Total number of spouse visas processed and refused by selected nationalities, Q1 2020

Author: Steve

Following on from this post on spouse visas refused by selected nationalities in 2016 (the whole of 2016), I ran the same exercise for Q1 2020 today. The results look very very different. Take a look :

2020 Q1 Partner Visas Issued Refused Refusal Rate (ignoring withdrawals)
Singapore 28 0 0.0%
Albania 78 1 1.3%
Turkey 207 11 5.0%
UnitedStates 602 32 5.0%
HongKong 93 5 5.1%
Canada 115 7 5.7%
Thailand  237 15 6.0%
KoreaSouth 31 2 6.1%
Tunisia 44 3 6.4%
Russia 100 7 6.5%
Kenya 86 7 7.5%
Japan 61 5 7.6%
Egypt 72 6 7.7%
Brazil 116 10 7.9%
Bangladesh 627 56 8.2%
Pakistan 2321 207 8.2%
SouthAfrica 279 27 8.8%
China 92 10 9.8%
India 901 100 10.0%
Australia 172 20 10.4%
Philippines 322 41 11.3%
Jamaica 120 17 12.4%
Nigeria 392 65 14.2%
Israel 18 3 14.3%
Stateless 4 1 20.0%

The total number of applications seem more or less in line (bearing in mind the numbers last time where for a whole year, this is for a quarter) but also seem much much more equitable between the different nationalities.

What changed? The climate of work at the Home Office maybe? Maybe the departure of Theresa May has triggered some kind of cultural change? Whatever it is, it's encouraging.

Of course the minimum income requirement rules are still very very unfair but part of the issue has also been with the application of the rules; a more equitable application and less discrimination can only be a good thing.

Source for these stats :
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/managed-migration-datasets#entry-clearance-visas-granted-outside-the-uk tab Data - Vis_D02) + https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/immigration-statistics-year-ending-march-2020

More FOI: Serendipity

Author : Steve

Further to the post below, the Home Office response to the FOI contains a very useful link to tables containing a lot of data on numbers of visas processed/refused over a number of years. Now, while I don't think you can extrapolate data specifically for family partner visas on individual countries from those links, you can use them to identify a general trend over time. (The tables contain general data for countries, and for partner visas, but not both together, which is the area of my interest; hence an FOI request is required for this).

In particular, Table vi_01_q allows you to pull off data by category, for example family partner, per quarter. The data for recent years is tabulated below.

The total numbers (all nationalities) for 2016 are : 10958 family partner refusals / 37569 total = 29.2% overall. This gives us a baseline to compare with the percentages of visas refused by country in this post.

These are the total numbers of applications for partner visas since 2011, per quarter:

2011q1 7,110
2011q2 10,067
2011q3 9,676
2011q4 9,340
2012q1 11,409
2012q2 11,797
2012q3 10,639 (new rules are introduced about now)
2012q4 5,885 (big drop - the impact of the new rules is felt!)
2013q1 7,025
2013q2 8,289
2013q3 9,002 (but we start to see the number of applications recovering here)
2013q4 8,066
2014q1 7,354
2014q2 7,909
2014q3 8,378
2014q4 8,287
2015q1 9,162
2015q2 10,270
2015q3 9,643
2015q4 9,649
2016q1 8,776
2016q2 9,574
2016q3 9,366
2016q4 9,853

... while the numbers of applications never quite reach pre-2012 levels, they get close.

Also - from the same set of tables - consider the percentage of visas refused over the same time period :

2011q1 18%
2011q2 13%
2011q3 16%
2011q4 15%
2012q1 15%
2012q2 15%
2012q3 22%
2012q4 42% (big jump in refusals after the 2012 rules come in!)
2013q1 33% (but then the % of refusals starts to drop...)
2013q2 30%
2013q3 18% (... back to pre-2012 levels!)
2013q4 20%
2014q1 15%
2014q2 15%
2014q3 40% (why so many refusals here - maybe the impact of the Immigration Act 2014?)
2014q4 32%
2015q1 27%
2015q2 24%
2015q3 29%
2015q4 27%
2016q1 31% (this looks like a bad quarter as well)
2016q2 28%
2016q3 26%
2016q4 26%

So - to draw a tentative conclusion - the 2012 rule change had a big short term impact on family visas, but after several quarters people adjusted and the numbers of visas granted are (almost) back to the same levels.

