UK spouse visa - to appeal or reapply?

In the case of spouse visas where it is refused based on the personal judgement of the ECO officer involved.  Some of the UKVI rules give ECOs discretion over how to apply them.  Thus, where he or she decides to use this discretion to refuse an application, and the applicant considers this decision as harsh and unjust, presumably they can think of appealing in order to get a fairer and just opinion.

Alternatively, in this situation, they can re-apply for a visa, knowing the problem the ECO had with the previous application and thus what to avoid the next time around.

I believe that by far the cheaper course is to appeal if the original decision was made on a discretionary basis.  However, I am told that the appeals process often takes over 12 months and that even if the rejection is ultimately on appeal overturned, the UKVI are slow in issuing the visa.

On the other side, to start the visa process again is quite a bit more costly to undertake.  I think the cost of appeals is about £200.

What's the considered opinion of people on here as to whether getting the visa after an initial rejection is better through appealing the decision.  Or by simply trying again?  And why?

What was the exact reason for refusal? It sounds as though you're saying you met all the requirements and should have been granted a visa but were refused due to personal discretion of the ECO?

In the case of spouse visas where it is refused based on the personal judgement of the ECO officer involved.  Some of the UKVI rules give ECOs discretion over how to apply them.  Thus, where he or she decides to use this discretion to refuse an application, and the applicant considers this decision as harsh and unjust, presumably they can think of appealing in order to get a fairer and just opinion.

Alternatively, in this situation, they can re-apply for a visa, knowing the problem the ECO had with the previous application and thus what to avoid the next time around.

I believe that by far the cheaper course is to appeal if the original decision was made on a discretionary basis.  However, I am told that the appeals process often takes over 12 months and that even if the rejection is ultimately on appeal overturned, the UKVI are slow in issuing the visa.

On the other side, to start the visa process again is quite a bit more costly to undertake.  I think the cost of appeals is about £200.

What's the considered opinion of people on here as to whether getting the visa after an initial rejection is better through appealing the decision.  Or by simply trying again?  And why?

Dave, has your wife's visa actually been refused or is this a hypothetical question?

You seem to already be aware of the pros and cons of either approach.

I guess hypothetical, as I am looking for information at this stage.  She has applied and it's an "in case" request for info.

I just need a general idea of the options and what they entail in order to discuss with the applicant, in case of a refusal.  Yes, it's over a discretionary rule that the ECO's can apply one way or the other, so if the visa is refused, an appeal might overturn that decision.   

As I say, at this stage purely for information ... primarily over whether I have it right over the cost of an appeal (about £200) and about the length of a typical appeal process (over a year).

I guess hypothetical, as I am looking for information at this stage.  She has applied and it's an "in case" request for info.

I just need a general idea of the options and what they entail in order to discuss with the applicant, in case of a refusal.  Yes, it's over a discretionary rule that the ECO's can apply one way or the other, so if the visa is refused, an appeal might overturn that decision.   

As I say, at this stage purely for information ... primarily over whether I have it right over the cost of an appeal (about £200) and about the length of a typical appeal process (over a year).

Thanks for clearing that up Dave.

You are correct in the assumption that an appeal can take around a year.

There would still be no guarantee of success because you are not permitted to include any additional information so it is really only worth doing if you are quite sure a mistake has been made by the ECO and even then, it would be much quicker just to reapply, although more expensive.

 I don't know the cost of an appeal.

Generally, the advice would be to address the issues that caused the refusal and to re-apply with better evidence.

Generally speaking, an appeal is only likely to be successful if you supplied all the correct documents and showed you meet the requirements, but the ECO refused the visa anyway because they made a mistake and overlooked something (I.e. They claim you didn't send a particular document, but you actually did send it)

However, if the reason for refusal was because you forgot to send a document or because the documents didn't meet the requirements, then I would suggest that an appeal wouldn't be worth it because it's not likely to be successful and you would need to reapply anyway... And so you'll have wasted up to a year of your life together when you could have just reapplied in the first place and got the visa in a matter of weeks.

In the majority of refusals, the reason for refusal is the latter (missing documents), and therefore in most cases I would recommend reapplying over appealing.


Sent from my iPod using Tapatalk

Thanks for the sage advice! I agree and thanks!

I should add that if she is refused, it would be upon an excercise of the discretionary powers of the ECO.  This is a case where we are not talking of missing documents, but of a guidance rule that gives them some leeway on how they apply certain other rules, which is what I am talking of.  In other words, it becomes a matter of the personal judgement of the ECO as to whether the issue at hand is sufficient to warrant a refusal. 

