EEA FP refused: Moscow

[Directive/2004/38/EC]

waiting game continues....still no communication. Do they reply emails at all?

The [???] are kinda even more "efficient" than UKBA -)

I miss the key word for the joke!

[a.s.b.o]

waiting game continues....still no communication. Do they reply emails at all?

The [???] are kinda even more "efficient" than UKBA -)

I miss the key word for the joke!

Tribunal ppl

[a.s.b.o]

Hey guys, I have received an update from the Visa-issuing post this morning and wonder what is the best strategy to pursue -

1. use this as another opportunity to present a stripped-down, lean statements of facts

2. prepare my arguments for the hearing instead.

Thanks

------------------------------------------------------------
We have received your parents’ appeal documents from the Tribunal with the Tribunal’s cover IA10 Notice of Pending Appeal dated 15 October 2012.

Your parents’ grounds of appeal will be reviewed at the Moscow Visa Section shortly during the next couple of weeks. We would be grateful if you could confirm if you are going to send any additional documents in support of their appeals or not, as their appeal forms state : ’A bundle of evidence and skeleton argument will be submitted prior to the appeal hearing’.

Just for your information, the appeal procedure is as follows:

Although all the Appeals are to be submitted directly to the Tribunal in the UK, after being registered the documents would normally be sent for review to the Post where the visa application was originally lodged and refused – to the Moscow Visa Section. It is important that at this stage all the appeal supporting documents (if any) are available for review as part of the grounds of appeal.

If the reasons for the refusal are addressed, the original decision may be revoked by the Post and the Appeal in this case will not proceed to the First-tier Tribunal In the UK. The Post would then notify the FT Tribunal of the decision withdrawal.

If the refusal is upheld, the Appeal documents with the Post’s Explanatory Statement would be sent to the Tribunal in the UK for oral hearing or for review on papers (subject to appellant’s choice).

We therefore need to know if you are going to produce any additional documents in support of your parents’ appeals

[keffers]

Sounds like a standard sort of reply.

However, the review is not the appeal so why they want a skeleton argument appears odd - unless they are trying to avoid second-guessing the rationale that you intend to put forward at a hearing.

Its a bit like you asking them to let you see their their review before they actually issue it.

The notice from the Tribunal with a date of hearing will give directions in respect of submitting the appeal bundle, witness statements and perhaps skeleton argument to be sent to the Home Office Presenting Officer (not the Visa-issuing post). Your actual skeleton argument would also address the reasons for the ECM review not overturning the original decision - which you don't yet have (hopefully you won't have to address a refusal).

It is correct to say that documents / explanation addressing refusal issues and outlining the grounds for your appeal should be sent to the post which it appears you have done.

I'd go for both options.

[a.s.b.o]

Hi,

just an update on the matter. We received an email today from the Moscow office stating that the appeal will proceed to the Tribunal in the uk. I kinda knew that they are too proud to admit making silly mistakes in the judgement. the rule of thumb would suggest dirty laundry close to the chest, instead, they want to air it. I don't get their logic.

We did not receive results of the review. Are they meant to send us one?

I am beyond being puzzled

[keffers]

Absolutely. Insist they provide you with the ECM review as required.

http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/polic ... /apl/apl7/

It should address and justify the reasons for refusal and why the additional evidence submitted does not overcome those reasons.

If it appears they will not be provding one, I would send a copy of your request to the Tribunal (without comment) for them place in their records of your case (advising the Post of what you have done).

[a.s.b.o]

If it appears they will not be provding one, I would send a copy of your request to the Tribunal (without comment) for them place in their records of your case (advising the Post of what you have done).

Can you clarify this point please? A request should be sent to the POST requesting a review and if not provided, to inform the tribunal of their non-provision of it?

Thanks

[Directive/2004/38/EC]

asbo, An option to consider: your mom can make a SAR request for her file. http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/navig ... onal-data/ Costs 10 pounds which you can pay. I would have her sign the form and then send it to you.

