You have applied for a standard visitor visa and received a refusal. Your notice of refusal contained an explanation and referred to paragraphs V 4.2 (a) and (c) (and sometimes to sub-paragraph "e"). It is a painful incident that often causes feelings of confusion, anger or frustration. These feelings can be amplified by learning that no appeal is possible on appeal or administrative review.
The immediate reaction for many people is something like: "It's something simple, they just took something in the wrong way, I'll call them and fix things."
But no. Categorically no. No chance. Since 2006, CEOs are determined not to engage with the public and they are not allowed to rescind a decision anyway. Let's look at this excerpt from paragraph 27 …
An application for leave to enter must be decided in the light of the circumstances existing at the time of the decision …
This means what the applicant wrote in his application and the evidence that he provided (and the courts supported this interpretation). If the CEO is willing to refuse and think that one piece of evidence will prevent a refusal, he will contact the applicant and ask for it. But the refusals in this article go well beyond a single piece of evidence that can prevent a refusal.
The current visitor rules were defined during a private consultation between UKVI and the UK legal community in 2014. Several versions of projects were distributed and each series resulted in concessions and improvements. When both parties were satisfied (that is, they were fair, accessible and consistent), the rules were activated in April 2015. They are published in Schedule V of the Rules. of immigration and we strongly encourage a careful reading of the information.
Visa applications are opened in the mail room by an entry control assistant and a witness. Two people are needed. Each request is recorded in Proviso (UKVI tracking system) with an enumeration of the evidence provided. Once in Proviso, more and more ECA representatives are involved in examining evidence and researching the situation of the claimant. It is at this stage that the ACEs can contact the bank and the applicant's employer. They will also perform biometrics and review the relevant databases. ACEs are local recruits who speak the language and know local customs. They generally aspire to obtain a British passport through services rendered to the Crown. They are therefore meticulous and meticulous.
Finally, the application will appear on the Proviso screen of the Entry Authorization Manager. Parliament has given the CEO the mandate to issue as many visas as possible, as this benefits the UK economy. They also have the mandate of the Crown to do the final decision on a visitor application.
It will take about 40 to 120 seconds to review the application and make a decision. Or he can send it back to ECA for further research. If the CEO decides that a refusal is warranted, the application will be routed to the Authorization Officer (ECM, the highest official in the visa section).
The ECM can confirm or cancel the refusal. If a regulated lawyer has represented the application, he can contact him to ask him some questions and obtain clarification. If it maintains the refusal decision, the request will be forwarded to the CEC which will use "speed codes" to compose the denial notification.
The end result is that the notice of refusal, as well as all documents originally submitted, are returned to the requester. Somewhere towards the end of the notification are the legal grounds for refusal. These visas have no right of appeal or administrative review procedure.
Candidates are surprised to learn that the majority of refusals were predictable from the outset. It means that the application was visibly damned even before the person arrives at the VFS to give his biometric data. This can be said because the application has one or more of these:
- Obvious (and serious) evidentiary deficiencies necessary to establish the personal circumstances of the applicant (or sponsor); or
- A poorly designed premise that undermines the claimant's credibility; or
- A naive and clearly visible attempt to conceal something; or
- a lifestyle that contradicts the claimant's intent; or
- A ploy or maneuver to improve the applicant's personal situation (for example, parking financing).
Most often, the applicant's premises and evidence conform to a pattern that can quickly be recognized as a safe bet in the event of a refusal. UKVI likes to use reasons V 4.2 (a) and (c) for their refusals in these situations. Sometimes they will see the sub-paragraph "e & # 39; (insufficient funds), but it is usually a cherry on the cake rather than an immediate concern.
Appendix V, paragraphs V 4.2 (a) and (c)
These refer respectively to:
- (a) leave the United Kingdom at the end of their visit; and
- (c) genuinely seeks to enter a purpose permitted by visiting itineraries (these are listed in Schedules 3, 4 and 5).