Which was sort of predicted at the time the rules came in... people adjust, as they have to, because after food and shelter, family is the most important think in most people's lives, regardless of what the government says. People adapt.

Maybe you can also see the impact of groups and campaigns like BritCits, Family Immigration Alliance, Love Letters to the Home Office, and I Love My Foreign Spouse here as people self-organise, share information about news and tactics, and build each other and the sum of knowledge up - over time; even if, like bodhisattvas, they continue to share their experience for the good of others after succeeding in their own fight.

And of course, it is a fact that as the world continues to globalise, historic forces continue to interconnect the world politically, economically, and inter-personally. As I've said before on this blog, practically since its inception, the rules were always doomed to fail in their intention because love finds a way. Even after the first refusal. One way or the other.

Juggling on the Berlin Wall

Total number of spouse visas processed and refused by selected nationalities, 2016

Author : Steve

A while back I made this Freedom of Information request in response to an online discussion, as I was curious about numbers of rates of refusals for a balanced selection of different nationalities, including some of the most common countries for foreign spouses. The text of the request is here :

I would like to request the following information under the Freedom of Information Act.

1. Total number of spouse visa applications processed for the following nationalities from January 1 2016 to 31 December 2016 : 
Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Egypt, India, Israel, Japan, Mexico, Nigeria, Pakistan, Russia, South Africa, Thailand, Turkey, United States

2. Total number of refusals for spouse visa applications processed for the following nationalities from January 1 2016 to 31 December 2016 : 
Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Egypt, India, Israel, Japan, Mexico, Nigeria, Pakistan, Russia, South Africa, Thailand, Turkey, United States

This was for a whole year, to even out anomalies such as local holidays. The response is in (see link above) and includes data per quarter, with information about applications made, processed, refused, withdrawn, and lapsed.

The table below shows the numbers of refusals divided by the number of applications over the whole year, followed by a percentage of refusals/applications. Note this comes with a few caveats, e.g. withdrawals and lapses are included in the total so don't assume that every visa not refused was processed; however the numbers for withdrawals and lapses are very low and wouldn't make much difference to the overall figures even if excluded. Note also that an application made in 2015 or 2016 may not be processed until 2016 or 2017.

These are included without comment as there is likely more than one reason for the differences. However the results are enlightening and seem to match the lived experience of both BritCits members and members of other online support groups and forums.

Country Refused/Total = Percentage (2016)
Japan 17/272 = 6.3%
Argentina 4/42 = 9.6%
Australia 93/881 = 10.6%
SouthAfrica 99/834 = 11.9%
Russia 70/582 = 12.0%
Canada 73/517 = 14.1%
USA 371/2544 = 14.6%
Brazil 76/480 = 15.8%
Mexico 28/175 = 16.0%
China 222/1071 = 20.7%
Israel 19/87 = 21.8%
Thailand 242/1094 = 22.1%
Turkey 176/787 = 22.4%
Egypt 102/338 = 30.2%
India 1236/3888 = 31.8%
Pakistan 3032/7472 = 40.6%
Nigeria 555/1131 = 49.1%

Note to the reader : You can make your own FOI request at whatdotheyknow.com, and I think an FOI request is something everybody should do at least once in their lives.