So you might argue at an appeal that the ECO used his discretionary powers to be unjust to the applicant, all things being considered.  I don't want to go into the particulars of this but just as a generality.  In any case, it seems like reapplying is a better choice than appealing.

Just as a supplementary, and I think I know the answer but want to be sure.  I am thinking of changing my bank account and bank, because I can get a better interest rate in another bank.  However, this is money I may need to show UKVI for the Financial Requirement purpose if she has to reapply.

They require the cash savings (category D) to be in an account in the sponsor's (in this case) control for 6 months before the date of application.  However, it does not have to be in the SAME bank account (or bank) for this 6 months, does it?

Thanks for the sage advice! I agree and thanks!

I should add that if she is refused, it would be upon an excercise of the discretionary powers of the ECO.  This is a case where we are not talking of missing documents, but of a guidance rule that gives them some leeway on how they apply it, which is what I am talking of. 

Can you give an example of a situation where this might happen? I'm struggling to think of one, other than in the case of criminal convictions (but even then, discretion is unlikely to be used).

It's a tick-box visa - if you tick all the boxes with your documents, they have to grant the visa, regardless of discretion. If a document is missing, they can request it, but if they don't receive it, they have to refuse the visa - hence the reason why a lot of refusals are simply due to missing documents and not anything else.

They require the cash savings (category D) to be in an account in the sponsor's (in this case) control for 6 months before the date of application.  However, it does not have to be in the SAME bank account (or bank) for this 6 months, does it?

Since you've already applied for the visa, what matters is where the money was on the official application date (the date the online application was submitted and visa paid for), not where it is moved to after the application date. If it's a spousal visa, then I would just leave it in the account long enough for the visa to be granted, and then you can move it to another account.

However, this situation came up in another thread a couple of days ago, where money was moved between accounts (from the applicant's account to the sponsor's account) and they waited 6 months to apply, even though the money had been in their possession in full for longer than 6 months. But I'm not sure whether they actually needed to wait 6 months, since they would have been able to prove that between them, they met the requirement earlier than that.

The official guidance says:

11. In respect of cash savings the following must be provided:

    (a) personal bank statements showing that at least the level of cash savings relied upon in the application has been held in an account(s) in the name of the person or of the person and their partner jointly throughout the period of 6 months prior to the date of application.
    (b) A declaration by the account holder(s) of the source(s) of the cash savings.

and

7.4.1. Savings must be held in cash in a personal bank/savings account in the name of the applicant, their partner or the couple jointly. The savings can be from any legal source, including a gift from a family member or other third party, provided the source of the cash savings is declared. The applicant and/or their partner must confirm that the money, which cannot be borrowed, is under their control and evidence that it has been held in their bank account for at least the 6 months prior to the date of application.

It doesn't say it has to be in the SAME account for the full 6 months, it just says AN account(s) in your name. From that, I would assume that as long as you can show that the money has been under your control, in an account in your name, for the entire 6 months, I don't think it has to be in the same account for that whole time.

I should add that if she is refused, it would be upon an excercise of the discretionary powers of the ECO.  This is a case where we are not talking of missing documents, but of a guidance rule that gives them some leeway on how they apply it, which is what I am talking of.  In other words, a matter of the personal judgement of the ECO as to whether the issue at hand is sufficient to warrant a refusal.  So you can argue that the ECO was wrong in exercising his judgement and was therefore unjust to the applicant.

Out of curiosity, what are you envisioning as an example of discretionary judgement?  The only instance where I think discretion could be applied is questioning the genuineness of the relationship.  The rest of the application is pretty straightforward - the correct document has been submitted or it hasn't.  The sponsor meets the financial requirements, or s/he doesn't.  There's not much room for personal judgement - even if you have a criminal record or adverse immigration history, there's guidance for ECOs on how to handle it.

I honestly don't feel comfortable discussing this topic please.  I know the guidance rules and have a Home Office letter clarifying them for me as well. 

As you know, UK interest rates are very low (around 1 percent) on current accounts of the type that UKVI require for this purpose.  I used one bank account for the visa my wife sent off in early August, but the bank just announced a big fall in the interest rate they give.  So it would be foolish to retain my money in that bank when there are better bank accounts elsewhere.  So switching over in September. 

This is for the same situation in which my wife needs to reapply for the visa and so I again need to show UKVI my savings.

Fingers crossed for you that this situation remains hypothetical.