[a.s.b.o]

asbo, An option to consider: your mom can make a SAR request for her file. http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/navig ... onal-data/ Costs 10 pounds which you can pay. I would have her sign the form and then send it to you.

Hi Directive, what would be the value of that?

[keffers]

The reason for advising the Tribunal is so that they have advance notice of the fact that:

a) the Post is not complying with UKBA's own guidelines

b) It has not attempted to justify its reasoning in light of the additional evidence you have submitted

c) It is not giving you the opportunity to rebutt its further considered reasons for refusal

d) It perhaps cannot justify a refusal

The SAR would force the revelation of any ECM review or demonstrate that there is, in fact, no written review. Whether there would be time to get the information released before the Tribunal date would be an issue.

As a matter of course, I personally would copy to the Tribunal any communications with UKBA/HO that are pertinent to the outcome of any appeal.

[a.s.b.o]

Hi gents

I need an advice. I have written to the Post asking for ECM review. That was sent a week ago. They replied today stating they will provide this to me some time next week. In total, there is a lag of about a week and a half.

I feel that some post-factum tidying up is being carried out. What would be the most effective way to capture that?

1. would that document be sent to the Tribunal with the Post's refusal to review decision which went off a few weeks ago?

2. Would FOY records indicate that?

Thanks a lot

[keffers]

The ECM review should have been in the bundle sent to the Tribunal, which in turn will send you a copy bundle very shortly.

When you get the bundle from the tribunal and the ECM review being processed for you, you will the be able to see whether:

a) A dated ECM review was done and sent to the Tribunal.

b) No ECM review was provided to the tribunal

c) A revised ECM has been provided to you.

Its frustrating waiting but the bundle from the tribunal will reveal much about what has (or has not) been happening.

[a.s.b.o]

Thanks Kef

another question is whether is sponsor is also a representative? I am a sponsor on the appeal form, but not a rep and to date, have not received any correspondence from tribunal. My concern that the bundle will be dispatched to Russia and not here, where it is most needed

[keffers]

In the guidance notes it states that the sponsor can only be a representative if nominated as such.

But if you completed the form on behalf of the applicant you must have declared yourself to be the representative?

There is no facility for the sponsor to sign - only the applicant or the representative.

If in doubt give the appeal centre a call - I have always found them to be helpful.

[a.s.b.o]

In the guidance notes it states that the sponsor can only be a representative if nominated as such.

But if you completed the form on behalf of the applicant you must have declared yourself to be the representative?

There is no facility for the sponsor to sign - only the applicant or the representative.

If in doubt give the appeal centre a call - I have always found them to be helpful.

Thanks KEF

Can the applicants nominate me at this point? and will this nomination deter us from the possibility of "nominating" a proper immigration specialist in court at a future date?

[a.s.b.o]

In the guidance notes it states that the sponsor can only be a representative if nominated as such.

But if you completed the form on behalf of the applicant you must have declared yourself to be the representative?

There is no facility for the sponsor to sign - only the applicant or the representative.

If in doubt give the appeal centre a call - I have always found them to be helpful.

Thanks KEF

Can the applicants nominate me at this point? and will this nomination deter us from the possibility of "nominating" a proper immigration specialist in court at a future date?

any suggestions? ta

[Directive/2004/38/EC]

Find a UKBA form that is used by an applicant to nominate a representative. Get your mom to sign it and send it to you. Also have her send one to the embassy.

[a.s.b.o]

Find a UKBA form that is used by an applicant to nominate a representative. Get your mom to sign it and send it to you. Also have her send one to the embassy.

Embassy or the tribunal? Thanks

[Directive/2004/38/EC]

Personally for this sort of thing, I would send it to each of
(1) the embassy
(2) the tribunal
(3) ukba central services

To each of those I would send both (a) the authorization form, and where relevant (b) a letter from you indicating what you want done

[keffers]

The most important body to inform is the Tribunal.