BritCits newsletter 30th July

The most recent news-letin from 30th July can be read here, covering:

• The new UK Residence Card form
• Home Office's non-response on BC's FOI on UK's implementation of McCarthy and the ICO's involvement
• ADR - we're on the verge of issuing our claim
• Family of the week  
• David Sheekey's Ugandan wife of 9 years not even allowed to visit him
• Funnies

 Previous versions are available by clicking on 'Past Issues' on the top left hand side at the link above.

If you'd like to receive the newsletters directly into your inbox, please sign up here.

Fees


Inspired by Mark's post a few days ago on how British citizens are forced to pay at least £5012.29 in fees for visas through the process, our very own David has produced this poster illustrating the point!

 ... Lest anyone imagine that spouses and partners of non-EEA citizens aren't taxpayers, these fees are a tax too - and a very heavy one!

Related Freedom of Information request by @5K4R

Home Office spend on immigration and asylum

HO spend on immigration and asylum

On 5 March 2015, Home Office indicated their litigation expenditure on immigration and asylum cases was £131.27 million in the years 2011-2014 - I have asked for clarification as to whether or not this includes VAT.

This can be broken down as below:
2011-12: £35.7m
2012-13: £44.15m
2013-14: £51.42m

These figures seemed very high to me when compared to the info I had previous received from the Home Office.  So I looked back to see how the above figures corresponded with earlier information provided by the Home Office.

On 23 October 2014, Home Office provioded me with this list of the organisations who they have used for the provision of legal services since May 2010 however confirmed on 12 November 2014 that their main legal service provider for immigration and asylum cases was Treasury Solicitors who also then instruct Counsel.  A reasonable deduction therefore is that the fees paid to T-Sol should not be much lower than the figures above.  One would think.

T-Sol informed that the total amount in immigration and asylum fees received from the Home Office in the years 2011-14 is £57.22m including VAT over the same period.  On 15 December 2014, they confirmed that these figures include Counsel fees.

That leaves the whereabouts of over £74.0m unexplained.  Watch this space for a request made to the Home Office to explain the discrepancy (or discrenacy as mis-typed!) and this to see whether T-Sol can help clear this up at all.

Money well spent: Part II - Home Office paid Treasury Solicitors £93 MILLION since 2010

I'd like to make a request under the FOI Act for information on the total amount of money received by Treasury Solicitors from the Home Office in the years below, in terms of legal fees: 2010-2011, 2011-2012, 2012-2013
and if available, to date for the year 2013-14 (or an estimate).
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/legal_fees_10#comment-49460 &
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/202302/response/505582/attach/html/2/RM%2021%2014%20Final.docx.html

'I am responding to your request of 16 March 2014, which asked for the total amount of money in terms of legal fees that Treasury Solicitors received from the Home Office, for the financial years 2010-11 until 2013-14.

'The total amount of fees received from the Home Office for the time periods covered are listed below:

Fees (Excluding VAT)

2010-11 £17,598,617

2011-12 £17,728,218

2012-13 £19,539,871

2013-14 £22,374,704

£17,598,617 + £17,728,218, £19,539,871 + £22,374,704 = £77,241,410
Plus VAT = £92,689,692

Money well spent?

Note that the Home Office cited cost reasons not to provide a full answer, but the Treasury Solicitors had no problems doing this. #joinedupgovernment

Money well spent: Part I- Home Office spent over £21 MILLION in legal fees in 2010-2011

How much money did the Home Office spend on legal costs in the year 2010 - 2011?

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/198997/response/508822/attach/3/31126%20Response.pdf

'I apologise for the delay in replying.

'Your request has been handled as a request for information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

'I can confirm that the Home Office paid £17,598,617 (excluding VAT) in relation to legal fees to Treasury Solicitors for the financial year 2010 - 2011. However, it is not possible to provide any further information at a cost below the £600 limit. This is because the information requested is not held centrally. During 2010 - 11 the Home Office and its bodies used different accounting systems. It would therefore be necessary to conduct a manual search of our databases and file records to find the information requested.

£17,598,617 plus VAT = £21,118,340.40. 

