Background
11. Applicants for visas are interviewed by Entry
Clearance Officers (ECOs), who are either United Kingdom based
Diplomatic Service staff, or Immigration Officers on secondment.
The initial decision to grant or refuse a visa rests in the bulk
of cases with them. They read all the papers relating to a case
in detail, interview applicants and seek further information as
necessary.[15] Entry
clearance sections are managed by UK-based Entry Clearance Managers
(ECMs), who are drawn from the same sources. One of the functions
of ECMs is to review all refusals against which there is no right
of appeal within 24 hours.
12. The broad outline of procedures for handling
Entry Clearance applications at all overseas Posts (the triage
system) are set out below. There may be minor variants between
Posts, for instance, Tier 1 and Tier 2 may in practice be combined
in some cases. Visit applications are dealt with at Tiers 1 to
3. All settlement applications are handled at Tier 4.
Preliminary Assessment[16]
At certain Posts, queuing applicants are seen initially
by an ECO. If they do not have the necessary documentation or
they appear very unlikely to qualify for a visa they are invited,
before a fee is paid, not to proceed with their applications.
If the applicant withdraws, the ECO provides a letter explaining
that the application has not been refused. Applicants are entitled
to proceed with the application despite advice or to return at
a later date.
Tier 1
After the initial assessment (where used) fees are
collected and applicants move to the Tier 1 stage. An ECO will
examine the papers at the counter and if satisfied will authorise
a visa for collection later that day or early the following day.
If necessary an ECO may ask one or two questions to clear up minor
points, but if the ECO has doubts the applicant is moved to a
Tier 2 or Tier 3 interview.
Tier 2
This involves a secondary examination by an ECO at
the counter of less straightforward applications, which are nevertheless
likely to result in the issue of a visa.
Tier 3
Visit applications which the ECO believes may lead
to a refusal are handled at Tier 3. An interview is scheduled
with the applicant within a target time of 10 working days. Questions
and answers are recorded in writing.
Tier 4
All settlement applications. These involve an interview
which is scheduled as quickly as possible. Because of the volume
of settlement applications in certain Posts in the Indian Sub-Continent,
the Tier 4 queue at these is divided into four sub-queues with
different waiting time targets.[17]
13. Entry clearance work accounts for some 15% of
the work of FCO frontline staff.[18]
In 1996, worldwide, about 1,370,000 non settlement visa applications[19]
were received and 40,524 applications for settlement visas. In
the same period about 1,240,000 non settlement visas were issued
and 32,826 settlement visas. Overall nearly 88,500 applications
for visas were refused. Worldwide, in 1997 only one application
in ten for a non-settlement visa required an extended interview
and nearly 70% were dealt with formally (i.e. at Tier 1).[20]
14. Comparable data for New Delhi and Islamabad is
set out in the Table below. This reveals a much higher proportion
of visit applications handled at Tier 3 than the worldwide average.
It was the widely held view of staff involved in entry clearance
work in the places the Sub-Committee visited, both from the United
Kingdom and elsewhere, that their operations in the Indian Sub-Continent
were under considerable pressure from those who wished to emigrate
for economic reasons. One official described the Punjab as an
"inexhaustible source of immigration, legal and illegal".
Given the strict controls on primary immigration into the United
Kingdom and many other countries, many would-be economic migrants
will seek any avenue to get into their chosen country as once
in that country, further applications can be made—for instance,
for extension, settlement or asylum—with the advantage of
already having been admitted. A visit visa is the obvious legal
route to achieve this. Consequently, there is great pressure on
entry clearance staff to ensure that the relevant rules are properly
and consistently applied.
VISA APPLICATIONS: 1997 FIGURES
|
Worldwide
|
New Delhi
|
Islamabad
|
Non settlement visa applications
|
1,370,000 |
52,078 |
23,828
|
Number issued |
1,240,000 |
45,252
|
14,726 |
Number (percentage) refused
|
78,424
(5.9%)
|
6,612
(12.7%)
|
4,838
(24.7%)
|
Settlement visa applications
|
40,524 |
2,059 |
9,183
|
Number issued |
32,826 |
1,912
|
6,804 |
Number (percentage) refused
|
10,026
(23.4%)
|
588
(23.5%)
|
1,136
(14.3%)
|
Non settlement visa applications (% of all applications)
|
- % handled at Tier 1
|
69.0 |
61.6
|
8.2 |
- % handled at Tier 2
|
18.4 |
14.6
|
35.4 |
- % handled at Tier 3
|
9.8 |
20.0
|
36.5 |
- of which % refused
|
53.7 |
61.0
|
30.5 |
Members letters to MVCU
|
7,581 |
980
|
2,405
|
(May-December 1997)
|
|
(12.9%)
|
(31.7%) |
Source: Foreign and Commonwealth Office
15. There is also an obvious incentive for ineligible
applicants to seek false or forged documents to give credibility
to bogus applications. In discussions in both New Delhi and Islamabad,
officials provided strong evidence that false documentation is
widely available and not infrequently submitted in support of
applications. Typical examples include falsified bank statements,
letters of invitation from sponsors, wage slips and wedding invitations.
Those who visited the Sub-Continent heard that some agents recycled
false documents in forms so nearly identical that entry clearance
staff became familiar with the detail. This was not just a problem
for the British High Commissions; it was clear that other Missions
face similar problems. Some of the forged material is difficult
to spot and may relate to documents produced in the Sub-Continent
or in the intended destination country.[21]
This is, however, challenged in the United Kingdom. Mr Chatwin,
of the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants commented to
the Sub-Committee that clear allegations of false documents at
appeal hearings were rare.[22]
He continued:[23]
"..... I do accept that
there is some degree of forgery but how great it is has never
been properly demonstrated by the Foreign Office..... they can
show that it is possible to obtain false documentation but there
is no clear evidence that I have ever seen that there is actually
concerted or frequent abuse of the system and an attempt to bring
forward false or unreliable documentation. So I am not clear that
it is a massive problem".
16. On the basis of the experience of the Members
who visited New Delhi and Islamabad, and material shown to them
there, it is clear that there are serious problems with forged
documentation. This has two consequences. First, there is inconvenience
for genuine applicants when elaborate checks are needed to verify
documents. Second, because of the inherent uncertainties over
the provenance of documentation, the ECO perforce concentrates
on the conduct of the applicant at the interview and on verifiable
facts, such as information given of previous applications and
the outcome of previous visits. It also undoubtedly contributes
to the significantly higher level of cases dealt with at Tier
3 in Islamabad.
15 
