VERITAS THE TEAM

Immigration mega-fraud in Canada by chinese

2016-08-31T10:30:00.002+05:30

Immigration mega-fraud: the rich Chinese immigrants to Canada who don’t really want to live there.

The case of Xun “Sunny” Wang, a Vancouver-area consultant jailed for masterminding the biggest immigration fraud in Canadian history, is startling in scope.

Wang, 46, who was sentenced on October 23 to seven years in prison, conducted his fraud on an almost industrial scale, as he helped rich Chinese clients maintain Canadian permanent-resident status and later obtain citizenship.

Chinese passports both real and fake were shipped in bulk to the mainland, where professional forgers would doctor them to make it look like their owners had been present in Canada when they had actually been in China. Wang would set up his clients in fake jobs at his firms, printing business cards for them and issuing pay slips - adding insult to injury, their fake salaries were so low his wealthy clients were able to file tax returns that allowed them to claim from Canadian coffers tax benefits intended for the working poor.

Letters from schools and lawyers were also forged, as well as lease agreements. Fake mailing addresses and phone numbers were set up.

From 2006 until his arrest in 2014, Wang and his employees at his unlicenced New Can and Wellong immigration consultancies in Richmond are known to have helped 1,200 clients cheat immigration rules. In all, they paid Wang C$10 million (HK$59 million) for his illegal services, the Provincial Court of British Columbia found.

Yet the most significant aspect of Wang’s case is neither the scale of his operation, nor its sophistication and audacity.

It is the motivation of his clients.

Immigration fraud as the public typically understands it involves various schemes to allow unqualified people to live and work in Canada.

Yet, bizarrely, Wang’s case involved clients willing to pay tens of thousands of dollars to AVOID living in Canada when they were perfectly entitled to do so, having already obtained permanent resident status.

Understanding their motivation is key to understanding how Wang found such a steady stream of customers.

Wang’s clients wanted to be able to maintain their PR status without actually living in the Great White North, since their jobs and businesses were back in China. And by faking their presence in Canada they would eventually be able to claim Canadian citizenship, with all the privileges it confers, including the right to live in Canada – eventually.

Immigration mega-fraud in Canada by chinese

2016-08-31T10:30:00.000+05:30

Immigration mega-fraud: the rich Chinese immigrants to Canada who don’t really want to live there.

The case of Xun “Sunny” Wang, a Vancouver-area consultant jailed for masterminding the biggest immigration fraud in Canadian history, is startling in scope.

Letters from schools and lawyers were also forged, as well as lease agreements. Fake mailing addresses and phone numbers were set up.

Yet the most significant aspect of Wang’s case is neither the scale of his operation, nor its sophistication and audacity.

It is the motivation of his clients.

Immigration fraud as the public typically understands it involves various schemes to allow unqualified people to live and work in Canada.

Understanding their motivation is key to understanding how Wang found such a steady stream of customers.

Real case study for family visitor visa UK

2016-03-14T10:28:00.001+05:30

Realcase studies about family visitor visa to UK

The applicant: an Indian national residing in Kenya applied to visit her sister-in-law in the UK for one month; stated that she was a dependant of her husband, a Kenyan national, who had submitted a similar application at the same time; provided a range of supporting evidence to demonstrate financial and personal circumstances in Kenya, and a letter of invitation with supporting evidence from their UK sponsor; was refused entry clearance, because of a lack of evidence of her financial circumstances and immigration status in Kenya.

VERITAS found that ECO had failed to consider all the positive evidence submitted by the applicant in support of their application

A good customer service that a fee-paying applicant should reasonably expect to receive but embassy fail.

The applicant was dependent on her spouse, who was also applying for entry clearance at the same time.

The same evidence submitted for both applications satisfied the entry clearance officer of the husband’s financial circumstances, but was not considered satisfactory for the applicant.

It was Straightforward enquiries , either by telephone or email given in application form could have been made to clarify the applicant’s current immigration status.

Result :

Immigration authorities later agreed that positive financial evidence had been disregarded, and the applicant’s financial circumstances should have been considered in line with her spouse;

Further accepted that the ECO should have deferred the application, as set out in guidance, to give the applicant an opportunity to provide evidence establishing her immigration status;

Confirmed that the applicant had been issued with a visa on re-application great victory !!!

Can I work while my visa application is being considered?

2015-09-22T20:38:00.000+05:30

If you have a visa which is about to expire, and submit a new application inside the UK before this visa expires, Section 3C leave (of the Immigration Act 1971) “extends” your previous visa for as long as it takes to make a decision.It does not matter if your visa expires and you have not heard from the Home Office (UK Visas and Immigration) – because you applied on time. In this case your status remains the same as before, with the same conditions, including the rights to work.

Section 3C of the Immigration Act 1971 is an important provision for any migrant in the UK. This section allows a person who has submitted an in-time application to extend their stay in the UK (i.e. if they submit their application before their leave expires) not to become an overstayer while their application remains outstanding. This means that if an individual submits an application when they have leave to remain, and the Home Office do not make a decision on that application until after their leave would have expired, their leave is automatically extended with the same conditions. This means that people do not become temporary overstayers while their applications are outstanding and they do not lose their right to work (if they previously had one). Periods of time spent with leave extended by s3C also count towards continuous long residence for the purpose of settlement.

However, depending on what happens after the application is submitted, it can be complicated to work out the date on which someone’s leave actually ends. This has been further complicated by changes brought in by the Immigration Act 2014. This can be important for someone who has been unsuccessful in their application and they want to submit a fresh application within 28 days of becoming an over-stayer or someone who wants to leave the UK within 90 days of becoming an over-stayer to avoid a ban from the UK.

non european immigrants remove on the theory of ‘deport first, appeal later’ measures start to have an impact

2015-05-15T22:24:00.000+05:30

Powers introduced in the government’s flagship Immigration Act are cracking down on the appeals conveyor belt used by criminals to delay their removal from the UK. And more than 300 have already been removed – with nearly 500 more currently going through the system.

Non-suspensive appeals came into force in July, meaning Home Office officials can deport criminals before they have the opportunity to launch spurious claims under the Human Rights Act or falsely claim asylum.