Money well spent?

Many millions spent on legal fees, but a £600 search is too much. Strange world we live in.

Politics.co.uk :Censored: Home Office refuses to publish cost of Theresa May's legal battles

http://www.politics.co.uk/news/2014/03/17/censored-home-office-refuses-to-publish-cost-of-theresa-may

'The Home Office is refusing to publish details of how much Theresa May has spent on legal battles, despite evidence the total sum runs up to several million pounds.

'Responding to a freedom of information request from campaign group Brit Cits, the Home Office claimed that calculating how much it spent on legal battles since 2010 would be "disproportionately" expensive.

'But the decision means the public has no access to clear information about how much May's various legal battles are costing the taxpayer, not just in terms of legal fees but also including compensation paid out after unsuccessful cases.

' "It's important that organisations are open and transparent, and expensive legal battles whose costs are hidden should concern taxpayers," TaxPayers' Alliance director John O'Connell commented...'

More 'centre of life' and Surinder Singh FOI

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/foi_request_for_definition_of_ce

'Dear Home Office,

'I am making a Freedom Of Information request to ascertain how the Home Office defines 'centre of life' as pertaining to immigration, and written copies of all policy documents covering this. I am also requesting copies of any guidance issued to any officials and officers regarding decision-making regarding this.

'I have been unable to find this information, and am looking forward to hearing from you on this matter.

HO Response :
'Regulation 9(2)(c) imposes a duty on the British citizen to prove that they
had transferred the centre of their life to another EEA member state.

'Regulation 9(3) provides a list of factors that must be taken into account
when considering whether the British citizen had transferred the centre
of their life. This list includes:
•  the period of residence in the EEA state as a worker or self-
employed person
•  the location of the British citizen’s principal residence
•  the degree of integration of the British citizen in the EEA state  ...

If a UK (British) Citizen is resident in the UK, are they entitled to apply for an EHIC for their non-EU spouses who are not resident in the UK, for use when they travel across the EU under Directive 2004/38/EC ?

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/issuing_an_ehic_to_non_resident

Freedom of Information request by https://twitter.com/wayne_pearsall of http://singhroute.info/ (highly recommended for all Surinder Singhers).

Sunday evening links

Useful for those from Northern Ireland.

'Dear Home Office,

'I have searched on the Home Office website and have not found the information that I require. Therefore, I would request that this information be released under FOI.

'Please advise how an Irish passport holder, born in Northern Ireland but not holding a British passport, is viewed by the British government? Is this person automatically viewed as holding British Citizenship, regardless of whether he/she (under the Good Friday Agreement) view him/herself as exclusively Irish and does not hold a British passport?'

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/irish_nationals_from_northern_ir
---

Previously :
British citizen forced to choose: your country or your family.

http://britcits.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/british-citizen-forced-to-choose-your.html

A British citizen has been forced to renounce his birthright - his British citizenship - to be with his loved ones.

He is a Northern Ireland resident, which entitles him to Irish citizenship. Obtaining an Irish passport and going through the process of renouncing British citizenship - which he has held all his life - has allowed him to become a non-UK, EU national in the country of his birth. This has allowed him to live with his wife.
---

'We're a family not a case number'.

http://www.voice-online.co.uk/article/%E2%80%98we%E2%80%99re-family-not-case-number%E2%80%99

'Debbie Catwell is a British citizen. Her father served in the British Army for 23 years.

'Her husband, Robin, is from Barbados, the couple have been together for 20 years and have four children. The youngest is 8 years old.

'They live in Barbados, but kept links to the UK. In 2011, the Catwells’ decided to move back for the children’s education.

'Debbie said: “Initially, we didn't apply for a spousal visa. Robin came and went as a visitor as he owns his business in Barbados.

'“But when he came back in October 2012 he was asked about his frequent visits. He explained to them he had children and a spouse here. He was given one week in the country and told to go back to Barbados and apply for a spousal visa from there.”

