General Visitor Refusal

[millpond]

I have recently tried to get a visitor visa for my girlfriend to visit me here in the UK. I will be paying for the entire trip etc and after submitting two applications the Immigration dept have accepted all my financial details, evidence of relationship but still refuse the visa because they do not believe my Thai friend will leave the UK after her short stay.
She is a casual worker so not really employed by a company but makes a reasonable living by making items at home. She has 2 dependent children who live with her but would not be visiting the UK, being looked after by relatives whilst mum is away. She also has previous visa travel experience to Sweden and no failures or breaches of condition. She has sufficient money in her bank account to pay for the journeys and accommodation if required and has produced bank statements to confirm this. But still the ECO in Bangkok refuse to give her a UK visitor visa. We cannot think of any other documents which can readily appear to satisfy the Immigration department. It appears that unless you are fully employed, pay taxes and have assets in Thailand then you are not welcome in the UK.
I have studied the law and guidelines which the Entry Control Officers and supervisors should comply with but it looks like they can make totally unbalanced decisions without fear of being reprimanded or corrected because the system does not allow for appeals and complaints never answer the situation that these people can make unreasonable decisions under the guise of 'balance of probabilities'. I would like to expose this illegal and corrupt practice being used by the Immigration System or individual officers and ask for support from applicants who have also been subjected to blatant unreasonable decisions

[CR001]

What evidence did she provide to prove her ties to Thailand? It is the applicants responsibility to make sure they meet all the requirements and submit all evidence and proof to prove their intentions.

It would help if you posted the refusal text, without any personal info.

[CR001]

Did you know that although you appear not to have a right of appeal that you do infact have this general right but via another process. You can ask the Immigration service to reconsider if you find that they have got something wrong in their decision or you can make a complaint to the UK Home office if you feel that something is really wrong. This can be done on-line and they are duty bound to act on your complaint. However I have found that these people are more likely to protect their employees and are not transparent or helpful because of this. But it is important to complain where injustice is apparent

[millpond]

What evidence did she provide to prove her ties to Thailand? It is the applicants responsibility to make sure they meet all the requirements and submit all evidence and proof to prove their intentions.

It would help if you posted the refusal text, without any personal info.

She submitted all her biometric docs plus those of her children, evidence of her permanent address, a detailed description of the items that she makes at home plus photographs, name of the person (not a business) to whom she sells these and a letter from this individual (in Thai and English) confirming all this. As she is paid in cash there are no receipts or supporting documents. This is on a casual basis and not temporary or permanent employment basis so there is no taxation involved. She also supplied bank statements for previous 6 months which showed adequate funds to pay for the trip if necessary but I was paying for everything. There are no assets or other ties to Thailand but her dependant children would be staying home which we presumed to be a damn good incentive to return to Thailand. She also has good travel evidence on a previous visa to Sweden,,, all of which should be sufficient to tip the balance of probabilities towards a yes. Can you suggest anything further to change the ECO decision because otherwise it looks that she can never come to the UK.
I will try to insert some of the text from the notice:
" I have noted that the letter you have supplied from xxxxxxxx which states this individual purchases your ribbons for cash, You have not submitted any business documentation to demonstrate your business or any other documents relating to your business venture, I do not find it credible that a business owner in Thailand would not be in a position to produce such documentation. I am unable to rely on the letter you have supplied from xxxxxxxx as evidence of you business and circumstances in the absence of independent information. I have considered the documents you have supplied in Thai script, however, you have not included English translations. It is therefore unclear what these documents are and what they relate to. Based on the documents you have elected to submit in support of your application I am not satisfied that you are employed in the capacity you state and your circumstances in Thailand are as you describe. Furthermore I am not satisfied that you have satisfactorily addressed the concerns which were raised in your last unsuccessful visa application. This undermines the credibility of your visa application as a whole and calls into question your true intentions in the UK"
Can you see any logic here, the thai document mentioned was the letter and this 'was' translated

[pshetye]

