IKEJA, LAGOS

ADDRESS OF TLSCONTACT (IKEJA, LAGOS)
UK VISA Application Centre
Ground & First Floor, Etiebets Place,
21, Mobolaji Bank Anthony Way,
Ikeja, Lagos.
Office hours: Monday to Friday – 8:00am to 3:00pm
TLScontact Lagos Phone Number Ikeja - +2341269218-92, 2615047
FAX: +234 1 2615047
Website Login: https://uk/tlscontact.com/ng/los/index.php
ADDRESS OF TLSCONTACT ABUJA
UK Visas Application Centre,
Third Floor
El- Yakub Building Beside Metro Plaza
Plot 1129, Zakaria Maimalari Street
Central Business District, Abuja
Opening Hour: Monday to Friday – 8:30 to 3:30 pm
Website login: https://uk.tlscontact.com/ng/abv/login.php
Getting a Visa to the United Kingdom has just been made easy using the TLS. Registering for a visa, first you have to visit the gov.uk to make your visa application, pay your fees and book your appointments. To submit your documents to the visa application centre.
Applicants are to register at the TLScontact Website, to avoid unnecessary delays. TLS gives applicants a guide to apply for their Visa, everything you need to know about Visa requirements needed and so much more. It should be noted that children under 5 years old are now require to attend the Visa application centre to complete the application process which also makes it compulsory for them to have their photo taken at the VRC.
STEP BY STEP INFORMATION ON THE VISA APPLICATION TO THE UK
Documents needed in the Visa application centre are as follows:
1. Original passport or Travel Document
2. Residence Permit or National ID card
Remove staples clips or pins from all documents before submitting them. If you would like to submit an old passport or a sponsor’s passport as supporting documents then copies must be provided as well.
The next is where you need to apply for or make an application online and book your appointment. Creating an account in the UK government Visa and Immigration Website at GOV.UK. at this website, you can then complete your application online, pay the fee and book for an appointment at one of the visa application centre.
When going to the Visa application centre, note that most of them require a fee to use them; you can pay them on the UK website. A copy of the receipt is needed during the interview.
After payment, a Unique Reference Number will be sent to you which is also known as the GWF. The GWF number is needed as you will use it to register on the TLScontact website. (uk.tlscontact.com.ng)
Next step is to select an appointment time as it will be needed. A convenient date and time should be chosen by you, lateness to your application centre is not allowed because there is a limited amount of time you can reschedule your appoint. An email will be sent to you, confirming the date and location and also the documents which you need to bring along.
BELOW ARE SOME OF THE REQUIREMENTS WHICH ARE NEEDED
1. Receiptt of your payment
2. Passport photograph
3. Printed slip of your barcode
Now let’s get to the part where the TLS us useful for Visa Applicants.
Once you have booked your appointment, you have to register your detail on the TLS website, registering your detail on the website reduce delay while attending your appointment and it also allows you to track your application status.
When you register on the TLS Website, they have some value-added services that are provided for applicants.
TLS OFFERS THE FOLLOWING VALUE-ADDED SERVICES IN THEIR VISA APPLICATION CENTRE IN NIGERIA
1. SMS
2. Primetime appointment
3. Priority Visa processing
4. Priority Visa settlement services
5. On-demand mobile service
6. Form filling assistance
7. Silver package
8. Group appointment service
Each of these value-added services is to be paid for to make your visa submission faster at the Visa application centre. It should be noted that the value-added services are not compulsory as you can go ahead with your application without going for any of them.
Collection of your passport at the visa application centre can be done easily but you have to come with the following documents.
Original TLSconact Nigeria checklist
Copy and Original of your photograph ID
COLLECTION OF DOCUMENTS
Another person can collect your document on your behalf which is known as the third party collection. Some conditions should be noted about the third party collections as there are reasons which are attached to it.
1. Parent collecting for a dependent child when the child is below 18 years of age
2. One member of a family group collecting the passport for the whole family if applied together.
3. Applicants who are 65 years and above with already issued form obtained during submission
4. Government ministry representative and business network company representative who is approved by the British High Commission and the company’s authorized signature with a letter of introduction and a company ID card
5. Applicants must make sure that they attend appointments themselves as this cannot be done by a third party because photos and fingerprints will be taken. You should note that once your photos and biometrics are done, your visa fee can no longer be refunded back to you.
6. Applicants should bear in mind the following tips which will be stated below as they are essential for you to know. The TLS should not be blamed for any of this. (Read below carefully)
The application which will be submitted by the applicant will be considered by UKVi part of the UK government. The TLScontact Nigeria does not make any decisions relating to VISA applications.
UKVi may ask for more information like another document for you to attend an interview. All of this will be sent to you via email.
Once your passport has been returned to the TLS, they will contact the applicant by email and they will update your personal account page on the website. The email which will be sent to you will tell you how to collect your passport back.
After all of this, TLScontact Nigeria will remove your personal information from its records.
All of this means that, even after applying and going through all the process, your visa application might still get rejected. That is why most times we see people overjoyed because they have been able to get what they are looking for, for a long time ago.
You should bear in mind that the TLS is there to help in making all the people happy

sleyflash:
@RemMag.. what was the reason for refusal?

