interesting article (French) about a refused Schengen visa

[ca.funke]

interesting article (in French) about a refused Schengen visa in the French Embassy Bangkok...

http://www.rue89.com/2012/10/04/non-not ... nce-235843

interesting indeed

[sum1]

The Thai girl's problem is a standard one: young, apparently unbound, unfinished education which all easily translate into the refusal given. Invoking 'prostitution' because the Consul had mentioned this earlier in an interviews is unnecessary and just sensationalist.

[ca.funke]

The Thai girl's problem is a standard one: young, apparently unbound, unfinished education which all easily translate into the refusal given. Invoking 'prostitution' because the Consul had mentioned this earlier in an interviews is unnecessary and just sensationalist.

Maybe, but then the case-worker (just like yourself) didn´t take the whole story into account: Which includes the fact that the "young, apparently unbound" girl with "unfinished education" wanted to travel together with her family relations, including a (married) EU-citizen lawyer who happens to live together with the applicant in Thailand for some years now.

After you live with anyone, anywhere, for many years, isn´t it understandable that you might want to show this person where you come from?

Compare that to "young, apparently unbound, unfinished education" and with no apparent link to France, or for that matter any Schengen-state.

[sum1]

Thanks for changing that last paragraph...

The problem is that the embassy is legally required to check the probability that the applicant will return home. Obviously that gives a lot of leeway to embassy staff and can be interpreted in many ways, quite often to the disadvantage of the applicant. From the article I understand that the girl was a cousine to one of the travelling parties which in itself is certainly not a guarantee for anything. Besides, has that family relationship even been demonstrated, any other links to the country of origin? The article only mentions tickets and accomodation documents, not even any financial means or anything else.

I am not sure what you mean in your last paragraph. The absence of links to the destination country will hardly be provable and also doesn't mean that a person would not plan to stay on.

[ca.funke]

...I am not sure what you mean in your last paragraph...

I mean that the applicant in question has demonstrated that she has a genuine interest to visit France. Namely the fact that the EU-citizen lawyer and his (Thai) wife are going on the same trip, and would "just" like to take his wife´s / their cousin with them.

And I propose to compare this case, where an EU-citizen wants to take his wife and her cousin on a trip to his homeland, to any theoretical other case, where a Thai citizen wants to travel to France without any apparent link.

I suggest that the latter would have a higher likelihood (in percentage) wanting to go to France to prostitute herself. (=I´m not proposing in any way that the latter cannot also be genuine.)

[sum1]

I'm slightly confused. I thought the lawyer is Australian? In any case, I refer again to the list of documents that were mentioned in the article. If that was all I can see why it was not sufficient.

Can we drop this prostitution argument as there is no evidence that it played a role in this case.

[ca.funke]

I'm slightly confused. I thought the lawyer is Australian? In any case, I refer again to the list of documents that were mentioned in the article. If that was all I can see why it was not sufficient.

Can we drop this prostitution argument as there is no evidence that it played a role in this case.

Main point is that one visa (for their 50-ish year old friend) was granted, while the same invitation for the same journey was considered not sufficient for the other (20-ish year old) applicant.

So what´s the difference, if not the prostitution-assumption? It becomes even more obvious that this is probably the case, if you follow the link to the interview with the "chef du service des visas" of that very embassy.

Additional info: The author is also British. I think it´s not mentioned in the article, which sort-of is a blow, but I´m 100% certain that this is a fact.

[sum1]

Sorry but now you are just jumping to conclusions... This whole discussion here is based only on the 'testimony' of an involved party which unfortunately means that there may be a lack of objectiveness. We have not enough facts to fairly judge this case. The interview just outlines a visa officer's view into their work. Unsurprisingly, prostitution is a factor in illegal entries. But it is unsound to link that interview directly to the case in hand.

It makes a difference if the applicant is a 50 year old married woman vs. an unmarried 21 year old. Also, if free movement applied here a cousine is not automatically a family member. Both may have been assessed (I speculate now) on their individual merits.

[goatfarmer]

The point of the article is that EU law grants procedural rights to applicants for Schengen visas. Accordingly, a consul cannot make a decision based merely on a suspicion arising from the documentation. He must call the applicant for an interview and hear what he or she has to say. It doesn't matter whether he suspects she is a prostitute, an assassin or planning to jump off the Eifel Tower. The law requires that he confirm his suspicions. That was not done in this case and therefore the refusal was unlawful.

[sum1]

Good. Although the article seems a bit lengthy to bring across this rather simple point.