Those deported then have the right to launch an appeal from their own country, rather than clogging the British justice system – costing UK taxpayers time and money in fighting the cases through the courts.

And the new powers have seen a number of criminals deported despite having family members in the UK – reinforcing the government’s stance that the right to a family life should not override the rights of wider society.

Immigration and Security Minister James Brokenshire said:

Foreign nationals who abuse our hospitality by committing crime in Britain should be in no doubt of our determination to deport them.

The countless appeals and re-appeals lodged by criminals attempting to cheat the system cost us all money and are an affront to British justice.

Non-suspensive appeals are allowing us to kick out foreign criminals more quickly and more efficiently than ever before and I want to see them used as often as possible.

Alongside tougher crime fighting measures, improved protection at the border and greater collaboration between police and immigration enforcement officers, the Immigration Act will help us deliver an immigration system that is fair to the people of this country and legitimate immigrants and tough on those who flout the rules.

The Act has also slashed the number of appeals available to foreign criminals from 17 to just four. And they have been denied the right to appeal against deportation simply because they do not agree with our decision.

Under the new rules, once a decision has been taken to deport a foreign criminal they will have to lodge any appeal and all papers their lawyers think are relevant to their attempts to stay from outside the country. This is putting a stop to delaying tactics often employed by criminals desperate to thwart justice. Previously, it was commonplace for criminals to submit to the court reams of new, unconsidered ‘evidence’ creating legal delays while government lawyers studied the new paperwork.

The non-suspensive appeals measures will work alongside other powers in the Immigration Act to speed up the justice system and make it more efficient.

Note:

The figures in this article are taken from internal management information compiled by Home Office officials (between 28 July 2014, when the first Immigration Act Commencement Order was laid and when the amendments to the EEA Regulations came into effect, and 17 December 2014). They are provisional and so subject to revision.

All of these cases in this article are associated with non-suspensive appeals for deportees. These are contained in Section 17(1) and 17(3) of the Immigration Act 2014 (certification of human rights claims made by persons liable to deportation) and, in respect of EEA nationals, in Regulations 24AA and 29(3) of the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006 (as amended) (human rights considerations and interim orders to suspend removal, and effect of appeals). Regulation 29(3) provides that an appeal against a deportation decision no longer automatically suspends removal proceedings.

Student visa system fraud exposed in visa extension

2014-12-28T18:01:00.000+05:30

The Home Office has suspended English language tests run by a major firm after BBC Panorama uncovered systematic fraud in the student visa system.

Secret filming of government-approved exams needed for a visa shows candidates having tests faked for them.

ETS, which sets the exams but does not appoint the invigilators, told Panorama it "does everything it can to detect and prevent" cheating.

Home Secretary Theresa May said the BBC's evidence was "very shocking".

Panorama saw candidates for tests set by ETS, one of the largest language testing firms in the world, being replaced by "fake sitters" and having answers read out to them.

'Poor English'

For the last year, the programme has been filming undercover, following a network of agents helping people obtain student visa extensions through fraud.

Each year, around 100,000 non-EU students get their visas to stay in the UK extended.

The programme sent non-EU students - who were already in the UK legally - undercover.

They posed as bogus students with poor English, who wanted to remain in the UK to work illegally.

One went undercover at an immigration consultancy called Studentway Education in Southall, west London.

The BBC was told Studentway could get around compulsory English tests, even if applicants spoke no English.

Director Varinder Bajarh said: "Someone else will sit the exam for you. But you will have to have your photo taken there to prove you were present."

The researcher was told a "guaranteed pass" would cost £500 - about three times the proper fee for the exam.

After paying, she was sent to sit the exam at Eden College International in east London, a government-approved exam centre.

She was set up on a computer to sit the visa application test, called TOEIC, but never actually took the exam.

Instead, each of the 14 candidates had a "fake sitter" who took the spoken and written tests for them.

All the real candidates had to do was wait to have their photograph taken - as proof they were there.

Answers read out

A week later, the undercover applicant returned to the college to sit another, multiple-choice, exam.

This time she had to take it herself, but the invigilator simply read out all the correct answers.

It took the two dozen or so candidates just seven minutes to complete the two-hour exam.

A few days later, the researcher returned to Studentway and was given a TOEIC certificate, showing she had passed.

She had scored highly in all three tests - getting 100% in her spoken English.

Eden College International strongly denies any prior knowledge of, or complicity in, the frauds.

But it said that early last year it investigated allegations against three freelance TOEIC exam invigilators and did not renew their contracts. It said it took swift action to improve invigilation and monitoring.

The TOEIC exam is set and marked by ETS, one of the biggest English language testing companies in the world.

While it does not appoint the invigilators, before its suspension ETS told Panorama it "does everything it can to detect and prevent rare instances of dishonest test administrators or test takers".

A notice on its website in the UK said that the Home Office has requested ETS to suspend various tests temporarily in the UK related to immigration purposes.

It also said candidates who had appointments to take a test for immigration purposes would be contacted to process a refund.

The government said it had suspended two colleges identified by Panorama and all further English language tests done through ETS in the UK.

Bank statements

Panorama researchers were also sold fake bank details to show they had enough funds to stay in the UK.

Immigration rules mean non-EU students face restrictions on the amount of paid work they can do and need a bank statement to show they can cover their fees and living costs.

One of the agents at Studentway, Vinod Kumar, told a Panorama researcher the agency had a solution.

He said it would use its contacts in India to find "someone else with the same name, whose account and money will be used for you. So when there is need for verification it's verified for you till you get your visa."

Mr Kumar was proposing to steal the bank details of someone with the same name as the researcher and pass it off as hers.

Two weeks later she received a bank statement from Studentway that made it appear she had tens of thousands of pounds.

Mr Bajarh denied that Studentway was involved in any fraud. He also said that Mr Kumar had never worked at the agency, but may have used the office without his knowledge.

However, Mr Bajarh is clearly present with Mr Kumar in some of the BBC's footage inside Studentway's premises.