It is within 28 working days ...... for ECM to make a decision on AR..... However, the delay is in letting you know the decision. They will not let you know on time .. You have to keep calling to disturb them ........though all case may not be same ....

Every year, more than 16 million non-European passengers arrive in the UK and are required to fill out a landing card. This card has been in use since 1971 and it used to gather information about the passengers and their reason for travel. Under new plans to digitise the Border Force’s security checks, the landing cards are to be phased out and replaced with a new system. According to The Home Office, this won’t result in any loss of data and security checks will take place as normal without the landing cards.

The paper-based landing cards system costs the public roughly £3.6 million per year, but this is all set to change under new plans set out by Immigration Minister Brandon Lewis. According to Lewis, this will “improve the experience for arriving passengers so they get an even better welcome when they land in the UK.” He also outlined how these changes will “ensure Border Force staff stop dealing with outdated paperwork and can continue to focus on security and protecting the public.”

The plans to phase out the paper landing cards have already come into play in 21 ports throughout the UK. Instead of handing a landing card to a Border Agent, the process is now managed by the introduction of 232 e-gates. These e-gates have already seen 1 million passengers use them every week since they were introduced in June. These changes are all part of the ongoing Digital Services at the Border (DSAB) initiative which is aiming to facilitate legitimate travel while allowing Border Force officers to respond to threats.

In addition to the new e-gates, the Border Force has expanded its use of Advanced Passenger Information, with plans in place to receive 100% of incoming passenger data for all scheduled international flights. These moves have been welcomed by the airline industry, as they no longer have to purchase and distribute landing cards on arrival to the UK. It is expected that the changes will also be welcomed by passengers who will no longer have to search for a pen when they arrive at their destination.

It is also expected that these technological updates will ease the queues in airport landing halls. Heathrow CEO John Holland-Kaye praised the changes and said: “n post-Brexit Britain, it will be even more important to show we are open for business and make sure that we give investors, tourists and students a great welcome to our country.” The Home Office is opening a four-week consultation on the proposed changes and it is expected that the new system will be rolled out across all ports in autumn.

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.

buddiemm:
Blessedgeorgeus, no salary was mentioned in the CoS because even in the job advert it was stated that no salary is going to be paid except for reasonable expenses. I thought she just wanted to let me say something different from what is stated on the advert and CoS checking system. Those are the last two of the 18 questions she asked. She also asked wheather I have children and I said no after I told her my wife is in Nigeria. Thanks

Ok.... Keep praying

An administrative review (AR) scrutinises an eligible decision to determine whether the decision was
the result of a case working error, as defined within Appendix AR of the Immigration Rules.3
AR2.11 and AR2.12 provide technical definitions of all case working errors. They include misapplication of
rules, policy or guidance and incorrect calculation of the period or conditions of leave.

Between 1 October and 31 December 2016 the Home Office received a total of 2,393 AR
applications.

The AR process is designed primarily to provide access to redress for those whose application
for leave to enter or remain in the UK has been refused. However, individuals who have been
granted leave in-country may also apply for AR if they consider that the period of their leave, or
the conditions attached to it, have been calculated incorrectly.

Prior to the 2014 Act, a system of AR already existed for refusal of entry clearance applications
made overseas under the Points Based System (PBS). This took the form of reviews by Entry
Clearance Managers (ECMs) of decisions made by Entry Clearance Officers (ECOs). The 2014 Act
widened the scope of AR to include decisions made in-country and ‘at the border’.

The original inspection reported data for AR decisions for the period 1 April to 30 September
2015. This showed that the percentage of successful ARs, those where the refusal or cancellation
decision was ‘overturned’ was 8% for in-country (191 out of 2,369), 22% for ‘at the border’ (21
out of 96), and 21% for overseas (102 out of 487).