Hi there,

It looks like the officer was not happy with the documentation provided in support of the business being done in Thailand. Honestly, I would have also taken the same decision based on the information you have provided as a home business does not qualify for a permanent source of income and since it is not registered and payments are done in cash, this is a high ground for considering the situation as a case of Tax Evasion in the home country. This would be one of the main reason for visa refusal as any such person can come to UK and start working illegally and without paying any taxes.
Also, it is inferred from your information that there is no supporting documents showing any assets owned in the home country which again questions the possibilty of the applicant going back to the home country. Only having dependent children back in the home country is not a strong enough reason as people normally work away from home leaving behind the children at home.
So the situation looks more like the person is intending to come to UK on a tourist visa and then start working here illegally.

I guess most of the people who know how UKBA works, will agree to this and will reject the application in absence of strong document support. It will be difficult to get UK visa in future also if the previous application was rejected on this ground.

[millpond]

Its about time we all took a step back and viewed this immigration problem properly.
We are so busy up to our knees in mud fighting mosquitoes and crocodiles that we forget our real intention was to drain the swamp. What I mean is we struggle to find ridiculous bits of paper, photographs or very personal letters to put before Immigration officers without seriously asking why? The answer is of course to satisfy the ECO that particular rules on immigration set out in the eligibility guidelines are met, and quite rightly so, but they appear to have gone too far in their quest for excellence which can vary from officer to officer, after all what evidential value of a couple holding hands or posing in a family group have when considering a relationship. Or why does having a regular job mean that there is an incentive to return to one's own country. Money in your bank doesn't mean that you wont break the restrictions imposed. There is a balance to be reached and the onus is correctly on the applicant to satisfy the ECO of their intentions but because these officials appear to have set their own personal negative levels they become blinded to the whole principle of the standard of proof required and focus on singular issues which often have minimal consequential bearing overall. The standard of 'balance of probabilities' as set out in law and the Entry Clearance Basics guidelines instructs the officers to consider all the circumstances and to make a decision having regard to all the circumstances. What I have seen so far after exchanging notes with various people is that the discretionary power given to the ECO to vet the applications very rarely indicates that a fair and balanced approach is being used. There is no finite list of documents to support an application and therefore there is an element of discretion given to judge what is needed to satisfy an ECO and therefore if they and their managers disregard the balance issues then we have a system out of control and open to corruption and abuse. It is easy to hide behind a statement of ' I believe he/she would fail to leave at the end of their visit' Where is the transparency in their judgement, why does the omission of a regular well paid job outweigh the support of previous good travel history and sponsorship and other evidence of ties to their home country. Is it just because the ECO is having a bad day and feeling vindictive, perhaps there is a personal dislike of the applicant or even facial prejudice hidden away in the officers makeup. So what I want is for transparency and 'true' compliance with the spirit of the Immigration guidelines and law. If not, why not scrap the law and have a free-for-all as appears is the case today.

[secret.simon]

With respect to the OP, I think that the ECO seems to have got the balance of probabilities right. Remember, the test is that of balance of probabilities that the person applying is a visitor and is not likely to overstay. The travel history is one factor, but only one of many, in that balance.

The person's children in Thailand, it seems to me, are not ties back to Thailand. They could be seen as an incentive to attempt to move to the UK and then attempt to bring them over.

The lack of a formal job or structured, significant business or of property does not help either.

I would say that without more proof of ties to the home country, your friend is unlikely to get a visit visa to the UK. European visas may be an easier option.

[Casa]

It's also not unreasonable to have untranslated supporting documents rejected.

[ouflak1]

You are also running into the fact that the UK frowns upon the whole girlfriend/boyfriend concept as far as foreign visitors are concerned. While such prejudice, for lack of a better word, is not explicitly stated, it seems that it is built into the system by a variety of means. Some of those means may be unwritten guidelines for caseworkers to decide applications. The many posts on this board of failed boyfriend/girlfriend visitor applications lead me to believe that this is totally without regards to race, nationality, religion, or anything like that. It's just the culture of the system.