Speaking to the BBC Radio 4's Today programme Home Secretary Theresa May said: "I'm grateful to Panorama for the work they have done in showing this abuse."

She said the government was taking action to change an immigration system "which was out of control when we inherited it", and 700 colleges had already been stopped from bringing students in from outside the EU.

Mrs May said she was looking at introducing more face-to-face interviews and called on the educational sector to do more to tackle fraud.

Shadow home secretary Yvette Cooper said: "This investigation shows Theresa May is presiding over a failing immigration system which too often focuses on the wrong thing and where illegal immigration is a growing problem."

Real Case Study :- Business Visa Refusal later overturned by Home office

2014-10-28T20:31:00.000+05:30

Real Case Studies :

The applicant was refused entry clearance who had applied to enter the UK as a business visitor; had been issued, and complied with the conditions of, a business visit visa on two previous occasions, and had travelled extensively to other European countries; submitted a range of supporting evidence, which included documents relating to his transport business along with a letter of invitation from a UK-based business selling shoes and clothing BUT The ECO was not satisfied that he had provided evidence that his business was functioning satisfactorily, the nature of his business was compatible with that of the company he intended to visit in the UK.

VERITAS ADMITTED :

The applicant had previously been issued with a business visa on the basis of his existing business, and the applicant’s travel history indicated that he had complied with the conditions of the visa by leaving the UK. This positive evidence was not taken into account by the ECO during the decision-making process, nor was it referred to in the refusal notice

We do not agree that the applicant’s business can be considered to be incompatible with that of his UK sponsor’s business. We consider that the decision was flawed.

RESULT:

After writing to HIGH COMMISSION: The Home Office agreed with comments and arguments assessment and stated ‘The extensive travel history to UK and Europe outweighed the ECO’s concerns and on balance this application should have been issued’. agreed to overturn the decision and contact the applicant to offer to issue the visa.

IMMIGRATION CASE PAY OUT FOR INDIAN WOMAN UK VISA REJECTION REFUSAL

2014-08-06T19:06:00.001+05:30

UK Immigration Case: Radha Patel v Secretary of State for the Home Dept

This week, a new case from the Administrative Court Radha Naran Patel v SSHD,regarding the unlawful treatment of a detainee at Heathrow airport. Radha, an Indian national claimed unlawful detention between 23 May and 28 May 2011, for the deliberate and malicious ill-treatment when she was interrogated and detained at Heathrow airport.

Deputy Judge Anthony Thornton: Applicant was Falsely and Unlawfully Detained

Radha, a 34 year houswife from Gujarat State, India, was travelling to the UK to visit her younger sister who emigrated to the country in 2003. She was planning to stay in the UK for three months, with her sister sponsoring her, which included paying for all her travel and living expenses. When Radha arrived at Heathrow airport, she was subjected to unfair conduct and prejudiced assumptions. The Immigration Officer assumed that she came to the UK to work and not visit family, therefore believing that she would stay in the country once her visa expired.

Radha, lodged a Judicial Review (JR) against a the Secretary of State for Home Affairs on 16 March 2012. At the hearing she claimed that she was unlawfully detained between 23 and 28 May 2011, during this detention she was subject to ‘malicious and deliberate unlawful conduct’, by an Immigration Officer (IO) and a Chief Immigration Officer (CIO). Therefore breaching her rights under Articles 5, 8 & 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Radha made a series of allegations against the SSHD, which included the following:

Her leave to enter the UK was unlawfully suspended and then unlawfully cancelled;
She was unlawfully refused entry to the UK;
She was temporarily detained pending further investigations;
She was subjected to a further interview;
She was unlawfully detained pending her removal;
She was interviewed in Hindi, a language that she is not familiar with;
Detained without explanation; and
No decision being served upon her.

Deputy Judge Anthony Thornton at London’s High Court, said that he believes when Radha was interviewed at the airport there was an attempt to ‘bully, frighten and cajole her’, to making statements that were not her truth.

“The total effect of these actions and omissions was to greatly interfere with her family visit, cause her to be falsely and unlawfully detained, humiliate, bully and harass her, cause her considerable stress and anxiety over a 10-month period, further harass her by using unlawful means to involve her in three different sets of legal proceedings, greatly to interfere with her family life with her parents and siblings in the UK and with her husband and two children in Gujarat and prevent her returning to her family against her will for a period of five months after the conclusion of the planned period of her family visit.”

Radha Awarded £125,000 for Damages & Breach of Human Rights Act

Deputy Judge Anthony Thornton, noted that although the period of detention was reasonably short it does not excuse the nature of the breaches and unlawful acts against the applicant. Describing those involved in the interrogating and detaining as ‘callous and deliberate behavior’.

“It is to be deeply regretted that this behaviour was meted out to a wholly blameless family visitor who was an adult, female, vulnerable lone traveller whose sole purpose in entering the UK was to pay an extended family visit to her parents and other close members of her family who were permanently resident in the UK and three of whom were British nationals who she had not previously visited in the UK. For her, it was intended to be a family visit of a lifetime that turned into a nightmare of unimagined proportions. That nightmare was only rescued and bought to an end by her courage and determination and that of her family members with the assistance of the professional expertise of her Counsel and legal representative.”

Radha, was awarded £110,000 in general and aggravated damages, as well as breach of the Human Rights Act. She was also awarded a further £15,000 in exemplary damages. The judge has given the Home the right to appeal this decision.

Appeals - visas and entry clearance

2014-01-22T12:05:00.001+05:30

This page explains how you can appeal against an immigration decision made outside the UK or at the UK border.

If you are in the UK and want to appeal please see the Appeals for extension, switching and settlement applications page for further information.

If your application was refused under the points-based system, this does not attract a full right of appeal. A different procedure, known as an administrative review is in place. Applicants should not use the appeal process described below to request an administrative review. See the Administrative review page for further information.

If we refuse your application, we will send you a letter informing you of our decision. This is called your 'Notice of Immigration Decision' which will explain your appeal rights.