In summary, they concluded that the plaintiff was not a bona fide visitor and that he was in danger of going into hiding and abusing his visa. We see this happening in different ways in items such as the UK visitor visa refused because of the length of the previous stay:
They got you on V 4.2 (a) + (c), which is their way of saying that they think you might have a secondary goal: run away from your visa and go into hiding. Your next application will need to take extra care to ensure that their concerns are fully explained.
Another way to present it appears in UK Visit Visa refusal – need advice on the next step:
The CEO concluded that you and your husband would go underground once you arrived in the UK, this is implicit if you take into account the grounds for refusal in their context (V 4.2 (a) and (c)).
They draw this conclusion from the elements listed above in "Predictability". This is a serious refusal. The rest of this article explains how they made this decision.
Parking, lifestyle and credibility
The article entitled "Should I submit bank statements when I apply for a British visa? What do they say about me?"
This article explains that one of the common but disastrous strategies that candidates use is the so-called "fund parking" strategy (which is the subject of a full discussion here).
The article also explains one of the pitfalls in which the applicant is determined to present his final balance and ignores the fact that bank statements provide a window into the lifestyle and social commitments of the applicant. See twice the visitor visa refusal on business visit to the UK because of a large deposit, and after? where the answer says:
It is useful to show a heavy bank balance, but that's only 20% of what they are looking for. A much heavier weight, say 80%, is attributed to the predictable, periodic, predictable inflows and outflows of the account that show a lasting economic connection with your base, in your case, Egypt … They attracted you V 4.2 (a) and (c) on both applications. In this context, it means that they concluded that you were not a bona fide candidate and that it would probably go into hiding when you arrived here …
CEOs determine how long it takes to review the applicant's premises and no specific amount is required to apply. Even low-paying candidates can succeed when they have a stable, connected lifestyle.
Origin of funds
Having a large number of account statements is not enough to guarantee success because the CEO must determine whether funds have been obtained legally and are legally in the hands of the applicant. We call this the "source of funds" and this is explained in this article: are there any hidden requirements for visa applications in the UK?
When the country of origin is likely to be questioned, applicants should include their employment contract, their tax return or other convincing evidence. They will vigorously oppose lame excuses like "I do not have these things because blah blah blah and (insert here a lame excuse)"Authentic visitors can establish the provenance fairly easily.
Having a sponsor does not eliminate the need to establish provenance and many people seem to miss out on this point. The CEO is entitled to believe that the sponsor is a drug trafficker, an illegal importer or a criminal, and the onus is on the plaintiff to convince him otherwise. The sponsor must therefore submit his employment contract or his tax returns in the same way as the applicant. This is a major point of failure for many candidates who rely on sponsorship.
Candidates who fail to establish that their funds have been obtained legally will inevitably be disappointed. If the sponsor is reluctant to establish the provenance, then do not apply!
To continue, the same article contains this text:
In the same money laundering scheme / source funds, they also have a list of banks that they do not like. If someone submits statements from any of these banks (or discovers that someone has an account in one of these banks), the application will be refused (and they will use a different reason so that their sources are not compromised).
Some banks violate money laundering rules or engage in illegal activities and submitting declarations from these banks is fatal. The global list goes beyond the box, but a representative list of acceptable banks for Bangladesh is at the updated list of financial institutions for UK visa applications in Bangladesh. The list is qualified for PBS applicants, but the content is directly transferable for visa applications.
Rejected applicants have often assumed that sponsorship eliminates the need to demonstrate that they are eligible. This is not true and in many cases, the use of a sponsor increases the burden on the applicant to demonstrate that he / she is qualified.
How can this be? To understand this paradox, go back to paragraphs (a) and (c) again and note that none of them is subordinated to access to money. In fact, having access to money is covered by paragraph (e):
must have sufficient funds to cover all reasonable costs related to their visit without working or having access to public funds. This includes the cost of the return or return trip, the cost of dependents and the cost of planned activities such as private medical treatment.
