Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Yet another example of the Kafkaesque immigration system in this country. Sadly not the first time we have seen such a sickening decision. I hope the Minister comes to his senses in time to save Isaac's life.


Dulwich College are sponsoring Isaac's brother to come to the UK and paying for his flight once a visa is granted. They have been doing a great deal to support their employee at this vital time.


There was a very good segment on London Tonight (ITV) last night, followed by a piece about a charity set up to raise awareness of blood, organ, bone marrow and other forms of medical donation within the Black African, Black Caribbean or mixed race communities.

The British High Commission refused a visa on the basis that his brother is a rickshaw driver and, in their opinion, could not be relied upon to go home again after the treatment was completed. He has a family in Nigeria. This is a common response by the decision-makers and could be said to be a often-used key on their keyboard.

Officials are required to stick to rules set out for them (and often at least endorsed, if not debated and voted on, by Parliament) - it is senior politicians (government ministers) who can overturn these rules in specific cases - and most frequently do so. I would be very worried if individual officials were allowed to interpret rules willy-nilly. That is how corruption can readily enter the system. Although we can all see the reason why leave to enter should be granted in this case, for a specific and compassionate reasons I for one would be very worried if such decisions were in future to be devolved to officials. This is not, I believe Kafka-esqe (the reasons for the initial decision are clear and follow well published guidelines) but rather a good example of why laws designed for generalities will always have possible exceptions.


It should be remembered that there are many occasions when immigration law has been subverted (for instance marriages to confer citizenship which are legal but bogus). How quickly might convincing 'documents' be made available to would-be immigrants if such mercy dashes were put at the discretion of hard-pressed officials.


This one is clearly kosher - the next ones might not be, if such a loophole was put through the formal regulations regarding the granting of visas.

Penguin68, I have worked within the immigration and asylum system for all of my career. My experience of the decision-making process has been that is has been very Kafkaesque. Unfortunately, I am currently not in practice otherwise I would have offered to help Dulwich College pro bono. I have however given them contact details for people who may be able to help.


As for the argument that the hands of the decision-makers are tied by strict rules and laws, there is a long-standing and lawful ability for the decision-maker to exercise his/her discretion outside the Immigration Rules in certain circumstances. There are also policies outside the Rules which have not been made law, although many are transferred into law in time. Bogus marriages are not an example of bad decision-making or corruption, they are unlawful and carried out usually by criminal gangs.

Excellent news charlottep!


And for those who are minded to take direct action, here are the contact details for the James Brokenshire, the Immigration Minister's office [taken from his website]:


Immigration enquiries

020 7035 4848

Home Office, 2 Marsham Street, London, SW1P 4DF

[email protected]

I think what IlonaM says makes sense, there needs to be some level of autonomy at a lower level to make decisions in extreme scenarios.


I'm not inclined to believe that the brother of a (presumably) honest, hard working and very sick man would be looking to take advantage of the situation.


But I am also wondering, as James pointed out, is it not possible for the bone marrow to be sent over - if the immigration dept are really so inflexible?

Jeremy Wrote:


> But I am also wondering, as James pointed out, is

> it not possible for the bone marrow to be sent

> over - if the immigration dept are really so

> inflexible?


From what I can discover online, Nigeria is building a bone marrow donation centre but it's not finished yet, so donors currently have to go to South Africa, which presumably would have the same cost and visa implications.


Hopefully this will be sorted quickly; to those above saying rules is rules, well not really - each case, as the Home Office says, is considered on its individual merits, there's no hard and fast you need X amount of money etc. It appears in this case that the British High Commission official was suspicious of the disparity between Patrick's monthly earnings of ?68 and his having ?1500 to make the trip (and rightly so, there's a recognised racket of gangs providing the travel money upfront then making the recipient work illegally for them in the UK to pay off the debt and (ever ballooning) interest). Hopefully once Patrick provides the evidence of where his airfare is coming from the decision can be changed.

rendelharris Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Hopefully once Patrick provides the evidence of where his airfare

> is coming from the decision can be changed.


If Dulwich College are offering the money, you'd think it would be a closed case...

Jeremy Wrote:


> If Dulwich College are offering the money, you'd

> think it would be a closed case...


Yes that's what I thought, it sounds as though either the documentation provided to the BHC in Nigeria omitted to mention it or someone didn't read it very thoroughly, hopefully with the publicity the decision can be looked at again and quickly reversed.

Agreed Pennydreadful.


I can see P68's point about decision makers and agree that it would be a worry if any low pay grade officer had discretion. But it shouldn't need to go to ministerial level, there should be a transparent panel at managerial level within the immigration service.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Here's the part of march46's linked-to Southwark News article pertaining to Southwark Council. "Southwark Council were also contacted for a response. "Councillor James McAsh, Cabinet Member for Clean Air, Streets & Waste said: “One of Southwark’s key priorities is to create a healthy environment for our residents. “To achieve this we closely monitor legislation and measures that influence air pollution – our entire borough apart from inland waterways is designated as a Smoke Control Area, and we also offer substantial provision for electric vehicles to promote alternative fuel travel options and our Streets for People strategy. “We as a council support the work of Mums for Lungs and recognise the health and environmental impacts of domestic solid fuel burning, particularly from wood-burning appliances. “We are currently updating our Enforcement Policy and changes will allow for the issuing of civil penalties ranging from £175 to £300 for visible smoke emissions, replacing the previous reliance on criminal prosecution.  “This work is being undertaken in collaboration with other London boroughs as part of the pan-London Wood Burning Project, which aims to harmonise enforcement approaches and share best practice across the capital.” ETA: And here's a post I made a few years ago, with tangential relevance.  https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/278140-early-morning-drone-flying/?do=findComment&comment=1493274  
    • The solicitor is also the Executor. Big mistake, but my Aunt was very old, and this was the Covid years and shortly after so impossible to intervene and get a couple of close relatives to do this.  She had no children so this is the nephews and nieces. He is a single practitioner, and most at his age would have long since retired - there is a question over his competence Two letters have already gone essentially complaining - batted off and 'amusingly' one put the blame on us. There are five on our side, all speaking to each other, and ideally would work as a single point of contact.  But he has said that this is not allowed - we've all given approval to act on each others behalf. There are five on her late husband's side, who have not engaged with us despite the suggestion to work as a team, There is one other, who get's the lion's share, the typicical 'friend', but we are long since challenging the will. I would like to put another complaint together that he has not used modern collective communication (I expect that he is incapable) which had seriously delayed the execution of the will.   I know many in their 80s very adept with smart phones so that is not an ageist comment. The house has deteriorated very badly, with cold, damp and a serious leak.  PM me if you want to see the dreadful condition that it is now in. I would also question why if the five of us are happy to work together why all of us need to confirm in writing.             The house was lived in until Feb 23, and has been allowed to get like this.
    • Isn’t a five yearly electricity safety certificate one of the things the landlord must give for a legal tenancy?
    • Very sorry to hear this, but surely the landlord is responsible for fixing the electrics?  Surely they must be insured for things like this? I hope you get it all sorted out quickly.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...