Applicants for some types of visa have full rights of appeal if their application is refused. The most common types of visa applicant with full rights of appeal are:
partners, children and other dependent relatives of British citizens or settled persons, who are seeking to come to the UK with a view to settlement; and
family visitors, who want to visit qualifying family members in the UK and applied before 25 June 2013.

If you have the right of appeal, we will send you an IAFT-2 appeal form with your notice of decision. We will also send an information document explaining how to complete the appeal form.

In most cases, you must pay a fee when you make an appeal. To find out what the fee is and when it needs to be paid, see the guidance accompanying your notice of decision or the Ministry of Justice website.
Making an appeal

If you want to appeal and you have the right to appeal, you must:
complete form IAFT-2 and send it with your notice of decision to the address or fax number at the bottom of this page; or
complete and submit an online appeal form on the Ministry of Justice website .

You must complete the form in English.

You should explain why you think we were wrong to refuse your application. It is in your interest to complete the form as thoroughly as possible. You must provide a current contact address.

If you appeal using form IAFT-2, you or your representative (if you have one) must sign the form or it will be returned to you.

If you have documents supporting your grounds for appeal, you should send these with the form. These documents must be in English or accompanied by a certified translation. Use standard A4-sized paper only for your supporting documents, and do not use staples. Paperclips are acceptable.

Your form must be received no later than 28 calendar days after the date when you received your notice of decision.
What happens next?

You appeal will be accepted when the First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) (FTTIAC) receives your payment. The FTTIAC will then notify the visa office that refused your application, by sending them a notice of receipt.

An entry clearance manager (ECM) at the visa office will review our decision to refuse your application, in light of your appeal form and any supporting documents that you have sent. If the ECM is satisfied that your application meets the Immigration Rules, they may overturn our original decision and issue you with a visa or entry clearance.

If the ECM does not overturn the decision, an entry clearance officer (ECO) will write a statement explaining why the ECM has upheld the decision to refuse your application. We will send this and all your papers (known as 'the appeal bundle') to the FTTIAC. We will prepare and send your appeal bundle within:
20 working days for non-settlement and family visitor cases; or
90 working days for settlement cases.

These timings exclude postage times to and from the visa office.

The FTTIAC will:
list your appeal for hearing;
send copies of all the relevant papers (including the ECO's written statement) and supporting documents to us and to your representative or sponsor; and
advise you of the date and time of your hearing. We have no control over when your appeal will be heard.

An immigration judge will hear your appeal in the UK. When considering your appeal, the judge will look at all the evidence provided by your representative and by the ECO. He or she will determine your appeal on the individual details of your case in line with the Immigration Rules.

The judge will inform the FTTIAC of his or her decision no more than 10 days after the hearing. The FTTIAC will then send that decision (known as a 'determination') to everyone involved.
If your appeal is successful

If the judge allows your appeal, his or her determination will be sent to the relevant visa section, which will in turn contact you.

It can take up to 4 weeks for determinations to reach the relevant visa section, and a further 8 weeks for them to be processed. The visa section will write to you using the contact details provided on your appeal form.

Please do not contact the visa section until 12 weeks after the date when you or your representative received the judge's decision. This date will be stated on your written determination.

Do not contact the FTTIAC or our Croydon contact centre about your appeal after you have received your allowed determination. They will not be able to issue you with a visa or deal with your enquiry.
Contact the First-tier Tribunal

To submit an appeal by post or fax, send it to:

First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber)
PO Box 6987
Leicester
United Kingdom
LE1 6ZX

Fax: 044 0 116 249 4214

To find out about the progress of an appeal, or for more information about the appeals system, contact:

First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber)
PO Box 6987
Leicester
United Kingdom
LE1 6ZX

Phone: 0044 0300 123 1711
Fax: 044 0 116 249 4192
Email: Customer.Service@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk
Fee awards

If you have paid a fee for your appeal and are successful the Tribunal may make a fee award against the UK Border Agency up to the amount of the application fee that you paid; either £80.00 for a determination on the papers or £140.00 for an oral hearing.

Fee award payments are credited to the bank account or credit card that the payment was made from. If your account is no longer in use we will contact you for alternative bank account details. You will need to give us this information as soon possible to avoid a delay in payment.

We will process your payment as quickly as possible, but if you have not received your fee award after 60 days please email:appealsfeesenquiries@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk. You should quote your Home Office and appeal reference number and the date the fee award was made in the email subject. Please do not send any financial details to this email address.

source : http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/

TOP TEN COMMON REASONS FOR A UK VISA REFUSAL

2013-11-21T21:15:00.002+05:30

Every month veritas the team is being approached by clients to assist them with a UK visa refusal and appeal. Following the changes to the settlement route introduced previously this visa category has a rather high refusal rate. Similarly, visitor visas are probably the most commonly refused visa applications. The reasons for refusal vary from case to case however insufficient documents seem to be the most common issue. We would like to share our wisdom and made you aware of common pitfalls:

1. Understanding of the rules and requirements

The rules and requirements are constantly changing and at VERITAS THE TEAM , we follow the UKBA news and constantly update ourselves on the changes to the regulations. The team has worked in immigration field for several of years in UK and in INDIA but we know that the law is constantly evolving and it is vital for us to stay ahead of those changes. From our experience we know that the lack of full understanding of the rules often leads to an incorrect/incomplete application being submitted.

If you are submitting your application always check the immigration rules and the guidance. Relying on information from the past might not be the best approach. Read the rules carefully and once you understand the process you should be ready to start working on your application.

2. Documents

This one shouldn’t need much explaining, everyone knows that original documents must be submitted in support of the application. However, as you probably know the UKBA website only provides generic documents check list which are not tailored to the applicant’s specific circumstances. There is no such thing as “One fits ALL in immigration”. If your friend/brother/cousin submitted an application using exactly the same documents this does not mean your application will be successful too. Entry Clearance Officer (ECO) reviews the forms and supporting evidence and makes a decision on the basis of the information in the bundle. He/she will not nessarilly call or email you to ask questions regarding your case. If the circumstances or your situation is not clear to them they will refuse the case without any further queries. They believe that you are responsible to provide them with all the necessary documents/information to allow them reach a decision swiftly.

