Government plans to price immigrant out of UK via appeal fee

[Obie]

The government plans to increase appeal fee to from £80 to £450 for paper appeals, and £140 to £800 for oral hearing.

https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/tribunals

Appealing will become more expensive than a Judicial review, or the price for lodging an Appellant notice.

I don't know why the UK government cannot be decent enough to tell immigrant that they are not wanted, rather than employing this covert means of suppressing their ability to exercise an appeal right.

[vinny]

Massive increase in immigration appeal fees proposed > Consultation.

[Wanderer]

Does appear on first glance to appear somewhat trite, but maybe there another side to this?

AIUI, immigration costs and sundry et al are supposed to cost neutral to the UK tax payer, and as as we see on here, it seems everyone and his dog are appealing for this, JR'ing that, FFT the other, all to attempt to stretch out stays for 10 years, 5 years, whatever to capture the prized ILR status. We see so many that are purely attempts gain extra time to let's face it, frustrate the immigration rules. Not Cricket.

So maybe the power-that-be have deigned the appellant should pay and not me and you and The Great British Taxpayer.

Or maybe there's a third side, another agenda we are unaware of. There's always three sides to any story, one's own, someone else's, and the truth.

Vegetable Rights and Peace.....

[michali]

Makes reapplying a better option, quicker too.

[secret.simon]

There's always three sides to any story, one's own, someone else's, and the truth.

A profound and undeniably true observation. Wanderer, you are wise beyond your ears.

I had not previously thought about the arguments that have been expressed in this thread, but on reflection, it does seem like the Home Office has spotted the loophole of people stretching leave under Section 3C and making the rules stringent to curb excesses in that field. The recent re-interpretation of how Section 3C leave applies is probably the other side of the equation.

I don't know why the UK government cannot be decent enough to tell immigrant that they are not wanted,

I think the government has been messaging that for the past few years, but has to take a harder approach for people who don't listen.

[Obie]

I think the government has been messaging that for the past few years, but has to take a harder approach for people who don't listen.

Maybe you can advice them to be more explicit.

At present it appear that only smart people like yourself has been receptive to this message that has been broadcasted over the years.

[secret.simon]

I am sure - I would certainly hope - that the government can call on people far more knowledgeable than me to advise it.

[vinny]

Government confirms that fees for immigration tribunal hearings will skyrocket.

[vinny]

What's the point of having a "consultation" when 142 of 147 responses were opposed?

[Obie]

This government is a joke. I am sure immigrants can read the writings on the wall.

[ohara]

This is terrible and I genuinely feel sorry for anyone who ever has to go through immigration courts system.

[ouflak1]

What's the point of having a "consultation" when 142 of 147 responses were opposed?

In this case, I think only to see if anyone mentions something they haven't considered.

It seems to me this fee increase also will cut down on the backlog of applications clogging up the system. I do thnk they ought to offer a refund for a successful appeal based on case worker error in interpretation of the rules.

[Wanderer]

There is the other side of the coin, why should Johnny Taxpayer fund the cost of the endless appeals and hearings people go through on here to try attempting to rack up 10 years etc?

I agree to genuine ones shouldn't be caught by this, as suggested a sort of if granted, no fee situation, but the others I've mentioned about, not so sure...

[Obie]

The government just made it easier for my people to apply for Fee Remission.

The higher the fee, the less likely appellants will be able to afford, and the more fee remission that one will make.

Before it was hard to prove that a person could not afford £140, but now it will be much easier.

They refuse, and one will take Lord Chancellor to Court for acting in breach of a person convention or EEA rights as the case may be.

The days of the government giving me headaches are long gone.

As they seek to pursure their oppressive conduct against migrant, and providing a state of hostility where innocent and law abiding individuals are murdered in the streets of Essex with impunity, pregnant legal migrants are kicked in the streets of Milton Keynes until the baby in their womb is murdered, we will only continue to seek to find ways of making migrant lives easier.

[secret.simon]

we will only continue to seek to find ways of making migrant lives easier.

Is the "we" in the quote the Royal We (which should only be used by royalty or a person with a tapeworm inside them) or a reference to your law firm or to some other entity?

[Obie]

I think one needs to focus on the main issues on the thread, which is the accessibility of justice to individuals.

Me, we or they or them are wholly irrelevant and distracting.

If it assist, we can include you, individual, entity or groups, that seek to fight for the right of migrant to access justice.

I hope that my reference to "me" did not offend you?

I appreciate that some people may well not wish to be part of that, but this is fine.

Be rest assured Secret Simon, that i never had you in mind when i mentioned we.

