Englishmum

This report in today's online edition of "The Observer" newspaper fills me with dismay - it seems so unfair

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2...isaac-scotland

BritInParis

Hardly a balanced article.

"It seems he might have ticked a wrong box, though he heard nothing from the case worker assigned to his case in the 10 months it was in their possession."

Which box would that be? Was it asking about terrorism or war crimes? Was the expectation that the caseworker would call him up and say that he would be refused based on his current application and would he like to have another go at it?

The refusal letter was only delivered last month. Plenty of time to appeal and submit a correct application.

Pollyana

Has to be more to it than that surely? "ticked the wrong box" and now they think he's in a sham marriage? I'd love to hear the rest of the story.

rebeccajo

I don't understand the skepticism.

Sure there is probably "more" to the story. Like maybe his package was incomplete, etc. But there is plenty of anecdotal evidence in forums across the internet of non-sensical refusals by UKBA under the current policies. Bucketloads also of ECO's NOT ringing up the applicant to get clarification on questions (when their internal policy clearly permits these phone calls).

Remember - every refusal, even if it eventually results in a successful appeal, is a tick-box in the "refused" category. Which makes their numbers look better towards "reducing migration to the tens of thousands". Or at least makes them look like they are trying.

What is the reason for the language in the refusal about English/common language and a return to the US? I think it is remarkabley cruel.