The data from Figures 1 and 2 are not directly comparable, but the ‘overturn’ percentages
for in-country (3.4%) and ‘at the border’ (6.8%) are noticeably lower. The original report
drew attention to the fact that at 8% the in-country ‘overturn’ rate was already much lower
than might have been expected “in light of the Home Office’s own assessment in July 2013 of
the extent of caseworking errors in Managed Migration cases that had been lost at appeal.”
However, it found no evidence that the upheld/overturn rates had been questioned.

Findings and conclusions

Recommendation 1

Under Paragraph 34R of the Immigration Rules,7 an applicant who has been refused leave to
enter or leave to remain within an application category that attracts an administrative review
(AR) has, dependent on location, a time limit of 7, 14 or 28 days from the date a decision has
been ‘served’ to submit an AR request. Appendix SN of the Rules sets out when any refusal
decisions are deemed to have been served (that is, received by the applicant).

The original inspection found that decision notices did not sufficiently advise applicants of the
Rules regarding the deemed date of receipt, nor that applicants may be required to prove, when
requested, that their decision notice was received on a later date. Instead decision notices
simply stated: “You must apply for administrative review within x days of receiving the decision.”

This led to Recommendation 1, which the Home Office accepted.

The Home Office should make it clear to applicants in published guidance and on the online
application form that the deadline for applying for an AR is calculated from the deemed date
of receipt of the eligible immigration decision unless the applicant can demonstrate they
received this on a later date.

Re-inspection findings

Inspectors found that the most recent AR guidance (updated in April 2016) provided full details
to applicants to explain the time limits and set out clearly when an application is deemed to
have been received. The guidance also specified that, in instances when the date of receipt is
being challenged, the onus is on the applicant to provide evidence: “If the migrant claims they
received the in-UK or overseas decision on a later date, it is their responsibility to show when it
was actually received.

After examining the sample ARs from all three business areas (applications made in-country, ‘at
the border’ and overseas) and speaking to staff involved receiving and validating applications,
inspectors were satisfied that the original notice of refusal gave sufficient information to
applicants about how to submit an AR request.

Conclusion

The revised guidance published in April 2016 has addressed the concerns raised in
Recommendation 1. Recommendation 1 is now closed.

Recommendation 2

The original inspection identified inconsistencies in how caseworkers assessed and applied
Paragraph 34R of the Immigration Rules in relation to out of time AR applications.

This led to Recommendation 2, which the Home Office accepted.

Ensure caseworkers take all reasonable steps to check the actual date of receipt of the eligible
decision before rejecting applications on the basis that they are out of time.

Re-inspection findings
Applications made in-country and ‘at the border’

Inspectors found that Home Office staff validating applications were aware of the requirement
to ensure that dates were calculated correctly, and routinely used services such as Royal Mail
‘Track and Trace’ to confirm delivery dates. Of the 48 AR applications deemed invalid that
inspectors examined, 21 had been invalidated for being ‘out of time’. Inspectors found that this
was incorrect in one of the 21 cases.

Applications made overseas

Decision notices for overseas entry clearance applications are collected in person from the
relevant overseas Visa Application Centre (VAC). As a result, it was not possible for caseworkers
to use a postal tracking service to monitor when a refusal notice was received by the applicant.

In the 50 overseas ARs examined for this re-inspection, inspectors identified one in which the
applicant submitted the AR application out of time. In this instance, the overseas Decision
Making Centre (DMC) accepted the mitigating circumstances put forward by the applicant.
Despite being out of time, the AR application was validated and processed. Inspectors found no
instances of overseas DMCs rejecting applications incorrectly as out of time.

Conclusion
Clarifications in policy and revised training have led to improvements in dates for receipt of decision
and eligibility to apply for an AR being calculated correctly. Recommendation 2 is now closed

Recommendation 3

At the time of the original inspection, it was found that there was significant scope to improve
record keeping in terms of invalid AR applications, including correspondence with applicants. In
many cases, neither the electronic notes nor the notices of invalidity sent to applicants set out
clearly the reasons for rejection, including failure to record reference to the deemed date of
receipt where this was used to decide that the application was out of time.

This led to Recommendation 3, which the Home Office accepted.

Ensure that CID9 notes and AR invalidity notices state clearly why an AR application was
determined to be invalid.

Re-Inspection Findings

Applications made in-country and ‘at the border’

AR caseworkers of all grades told inspectors that they understood the importance of recording
accurate electronic notes. However, of the 48 AR applications deemed invalid examined by
inspectors, ten in-country applications had inadequate notes recording actions and the rationale
for decisions. Inspectors identified no issues relating to invalid ‘at the border’ applications.