… which is rarely mentioned in most refusals! It is therefore not money and no matter how rich the sponsor or the amount of money that he is willing to commit. the burden of proof is never left to the plaintiff. See the British visitor visa denied (multiple sponsors) for an example that says:
This refusal quotes paragraphs V.2.2 (a) and (c) of the regulation … You can see that they do not dispute your daughter's ability to sponsor, they accepted her sponsorship without asking any questions. But having a credible sponsor does not reduce the claimant's burden of complying with the rules.
The CEO is also entitled to be aware of the relationship between the sponsor and the applicant and the reason why the sponsor is willing to incur a large expense without any apparent benefit to them. This is especially true, for example, if the applicant has siblings who have never been sponsored. When no grandparent or parent has sponsored other family members and that a single person will benefit, the motivation must be carefully explained.
CEOs are particularly suspicious of the sudden appearance of a "long-lost uncle" who makes a disproportionate sponsorship offer. The "long-lost uncles" do not do things like this without very special circumstances and these circumstances must be carefully explained. CEOs are also concerned about the relationship between the applicant and the sponsor and the relevance of its relationship to give credibility to the sponsor's request. See also Does the mention of an undisclosed parent who will now invite me to the UK will help me obtain a visa?
While it is true that long-lost relatives can sometimes appear suddenly and offer sponsorship for no apparent reason, it is an application scheme considered with skepticism pronounced on the Sub-Saharan counter. You must explain why a member of your family is willing to do it for you while you did not know it last year. This would be an awkward explanation and genuine visitors do not need to make such explanations.
Or another refusal regarding paragraphs a) + c) when the sponsorship appears to have been put in place:
Imagine this: Unexpectedly and without explanation, someone is offered an offer, all expenses paid, to attend an interview in the UK in a company where there is already a mature and mature job market. abundant in the local market. This offer is extended to a person who works in his current role for less than a year and who has no particular credentials allowing a company to do it. In addition, their personal situation is such that they could easily drop everything and move around.
And of course, if the sponsor has already been involved in a violation, it goes without saying that a refusal is admissible.
Finally, testimonials from the sponsor in the sense of "… my nephew is very respectful of British law and would never stay below …"Can harm the sponsor's credibility Nobody is telepathic and telepathy is the only way to make such a certificate." See Family Visit Request, but denied under V4.2 (a) and (c):
This does not cut the ice to ensure that you will return home after your visit, and such assurances are anyway a particularly weak application. Why should you go home?
This is stated more formally in My girlfriend's visa refusal to visit me in the UK. And now?
The sponsor's responsibility is to demonstrate its ability to manage and manage demand. Nothing else. Your "intentions" are irrelevant and trying to assert them indicates that you do not understand what your role is and, by extension, that you do not understand the rules. This is a fair assumption on their part because if your friend decided to go underground and disappear in the UK, you could do nothing to stop it.
Sponsorship commitmentsIf the CEO thinks that a sponsorship undertaking will save the application and prevent a refusal, he will contact the applicant and ask for one. In these cases, the developer must establish a solid financial image and proof of accommodation (explicit ownership or permission of the owner). Barriers to housing and financial capacity are rigorously high. And I repeat: having a sponsor does not mitigate the need for the candidate to qualify himself. See sponsoring a visa applicant: SU07 form for more information.
Note on refusals of evaluation of the British Army
This is a slight variant of the refusals already discussed. In summary, midway through the recruitment process, applicants must visit a military facility in the United Kingdom for a two-day evaluation. The variant is that the British Army will send an invitation letter (but will not participate as an economic sponsor).
Candidates from the less wealthy Commonwealth countries, who are at a disadvantage, especially those in Africa, may find themselves caught in a confused "catch 22" situation. This happens when their way of life and their willingness to break ties with their homeland and send them for assignment to a foreign post belies the very ties with their homeland that the CEO wants to see in order to qualify for the visa!
We can not debate the sensitivity of Army policy here, as this falls within the mandate of the Politics site. for us, it must be accepted as part of "WHAT IS". There is therefore nothing specific to offer these candidates, except what is already presented above.