3. Accuracy

Accuracy is the key to success. Again, fairly obvious point but surprisingly this often is a reason which leads to an application being rejected. Always fill in the form carefully and double-check all the information. Make sure you are consistent when providing information in your personal statements.

4. Using correct form and paying the fee

Again, this is as simple as that. Using incorrect form or lack of completed Appendixes is likely to lead to a refusal but also loss of the fees paid. The immigration authorities will not refund you the fees paid even when you pick the wrong immigration category. The Visa centre puts the onus on the applicant to make sure the form and the fees paid are correct.

5. Agents – you get what you paid for

Don’t let the price be only factor in your decision making process. As with every service, you get what you pay for.

There are many advisors and consultants in the UK and overseas providing UK immigration advice. There are highly reputable providers with excellent track record who will guide you through the process and deliver on their promises. However, we saw many examples of poor quality of work, which resulted in loss of money and precious time. Not to mention those cases where the client had to leave the UK because of incompetent advice received from their advisor/solicitor. It is important to pick the right person for you. You are likely to spend at least few weeks working with them to prepare your application so it is important that you have a good working relationship. Make sure you speak to few reputable agensts or consultant, get quotes and pay attention to how quickly they respond (this will be a clear indication of the speed of service you are likely to receive). Plus, if the agent/consultant does not ask questions about your situation and promises you visa without seeing documents/knowing your circumstances. Don’t make a decision solely on the price. Some agents undercut the price to make a sale but are you really sure you want THE CHEAPEST service ?

6. Advice from friends/family

We all value advice and recommendations received from friends and family. They are trying to help you through this stressful time and offer a valuable assistance. However, unless your friend/family member is a qualified immigration expert/lawyer fo immigration field / solicitor/advisor on the UK immigration law, Veritas the team would recommend that you do your own review of the law/get an expert to at least review your application before submitting it to the UKBA/Visa Centre.

7. Deception – even a small inconsistency in the application can have a big impact on the final outcome

Make sure that your details in the form are correct and ALWAYS be honest in your statements. We stress to the client’s that deception / misleading statements can lead to a 12 months to 10 years ban as per the section 320 7 (A) and 320 7 (B). Plus, once the information is found to be inconsistent it will be more difficult to obtain an approval in the future.

8. Advice provided by the UKBA staff

Be weary of the information you receive over the phone especially when the person does not want to disclose their full name. The staff answering calls at the UKBA General Enquiry line are not qualified to provide immigration advice. They are only authorized to answer simple questions that are straightforward and don’t relate to any particular cases. As we know from our own experience the advice received is often inconsistent or just simply wrong. The same can apply to ‘helpful’ staff at the ports of entry.

9. Presentation

We know from experience that the presentation is important. We submit clients’ application in a plastic bundle with a cover letter explaining under what immigration rules you apply and how our client meets the requirements. The cover letter can be used to address any concerns/issues or unusual circumstances, which will help an ECO to reach a decision on the case.

10. Copies

Before you send your documents to the Visa Centre/UKBA always make copies of all documents and passports for your records. This is in case you need any of the documents after the submission. Also, some of the documents such as forms/letters of support will be kept by the authorities and it is important if the application is unsuccessful and you wish to appeal.

It is best to get it right the first time around so preparation and planning in advance is important. Do your research and spend time looking at the rules and requirements? If in doubt, seek professional advice. It will save you time and if you appointed a reputable agent/solicitor they should put you at ease and assurance that the process with go smoothly.

Goodluck www.visarejection.com

how your british passport is made

2013-09-01T10:20:00.000+05:30

http://youtu.be/Ha5VPXZ3ILs

visa process approval for UK in INDIA

2013-08-29T10:23:00.000+05:30

Kindly visit the video of - behind the scenes look at the visa approval process in the British High Commission INDIA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NfUbf5lNekw

Scholarships and financial support for international students like Indians

2013-08-28T15:28:00.000+05:30

Scholarships, grants, bursaries, financial awards, loans… there are many financial support options for international students who wish to study on a UK course. Here are some tips for you:

On this Education UK website, you can search through thousands of scholarships using the Find your UK education tool at the top of this page. Choose 'Scholarships' from the menu, then select your subject area. This tool doesn't list all UK scholarships, but it is an excellent place to start.
Demand for scholarships is always greater than supply. To maximise your chances, apply as early as you can.

In addition, have a look at the websites for the schools, colleges and universities you are interested in. They may have a scheme that is not listed here.

There are a number of scholarship schemes run by governments, charities and other organisations. Ask your Ministry of Education, your local British Council office or your teacher if they know of any schemes for students in your country. Here are a few global schemes you may want to have a look at: Chevening UK government scholarships, Commonwealth Scholarships, Erasmus Scholarshipsand Royal Society grants.
In 2012, around 33% of pupils at UK independent schools received financial assistance. Visit theScholarship Search tool at the Independent Schools Yearbook to get searching.

Depending on your nationality, you may be eligible for a loan or financial support from the UK government. Visit the UKCISA website for more details.

Postgraduate studentships can be found via a number of websites, including Postgraduate Studentships and Scholarship Programs.

Evaluating costs

Even with financial support, it is likely that you will have to pay some costs yourself. You may have to pay for travel, accommodation and part of the course fee yourself. Find out what is and isn’t covered by your scholarship or financial support scheme.

Financial difficulties

The right time to look for financial support is before you enrol on your course. It can be very hard to find funding, particularly mid-way through the academic year.

If you experience financial difficulties during your course, please visit UKCISA’s website. They offer lots of detailed information and a student advice telephone service.

Also, talk to staff at your school, college or university – for example, your student welfare or Students' Union officers.

Immigration's rules for student graduates part of reason for scams in newzealand

2013-08-26T19:23:00.000+05:30

The immigration policy requiring international student graduates to be in management positions before they can be considered for residency is flawed and partly to blame for widespread migrant fake job scams, an AUT researcher says.

Multiple cases involving the sale of fake and non-existent senior position jobs to migrant workers are being investigated by the Labour Inspectorate.