Applications made overseas

Staff were aware of the requirement to record reason(s) for rejecting an AR application as
invalid. In the 50 overseas ARs examined for this re-inspection, inspectors identified five
applications that were invalid. Four of these applications had been rejected and electronic
casework systems and customer correspondence accurately recorded the reasons. One had
been incorrectly validated and considered. As detailed at Figure 2, the Home Office does not
collate centrally the number of AR applications submitted overseas and rejected as invalid.

Conclusion

AR caseworkers understood the importance of making accurate notes on electronic systems when
rejecting AR applications as invalid. However, the file sample indicated that in a significant number
of cases the notes made by staff validating in-country AR applications were inadequate. Therefore,
Recommendation 3 remains open for the in-country AR work area. Recommendation 3 can be
closed for ‘at the border’ and overseas ARs, but neither area should take this as a signal to relax

"WATCH OUT FOR PART TWO"

The 2014 Immigration Act removed the right of appeal to the Immigration and Asylum Tribunal
for various types of immigration decision, and replaced it with an administrative review (AR)
process internal to the Home Office to provide ‘a proportionate and less costly mechanism for
resolving case working errors’.

During the passage of the 2014 Immigration Bill, some MPs and peers argued that an internal
Home Office AR system would not be an effective replacement for an appeal to an Immigration and
Asylum Tribunal judge, who was independent of the Home Office. An amendment was made to the
Bill during its passage through the Lords, resulting in section 16 of the 2014 Act, which stated:
‘Before the end of the period of 12 months beginning on the day on which section 15 comes
into force, the Secretary of State must commission from the Chief Inspector [of Borders and
Immigration] a report that addresses the following matters

• the effectiveness of administrative review in identifying case working errors
• the effectiveness of administrative review in correcting case working errors
• the independence of persons conducting administrative review (in terms of their separation
from the original decision-maker).’

In June 2015, the Home Secretary commissioned a report addressing these three matters.
However, I extended the scope of the inspection to take in service standards in dealing with ARs,
consistency across different areas of the Home Office, and organisational learning and cost savings.
The inspection found that levels of accuracy and consistency varied between in-country,
overseas and ‘at the border’ ARs, but overall there was significant room for improvement in
respect of the effectiveness of ARs in identifying and correcting case working errors, and in
communicating decisions to applicants.

The Home Office had created a separate, dedicated team to handle in-country reviews. But,
most overseas and ‘at the border’ reviews were carried out locally, and while the inspection
found no indications of bias, it was harder to evidence that overseas and ‘at the border’
reviewers were truly separate and independent.

The Home Office was comfortably meeting its 28-day service standard for responses to
administrative review applications, except in a proportion of overseas applications. However,
there was no systematic feedback to reviewers (or to original decision makers) regarding
decisions that had been subject to a successful legal challenge, so organisational learning was at
best patchy. Meanwhile, despite arguing that the introduction of administrative reviews would
save £261m over 10 years, the Home Office had yet to do any analysis of the cost savings.
The report was sent to the Home Secretary on 4 April 2016 and was laid in Parliament on 26
May 2016. It made 14 recommendations, grouped under four headings: administrative review
applications; consideration of reviews; quality assurance; and learning. The Home Office
accepted 13 of the recommendations and partially accepted the fourteenth.

Why does it take so long before I get my visa after an appeal?

If the judge allows your appeal, his or her determination will be sent to the relevant visa section, which will in turn contact you.

It can take up to 4 weeks for determinations to reach the relevant visa section. This is because paper copies of the determination are sent to the visa section in question. Since these are despatched using the internal postal system (sometimes referred to as “diplomatic post”), it can take a while before the Determination reaches the visa section. Thus, whereas you or your sponsor may already have received your copy of the Determination, it is quite possible that the visa section has not received their copy yet. In fact, it is common for applicants to receive their copy before the visa section does. Without their copy of the determination, a visa section cannot issue your visa. Also, on receipt at the section, it can take a further 8 weeks for the determination to be processed. Please note that the visa section will write to you using the contact details provided on your appeal form. It is important therefore to notify the section if there has been a change in contact details since you submitted your appeal.

So what can I do?

Submit a service complaint

Because of the processing times (4 weeks for the determination to reach the section and 8 weeks for the processing at the section) UKBA recommends that you allow 12 weeks for the decision to be processed. This is 12 weeks from the date of “promulgation”, i.e. from the date the Judge allowed your appeal. You can find this date on your determination. If it takes longer, you may submit a service complaint to: UKBACustomerComplaints@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk

Please remember to include all relevant details (full name, date of birth, office where the application was submitted, date of application, date of promulgation, UKBA reference numbers). UKBA will normally send an auto reply confirming receipt. UKBA has 20 working days to reply to your enquiry. What they will do is contact the Entry Clearance Manager (ECM) in question to check on the status of your application. They will revert to you within 20 working days.