Note on PLAB refusals
When a person completes his medical studies abroad, she sometimes likes to "complete" her qualification by passing the Professional and Linguistic Assessment Board test, or "PLAB". Some parts of the PLAB are administered abroad and others are only available in the UK.
Attending the PLAB is an activity specifically mentioned in the rules; it is an activity approved under the standard visitor visa.
The generic profile of a PLAB refusal is one where the applicant's parents have funded their education and that the applicant is just starting out in his or her doctor career. Sometimes they still live with their parents. As a result, they have a strong premise (a medical degree) but a very weak application as they have not established an independent lifestyle.
If you fit this profile, consider not following PLAB until your career is more stable and you have a credible doctor profile in your own country.
A note on discrimination
By way of introduction, agents and members of the entry control staff come from all walks of life. It is therefore natural that some are homosexuals or transsexuals, other Muslims, other blacks, and so on. With this type of diversity, systemic discrimination is recognized and suppressed very early.
That said, we can turn to this answer: does the British visa system discriminate against Muslims? which examines a ministerial declaration authorizing the discrimination of certain nationalities.
The Minister of Immigration (Damian Green): I have authorized, pursuant to paragraph 17 (4) (a) of Schedule 3 to the Equality Act, 2010, the United Kingdom border to further examine or give priority to clearance at entry, border control and removal functions.
This authorization came into effect on February 10, 2011. It replaces the Race Relations (Immigration and Asylum) 2004 Authorization, which came into force on February 12, 2004 and was revoked.
The full text is in Hansard, but the ILPA has published an excellent summary on racial discrimination authorization.
The answer goes on to explain that the government keeps a list of countries where historical performance has been problematic. Candidates from these countries will have more difficulties. The list is classified, but it is well known that countries with large-scale performance problems are in South Asia and Africa.
With regard to Muslims, we can see that Qatar and UAE nationals can obtain accelerated visas, which are mainly Muslim countries.
For the types of refusals we address in this response, where most of them are predictable from the outset, the allegations of discrimination are more of a joke.
There is a piece of boiler plate at the bottom of all refusal notices …
All future United Kingdom visa applications that you will make will be considered according to their individual merit. However, your application will probably be refused unless the circumstances of your application change.
This is an opinion suggesting that fundamental changes are needed for a successful application next time. One must be cautious because once a series of serial denials is initiated, a person can lead one's own life by disclosing the fact that the applicant is determined to enter the UK (c & # 39; is a bad thing).
This article "How to find an immigration lawyer / lawyer to help me with my UK visa application?" suggests that a "control of the documentation" can be useful and explains what it is …
If your case is simple but you want to make sure your application is bullet proof, you can arrange a "document verification". This means that a practitioner will review your completed application and all your evidence and give you clear information about it. Remember that there are light cases and not intended for "complex" cases.
The article also cites an important disclaimer …
I agree with the stream of thought that lawyers should be used whenever the claimant's case is complex. Regardless of the cost, a lawyer can prevent refusals and, as we know, refusals are a permanent burden on a person's story.
If you have read this article and have concluded that the material is not useful for your case, it may be that the use of the network does not work for you. In such cases, a practitioner should be sought.
The UK site "Go to" for qualified practitioners is the Immigration Law Practitioners' Association (ILPA). They offer a search engine that can be used to present to the end-user a list of members regulated by the Regulatory Authority of Lawyers or the Commissioner of Immigration Services (OISC). Most of the time, practitioners are happy to use e-mail and Skype to solve problems, making direct personal contact unnecessary.
I am reluctant to suggest practitioners in South Asia and Africa, as there are many crooks working outside the regulatory and ethical sphere of the UK. However, the UK Law Society runs an international division that can be useful in very complex situations.
Notes and later thoughts …
"Parking of funds" is a term originally coined here on this site. You can not search for it on Google to learn more because we are the only known site to use the term "Parking of Funds" as a literary shorthand to describe the visa strategy.