[ouflak1]

There is no right to immigrate to the UK for non-EU citizens, and soon, not even for EU-citizens. This seems to be a cause for 'debate' which I find very strange as the same awkward rationale is also used for illegal immigration into my native country, which is far larger and blessed with far more natural and has many more man-made resources (through the hard work of generations). It is as if there is some worldwide assumption that the UK is 'rich' and has an infinite amount of land, housing, native food supply, and public infrastructure. This is often coupled with the assumption that everybody who sets foot in the country and plants their own roots, without any regards for UK immigration laws, has a 'human right' to those resources if they just stay long enough, even if it costs the legal migrants, legal residents and native citizens dearly. I don't mind helping some of those people out every now and then (I wouldn't be active on this forum if didn't have some empathy), but at some point you have to acknowledge reality, be reasonable, harshly draw the line, and say "that's it". I'm not saying this fee increase just has to do with that. I think there is some greed mixed in there. I think they ought to be reasonable about situations where the case workers just plain got it wrong. But it's clear the UK infrastructure and social service system is being stretched more and more by immigration. It's also clear that ability to handle even the most basic straightforward applications is becoming more and more an inability. This is not fair to anybody, especially those who have genuine human rights/private life claims.

If there is a sudden increase in abuse of the fee remission scheme, they'll just close down that alternative by some means.

[vinny]

Fees for EU nationals and others appealing immigration decisions increase over 500% today.

[Obie]

Sad day for the access to Justice.

[vinny]

Part of an unfortunate trend.

Thanks to the latest wave of sweeping budget cuts access to the law looks set to become an inaccessible luxury for many.

The real impact of the legal aid cuts

Alice Wyss, Amnesty International’s UK researcher, said: “Cuts to legal aid imposed by this government have decimated access to justice and left thousands of the most vulnerable without essential legal advice and support. We are in danger of creating a two-tier civil justice system, open to those who can afford it, but increasingly closed to the poorest and most in need of its protection.

It is vital for the government to ensure that nobody is denied access to justice based on their ability to pay.

Meanwhile, the Government also introduced a £150 criminal courts charge – encouraging defendants to plead guilty to crimes they had not committed – which it was forced to scrap after a campaign by The Independent.

[Obie]

Yes i have been consulting my books all day.

It is unimaginable how people can afford such ridiculous fees.

The state is going in a very anti-democratic direction.

It remains to be seen, what lecture the UK can give to 3rd world country if they treat their most vulnerable in this manner.

[rooibos]

There is the other side of the coin, why should Johnny Taxpayer fund the cost of the endless appeals and hearings people go through on here to try attempting to rack up 10 years etc?

I agree to genuine ones shouldn't be caught by this, as suggested a sort of if granted, no fee situation, but the others I've mentioned about, not so sure...

How many Johnny Taxpayers were Johnny Foreigners at one point?

[ouflak1]

How many Johnny Taxpayers were Johnny Foreigners at one point?

How many taxpayers who are naturalized/registered citizens ever had an appeal at any point ever? Also, keep in mind that a lot of 'Johnny Foreigenrs' were likely taxpayers for some period when they were also non-citizens and non-permanent residents. A clogged up costly system of appeals is just as unfair to them as it is to those who genuinely have a valid reason for making an appeal and aren't just looking for ways to stay in the UK.

The state is going in a very anti-democratic direction.

Then the country may simply be going back to its roots. It is certainly not a democracy now. Technically it's a constitutional monarchy. But in reality it's kind of a socialist republic with democratic elements pasted in here and there to see if they'll stick.

The fact is that we all, immigrants (no matter what stage they are in) and natives, deserve an efficient immigration system. And if it can pay for itself, all the better for everybody. No sovereign nation owes anybody a cheap bloated innefficient way to decide their immigration fate. We all deserve better.

[Petaltop]

Then the country may simply be going back to its roots. It is certainly not a democracy now. Technically it's a constitutional monarchy. But in reality it's kind of a socialist republic with democratic elements pasted in here and there to see if they'll stick.

The fact is that we all, immigrants (no matter what stage they are in) and natives, deserve an efficient immigration system. And if it can pay for itself, all the better for everybody. No sovereign nation owes anybody a cheap bloated innefficient way to decide their immigration fate. We all deserve better.

Well said.

I have said before on here that if you keep abusing the rules, then they will shut that abuse down. I'm sure many other immigrants worked that out too. It's the bad apples that spoil the barrel.

Oh and "justice" is not immigrants getting what they want - as some in here clearly think and say, before they launch into one of their usual anti-British rants.

[vinny]

What's the point of having a "consultation" when 142 of 147 responses were opposed?

However, we have listened to the representations that we received on the current fee levels and have decided to take stock and review the immigration and asylum fees, to balance the interests of all tribunal users and the taxpayer and to look at them again alongside other tribunal fees and in the wider context of funding for the system overall.
From today all applicants will be charged fees at previous levels and we will reimburse, in all cases where the new fees have been paid, the difference between that fee and the previous fee.
We will bring forward secondary legislation to formalise the position as soon as possible. That legislation will come into force shortly, but in the meantime the changes will be effected through the use of the Lord Chancellor’s discretionary power to remit or reduce fees.