Researcher Danae Anderson said the practice was widespread and many of the students who paid for the jobs end up as victims of labour exploitation.

"There are not jobs out there for the locals, and Immigration's requirement of a management level job ... is simply impossible, especially for those who do not have local work experience and whose English is not up to scratch," Ms Anderson said.

"The real problem here is that the policy is flawed and the expected level at which these graduating international students are to enter the job market is unrealistic.

"Many have become victims of exploitation as a result, being held ransom by employers because of their visa conditions and paying thousands of dollars for non-existent and fake management position jobs."

Immigration New Zealand rejects Ms Anderson's claim that the skilled migrant policy, which requires migrants to obtain skilled or managerial jobs before they can be approved residence, is flawed.

Under the graduate job search work scheme, students who have completed their qualifications in New Zealand are given up to 12 months to find a job and apply for a further visa.

"The purpose ... is for students to gain work experience that may enable them to obtain the skilled job and thereby qualify for residence,"said agency spokesman Marc Piercey.

"It is our view that the policy is not flawed. New Zealand rightly selects only the best and most skilled people for residence."

Mr Piercey said the requirements were there to ensure migrants made "maximum economic contribution here, add to New Zealand's overall skill base and do not compete for lower-level jobs with New Zealanders".

He said the agency was aware that some with unrealistic expectations were vulnerable to abuse by unscrupulous employers and others.

Since the Herald report about complaints to the Employment Relations Authority about E-Advance Limited, a company which helps international student graduates find jobs, more complainants have come forward.

It is alleged that the company has a "pay your own wage" scheme, where employees pay the company a lump sum on the understanding that it would be repaid as wages and taxes as proof of employment to help them gain residency.

One worker, originally from Sri Lanka, paid the company a job search fee of $10,000 and a further $5000 for broker and training services for his warehouse assistant administrator job.

Migrant workers union Unemig said fresh complaints are expected to be filed against the same employer this week.

The company has previously said it has done nothing wrong.

Graduate job search policy

*12 months for students who complete qualifications in NZ to find a job.
*Further visa granted under study to work if job relevant to qualification is found.
*A skilled job, generally managerial, professional or technical, is required for permanent residence.

refusal UK visa - failure to make reasonable decision by ECO

2013-07-24T15:18:00.000+05:30

Real case studies

The applicant had applied for leave to remain on the basis of her marriage to a British Citizen and had extant leave to remain as a highly skilled migrant worker indicated that she satisfied the English language requirement by virtue of her degree taught in English at Brunel University.The UKBA refused the application on the basis that she did not satisfy the English language requirements of the Immigration Rules. what to do ?

Veritas noted that :-

In reality that The Agency had previously granted the applicant leave to remain as a Highly Skilled Migrant Worker. To be satisfied of her eligibility, they had sight of her degree certificate. However despite having this information on the caseworking system, they went on to refuse the application. The decision to refuse was therefore unreasonable.It is also a cause for concern that the caseworker wrongly identified the type of exemption the applicant was seeking to rely on.ultimately they admitted and allow the visa.

why biometrics required ?

2013-07-19T15:01:00.000+05:30

Some one asked why UK embassy required the biometric system for digital photo and fingerprints ?
Here is the explanation

BIOMETRICS - VERITAS

Are tougher visa rules putting Indian students off UK?

2013-02-18T19:55:00.000+05:30

The number of Indian students studying in the UK fell for the first time the last year, many say due to changes in visa rules.

Ministers have come under fire for tightening the rules on post-study leave to remain in the UK which some businesses and universities believe is deterring people from applying.

As David Cameron prepares to visit the India, looks at how the issue affecting Indians' perception of Britain. pleas visit following link and comment

veritas

New application forms for UK visa after 13/12/2012

2012-12-22T19:31:00.001+05:30

New application forms will be effective on or after 13/12/2012, kindly keep in mind before applying

Tier 1 (Exceptional talent) form
Tier 1 (Investor) form
Tier 1 (Graduate entrepreneur) form
Tier 1 (Entrepreneur) form
Tier 1 (General) form
NTL form
TOC form
SET(M) form
SET(BUS) form
SET(DV) form
SET(F) form
SET(O) form
DRF1 form
FLR(M) form
FLR(O) form
FLR(BUS) form
FLR(P) form
BRP(RC) form
DL (formerly HPDL) form
BR(1) form
BR(3) form

You can download the forms from this website and you should use the new forms if you apply on or after 13 December.

In line with paragraph 34(i) of the Immigration Rules, we will continue to accept applications made on the previous version of these forms up to and including 3 January 2013. We will consider any application submitted on or after 13 December 2012 under the revised Immigration Rules regardless of which version of the application form is sent.

Tier 4 – student visa extension case Failure to Apply rule Flexibility

2012-12-09T21:23:00.000+05:30

Real case study 17 , after such a long time !!!

The applicant previously studied for a BSc in Computer Information Systems; made a new application to extend his leave to study for BSc in Computer Networking; the “CAS” did not state that this represented educational progression or complemented a previous course of study at the same level as required by the Immigration regulations.

VERITAS found that Evidential Flexibility could have been used in this case because, even if academic progression was not being made, the fresh course could complement the previous course of study;

After intimation, Home office then examined the case again and told the decision was based on a previous out–of-country visa application having been made for a level 6 course and the current application was also at level 6; examined the records and found that the previous course was actually at Level 5 and therefore the new course did constitute academic progression;

At last agreed that Evidential Flexibility should have been used in this case and that the case would be reviewed later Applicant got visa extended and currently enjoying student life

uk visa rejection real case studies

2012-05-28T20:58:00.000+05:30

Real case studies 16

Client submitted an application for entry clearance as a General Visitor to visit a friend was refused entry clearance under paragraph 320 7(A) owing to discrepancies regarding their marital status, identified by the Entry Clearance Officer following an interview with the UK sponsor; and for submitting a forged bank statement .

visarejection.com advised clearly that nothing can be done as 320 7(a) used in refusal letter.As This was a good example of an interview being conducted with a UK sponsor, which enabled the Entry Clearance Officer to check their suspicions about the applicant’s marital status. This case provided a good example for those who want to abuse immigration system and think it is very easy job to get clearance.