MP enquiry

If you have a sponsor in the UK, he or she could contact his/her MP to ask if s/he can check on the status of your application. The MP will write to UKBA’s dedicated MP enquiry point, who will then contact the relevant ECM. As above, UKBA will revert within 20 working days

LaEvilIMiss:
Hello People. I know you don't get paid for overtime on Nairaland but please I need some advice

My friend's UK visa application was noted bt TLSContact as "Application Transferred to Embassy" 14th July 2017 and on the 19th of July 2017 we got another notification from VISAINFO.SHEFO@fco.gov.uk that "Your online application has been received at the UK Decision Making Centre. Your application is currently being prepared for consideration by an Entry Clearance Officer." All has been silent from the British Empire since then.. not a single word.. has anyone experienced such long periods of silence on a visa application? does it take that long for a Clearance Officer to make a decision and have the passport sent' back?

What are the likely consequences of a request to withdraw the application and have the passport sent back? there is another pending trip which requires the passport.

Delay during this period (June, July and August ) is always there for a UK visa... because a lot of applications are been processed at the same time .... it is summer, student are going back to school by September, a lot of people are visiting.

Did you get in the content of your mail that application not straightforward ? and secondly what was it standard application processing you choose or priority or super-priority

buddiemm:
Thank you for your response blessedgeorgeus. But please how can it be addressed if it turns to AR? The last two questions the lady asked are the following after asking about my sponsor's name, address and what they are doing.

1) How much is your salary going to be? I told her I am not going to be paid because it is a voluntary work.

2) Do you have any family in Nigeria? I told her my wife is here in Nigeria.
When I went to study I was single but got married after my arrival

The second answer you gave was beautiful..... because it shows your tie to your home country (family tie)...for the first question.... was any salary mention by your sponsor or in your COS ?

On AR dont think it yet .....since it has not gotten there.....but however, You are in a great pool knowledge in here ....Other guru and myself will be able to help when it comes to AR.... Hope for the best

irenmwinfo:
actually am so naive about this but it's an invitation. So tell me the types of visa you are talking about. Thanks and waiting for your response

Invitation by who ? you need to give detail

buddiemm:
Good evening my people. I just heard of this forum today from a friend. My name is Bode. Please I want to know if it is compulsory to answer all the questions correctly during an interview for a UK visa. This is my story: I went for aTier 5 charity worker visa interview on Wednesday and I was once in the UK for my masters degree. So the interviewer asked me how long did I stayed in the UK when I went to study and I said 15 months, I told him the exact date I arrived the UK and the date I left the UK as it was written on my application form but when I came out of the interview room I discovered that the calculation suppose to be 17 months instead of 15 months. Please can this cause any issue once I told him the exact dates I arrived and departed the UK? Also all questions that I was asked about my employer was answered correctly and about the charity job I am going to do. But I was asked about the charity statement of purpose of my employer which I didn't know and I told the lady I don't know it. Can this also cause any issue please I don't know if anyone has experienced this before and if it is compulsory to answer all questions correctly because out of the 18 questions I was asked only those two answers disturb my mind after the interview. Thanks.

Bode..... answers at interview are very important ....the first questions (15 months and 17 months) may not have much on reaching a decision to refuse.....and even though the ECO refuse you on this..... you can always win this at AR and the decision to refuse will be Overturned by ECM.....but however, the second question on "The Charity Statement of Purpose of your Sponsor" Your ought to know this ... because Tier 5 is basically Charity (voluntary work)...... anyway .... you will need to pray for favour..... You can also logically address it during AR if it turns out the other way ...... but there is nothing God can not do .... just believe that all things will work together for your good

Iolo:
Hi All,

Kindly advise.

Is it advisable to apply for a UK visa for my wife and I with her passport still bearing her maiden name?

We have kicked-off the process for change of name on her passport, however, I'm not getting any guarantees as to when the passport can be ready.

Do we just apply for the visa like that or keep waiting till the passport is out.

irenmwinfo:
. How much does it cost you when u applied then and what were the necessary documents needed for processing ? Thanks

It is better to wait and change it before you apply....... If you can not wait ....then you need to back it up with other document such as marriage certificate ....etc

irenmwinfo:
Please house I just want to start first by processing my passport. This is my first time. How much can I secure passport 32pages and 64 pages respectively in Benin city Edo state immigration office ? What documents is required to go along with for processing ?


Another question I need answer to is What documents do I need to prepare for processing of UKVI ?

What type of Visa to you intend to Process?