Name and contact details - and then confirm with the central Tribunal Service that details have been updated.

[a.s.b.o]

Find a UKBA form that is used by an applicant to nominate a representative. Get your mom to sign it and send it to you. Also have her send one to the embassy.

Directive,

No intentions to slack but i did not find the form during the last 15 min search process. Key words of "nomination, representative, form" yield nothing.

Can you perhaps point out where this one can be downloaded?

Many thanks

[Directive/2004/38/EC]

Asbo I do not know where it is. Will take a look.

[keffers]

Filled in an Iat-2 Form once indicating no interpreter required.

The situation changed. A signed letter to the Tribunal with the updated change of circumstances was all that was needed. No idea if a change of representative form exists. I suggest while you are looking for something that might not exist, get a letter to the Tribunal explaining the change of circumstances.

I keep saying it but ring the Central Tribunal for advice t put your mind at rest. I have always found them helpful.

[a.s.b.o]

good morning gents,

a letter from the embassy woke me up. After reading this, i realise i would have better continued sleeping. some of my undergrad students could be better at it. nevertheless -

--------------------


1. The Application

The appellant had sought entry clearance as a dependant relative of an EEA National. The ECO was not satisfied that the appellant met the requirement of European Community Law as the family member of a European Economic Area national who is exercising, or wishes to exercise, rights of free movement under the Treaty of Rome in the United Kingdom.



1. The Appeal

The decision to refuse the application has been reviewed by an Entry Clearance Manager in light of the grounds of appeal as detailed by the appellant on the IAFT-2 appeal form. I have reviewed the decision taking into account the grounds of appeal and additional evidence.

I have reviewed the decision in the light of the grounds of appeal and note that no new evidence has been submitted in support of the appeal, or to address the issues raised in the notice of refusal despite having had the opportunity to do so. I do not consider that the appellant has provided any credible rebuttal of the ECO’s grounds of refusal in their grounds of appeal. I have noted the appellant’s written grounds for appeal but am not satisfied these comments alone adequately address the reasons for refusal.
The appellant has stated that a bundle of evidence and skeleton argument will be submitted prior to the appeal hearing. No new evidence has been received in support of the application despite having the opportunity and despite efforts to contact the appellant in an attempt to clarify what they wish to submit. Following our efforts to obtain all the relevant facts in this case revised appeal grounds were submitted via email (document W refers). Therefore in accordance with the judgment in DR*38 (Morocco) in relation to new information/evidence, any new evidence that was not known to or of reasonable contemplation by the ECO at the time of the decision should therefore form the basis of a new application.

The Tribunal is asked to give no weight to any post-decision documents adduced as evidence when considering the merits of the appeal. The appellant has failed to comply with the requirement of the Procedural Rules.

Given all of the above I maintain the decision to refuse entry clearance.


Sarah Fairbrother
Entry Clearance Manager

------------------

i have three points to take out. i left the name of the ECM so that inefficient bureaucracy would actually be personalised as to unreasonable hurdles caused; secondly, our submission in which i highlighted their errors were ignored and, not surprisingly, not even referred to; thirdly, i highlighted the paragraph i am unsure as to the purpose of.

can you please advise?

thank you gents

[keffers]

It would appear that the ECM is confirming the decision of the ECO by ignoring the errors you pointed out. One can only speculate its all part of the 'reducing immigration game' - even when it simply means delaying the enevitable (assuming applicants don't just give-up).

A case of let the Tribunal make the decision.

At least you know exactly where you stand with your case at the hearing now that the post has shown their hand.

The post decision evidence remark is a crafty play on words. Post decision documentation is only to be disregarded if it relates to post-decision events/evidence.

Documentation relating to pre-decision status but which was only obtained/provided after the initial decison is perfectly acceptable.

eg bank statements showing the account balance before the decision but obtained after it was made.