REal case studies UKBA refusal

2012-05-06T18:48:00.002+05:30

Real case studies 15 The applicant submitted an application for entry clearance as a General Visitor to visit friends in the UK with supporting documentation as i) employment contract; ii) application for annual leave; iii) letter from UK sponsor; but refused entry clearance because no evidence of finances was submitted the Entry Clearance Officer identified discrepancies surrounding the applicants employment; and further investigations / checks carried out by an Entry Clearance Assistant failed to confirm the applicant’s employment.

VERITAS found that , DV report was not given to the client despite several reminder, after complain to UKBA , Mumbai embassy sent the letter , which clearly shows deficiency in services and provided evidence of unfair and non transparent decision-making process. Your know the result ????

Evidence by electronic means

2011-12-06T11:21:00.000+05:30

An interesting case on the use of electronic means (telephone, video link, Skype, Morse, that sort of thing) has been determined in North Shields. As the tribunal comes close to saying, it is serendipitous that it should be here where this issue would arise again, after the notorious case of R (on the application of AM (Cameroon)) v Asylum and Immigration Tribunal [2007] EWCA Civ 131.

The official headnote to this new case, Nare (evidence by electronic means) Zimbabwe [2011] UKUT 00443 (IAC), reads as follows:

The decision whether to allow evidence to be given by electronic means is a judicial one, requiring consideration of the need to do so, the arrangements at the distant site, and the ability to assess such evidence, by reference to guidance such as that set out here.

In this case a decision had been made that a witness who could not afford to travel to North Shields would be permitted to give evidence by telephone. It was not known who had made the decision or what, if anything, they had considered or weighed in making that decision.

The Presenting Officer threw what is technically known as a hissy fit and refused to cross examine the witness. This is the equivalent of getting up and walking out if an adjournment application is refused. Ultimately this was the undoing of the Secretary of State’s appeal as it meant that the witnesses evidence was unchallenged. The smart thing to do might have been to ask a few questions such as “how do we know you are who you say you are?”

The tribunal, chaired by Deputy President Mr Ockelton, opines that in the common law there is a presumption that evidence will be given in person before the tribunal or court then goes on:

Departures from that model are likely to reduce the quality of evidence, the ability of the parties to test it, and the ability of the judge to assess it, particularly where it has to be assessed against other oral evidence. Any application to call oral evidence by electronic link therefore needs to be justified. There is a measure of agreement across common-law jurisdictions that the taking of evidence, or the hearing of submissions, in this way requires regulation and ought not to be regarded as routine.

Interestingly, from the point of view of immigration bail hearings, video linked evidence is now regarded as presumptive and routine, at least by the Immigration and Asylum Chamber powers that be, and a judicial decision that video link evidence will be permitted is certainly not made in individual cases. I’m pretty damn sure that video links are not used for bail hearings in the criminal or other courts. The liberty of mere migrants is the poor cousin to the liberty of free-born Englishmen.

It is also I think worth observing that this case opens the door to applying for special measures to enable children to give evidence in a friendly and safe environment. This would normally be considered to increase not diminish the quality of evidence given. See Chapter 4 on representing children in appeals in the recent ILPA publication Working With Refugee Children: Current Issues in Best Practice for ideas (disclosure: I wrote it).

The actual guidance given by the tribunal is given with the caveat that it amounts to minimum requirements and may well require adjustment over time:

a.      A party seeking to call evidence at an oral hearing by electronic link must notify all other parties and the Tribunal at the earliest possible stage, indicating (by way of witness statement) the content of the proposed evidence. (If the evidence is uncontested, an indication of that from the other parties may enable the witness’ evidence to be taken wholly in writing.)
b.     An application to call evidence by electronic link must be made in sufficient time before the hearing to allow it to be dealt with properly. The application should be made to the relevant judge (normally the Resident Senior Immigration Judge) at the hearing centre at which the hearing is to take place, and must give (i) the reason why the proposed witness cannot attend the hearing; (ii) an indication of what arrangements have been made provisionally at the distant site (iii) an undertaking to be responsible for any expenses incurred.
c.      The expectation ought to be that the distant site will be a court or Tribunal hearing centre, and that the giving of the evidence will be subject to on-site supervision by court or Tribunal staff.
d.     If the proposal is to give evidence from abroad, the party seeking permission must be in a position to inform the Tribunal that the relevant foreign government raises no objection to live evidence being given from within its jurisdiction, to a Tribunal or court in the United Kingdom. The vast majority of countries with which immigration appeals (even asylum appeals) are concerned are countries with which the United Kingdom has friendly diplomatic relations, and it is not for an immigration judge to interfere with those relations by not ensuring that enquiries of this sort have been made, and that the outcome was positive. Enquiries of this nature may be addressed to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (International Legal Matters Unit, Consular Division). If evidence is given from abroad, a British Embassy, High Commission or Commonwealth may be able to provide suitable facilities.
e.      The application must be served on all other parties, in time for them to have a proper opportunity to respond to it.
f.       The decision whether to grant the application is a judicial one. The judge making the decision will take into account the reasons supporting the application, any response from other parties and the content of the proposed evidence, as well as of the overriding objective of the rules. If the application is granted, there may be further specific directions, which must be followed.
g.     If there is a direction for the taking of evidence by electronic link, the Tribunal will nevertheless need to be satisfied that arrangements at the distant end are, and remain, appropriate for the giving of evidence. A video link, if available, is more likely to be suitable than a telephone link. The person presiding over the Tribunal hearing must be able to be satisfied that events at the distant site are, so far as may be, within the observation and control of the Tribunal, and that there is no reason to fear any irregularity.
h.     There will need to be arrangements to ensure that all parties at the hearing, as well as the judge, have equal access to the input from the electronic link. Particular attention needs to be given to the accommodation of any interpreter.
i.       In assessing any challenged evidence, the Tribunal may have to bear in mind any disadvantages arising from the fact that it was given by electronic link, and should be ready to hear and consider submissions on that issue.
j.       Nothing in this guidance is intended to affect the existing arrangements for the hearing of bail applications by video link from secure video conferencing suites. Nor is this guidance intended to affect the arrangements for video linking of one Tribunal room to another for the purposes of hearing submissions by video link.

It is, of course, for the party seeking to rely on evidence given by electronic means to make the arrangements and pay any associated costs. It should hopefully be abundantly clear after all of the above that any applications must be carefully made in very good time and must be well planned.

INVALID APPLICATION

2011-12-06T11:16:00.000+05:30

Invalid immigration applications cause serious difficulties. The problem is that the UK Border Agency advises people not to make applications until shortly before their existing leave is due to expire. However, it often takes the Border Agency days or weeks to look at the application, by which time the person’s existing leave has expired. As long as the application was valid, this causes few difficulties because the person’s leave is automatically extended by section 3C of the Immigration Act 1971 until the end of the application or appeal process. A serious problem arises where the Border Agency in their wisdom return the application as invalid: the person becomes an overstayer, commits a criminal offence by even remaining in the UK to re-submit the application, risks a re-entry ban and loses any right of appeal if the re-submitted application is unsuccessful.

There are many reasons why applications are declared invalid. In fact, it is quite difficult to get absolutely everything right. I once acted in a case where an application where it was declared invalid because the applicant had not entered a land line telephone number in the mandatory box. He had no landline. Applications are sometimes rejected because the photographs are too small, too smiley or too frowny. Submitting the incorrect fee (too much or too little does the trick) leads to automatic refusal, despite the difficulties calculating that fee when there are dependents involved. All of this would be good reason to hold the application and ask for further information or repayment, but it is not a good reason to criminalise the person concerned. Some might think that it makes such a mockery of the idea of criminal immigration offending that UKBA can hardly continue to go around saying that overstaying is a serious matter.

There are several cases where these issues have been canvassed. One of the most useful is that of Forrester, which I wrote about at the time. A handy little new case has just come out that may help some people: R (on the application of Kisuule) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] EWHC 2966 (Admin). In this case the application was refused on the grounds that photographs were not included at all. The applicant insisted that he was very sure he had included them. The judge sided with him and held that the application had been validly made in the first place. The Border Agency will have had to pay the claimant’s costs.

These invalidity cases are a huge waste of everyone’s time and effort, they make a mockery of a criminal offence and it is high time the Border Agency reverted to the old system where leave was automatically extended for 28 days to give an opportunity to resubmit an application.

New policy guidance on the marriage visa age of 21 to decrease at 18 good news!!!

2011-11-08T19:51:00.001+05:30

The Government has announced today that the spouse visa age will be lowered again from 21 to 18. The change will take effect as of 28 November 2011.The Minister for Immigration, Damian Green, says as follows in his ministerial announcement:

The changes in the Immigration Rules being laid before the House today are as a result of the Supreme Court judgement in R (on the application of Quila and another) (FC) v Secretary of State for the Home Department and R (on the application of Bibi and another) (FC) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] UKSC 45.

On 12 October 2011, the Supreme Court found that whilst they recognised that the Secretary of State was pursuing a legitimate and rational aim of seeking to address forced marriage, a rule (increasing the minimum marriage visa age from 18 to 21) disproportionately interfered with the Article 8 rights of those who were in genuine marriages. Accordingly, the Secretary of State has decided to revert to a minimum age of 18.

The changes will take effect on 28 November and will reduce the minimum age at which a person may be granted entry clearance or leave as the spouse, civil partner, fiancé(e), proposed civil partner, unmarried or same-sex partner of a sponsor, and the minimum age at which a person may sponsor such an application, from 21 to 18 years. It will also delete references to a minimum age of 18 for entry clearance or leave as the spouse, civil partner, fiancé(e), proposed civil partner, unmarried or same-sex partner of a HM Forces sponsor, and the minimum age at which a member of HM Forces may sponsor such an application. Guidance for those affected by the judgment will be published on the UK Border Agency website.

There is no place in British society for the practice of forced marriage. It is a breach of human rights and a form of violence against the victims. That is why the Prime Minister has announced that the Government will criminalise the breach of Forced Marriage Civil Protection Orders and that there will be a consultation on making forcing someone to marry an offence in its own right.

We are also investigating what more we can do to identify and protect those young people who have been placed at additional risk.

Watch out old work permit holders !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

2011-11-07T09:59:00.000+05:30

Back on 6 April 2011 the UK Border Agency made a change to the settlement rules for work permit holders who had entered the UK before the Points Based System was introduced. The change required a work permit holder to be paid a certain salary in order to qualify for settlement, or Indefinite Leave to Remain. The salary required is that specified in the myriad Codes of Practice for Tier 2 of the Points Based System.

The problem since faced by many work permit holder seeking settlement after five years of living and working in the UK is that their work permit was approved for one salary, which is what they have as a consequence been paid by their employer, but suddenly, with no individual warning, that salary level is no longer sufficient and the work permit holder neither qualifies for settlement nor for an extension under Tier 2.

An announcement recently went up on the UK Border Agency website that as of 31 October 2011, work permit holders will not only need to be paid the Code of Practice salary but will need to submit certain specified documents in order to demonstrate this. Previously certification by the employer was sufficient, but no longer.

The 6 April change was clearly an unfair one in the moral sense – the rules of the game were changed without notification. Foreign workers have a potentially difficult relationship with their employer in any event, and negotiating a rise in salary might well have been difficult even had they known one was needed. However, in immigration law it is very difficult to succeed on the basis of a legitimate expectation or a fairness argument. The courts have repeatedly held that there is no legitimate expectation that the Immigration Rules will remain the same. Cases that have succeeded, like the HSMP and BAPIO challenges, were based on specific assurances that the rules would remain the same, assurances that are not normally given. I have myself struggled to come up with a robust legal solution for those facing this problem. Article 8 ECHR is the best I can offer, but I would be interested to hear if anyone has done better.

Those work permit holders coming to the end of their five years and considering applying for settlement would be well advised to make sure they have checked they are paid in accordance with the relevant Code of Practice.