'The family applied in December of that year, but were turned down as Debbie, who became a stay-at-home mother after her six-year-old daughter died of cancer, does not come into the £18,600 threshold.

'Debbie said: “Robin does not have even as much as parking ticket, so we thought it was an open and shut case. I was shocked when he told me we had been refused.

'“We appealed that refusal and we were promised an answer by July this year – but there is no news till yet.”

'As Robin cannot come to the UK until he gets his spousal visa, the family have been separated, which is having a “devastating” impact on their children, particularly their behaviour and schoolwork, said Debbie.

Reunite the Forde-Catwell family :
http://britcits.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/a-mother-whose-husband-was-forced-to.html

Facebook campaign :
https://www.facebook.com/groups/440521456017147/

---

The Voice | Immigration policy unfairly targetting the Commonwealth?

http://www.voice-online.co.uk/article/immigration-policy-unfairly-targeting-commonwealth

'Until the end of 2012, parents and grandparents of UK citizens were able to migrate after the age of 65. They can now only join their loved-ones if they “need long-term personal care to perform everyday tasks, such as washing and cooking,” that is not available in the country where they live.

'Additionally, the UK sponsor has to agree to maintain, care and accommodate them without using public funds, such as benefits.

'And to have a non-EU spouse join you in the UK, you have to earn an annual salary of £18,600. This rises to £22,400 for families with a child and a further £2,400 for each extra child.

'During a parliamentary debate last month MP for Hackney North and Stoke Newington, Diane Abbott, rebuked the Government’s attack on immigration.

'She said:  “It is...not true, as some people seek to imply, that immigrants cause low wages. That has been the anti-immigration attack since the 19th century. Immigrants do not cause low wages; predatory employers, insufficient workplace protection and weakened trade unions do that.”
---

Theresa May under fire for bid to fly out hunger striker Ifa Muaza.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/nov/30/theresa-may-hunger-striker-ifa-muaza-asylum-uk

'Private plane carrying 'near to death' asylum seeker forced back to UK.

'Home Office officials were refusing to comment on Saturday evening on an apparently botched effort to deport a seriously ill man from Britain by private plane. A jet chartered by the government was forced to return to the UK with Nigerian Ifa Muaza and immigration officials still on board, after a 20-hour flight that saw the plane prevented from entering Nigerian airspace. It diverted to Malta, where an angry dispute broke out with the authorities over the plane's right to use its airstrip.'
---

Petition | RELEASE ISA MUAZU NOW - Don't let Isa die in detention!: Release Isa from Harmondsworth IRC immediately.

http://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/release-isa-muazu-now-don-t-let-isa-die-in-detention-release-isa-from-harmondsworth-irc-immediately

Posts about Isa Muazu :
http://britcits.blogspot.co.uk/search/label/isa%20muazu

Odd response to FOI request asking for correspondence between Children's Commissioner and Immigration Minister

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/correspondence_regarding_childre#incoming-443672

We are considering your request.  Although the Act carries a presumption in favour of  disclosure, it provides exemptions which may be used to withhold information in specified  circumstances.  Some of these exemptions, referred to as ‘qualified exemptions’, are  subject to a public interest test.  This test is used to balance the public interest in  disclosure against the public interest in favour of withholding the information. The Act  allows us to exceed the 20 working day response target where we need to consider the  public interest test fully...

Also : http://britcits.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/finally-childrens-commissioner-gets.html and links thereof.

UKBA data on the success rate of the in-country spouse visa applications under Appendix FM.

http://www.kadmos.org.uk/blog/2013/10/02/statistics-of-spouse-visa-applications/

'...The statistics appear even more shocking then anticipated: of the total 5401 applications for the partner visa made in the UK within 12 months from 9 July 2012 and 30 June 2013, only 1453 have been decided, and of these only 313 have been successful!

'Out of the 313 successful applications, 168 (53%) were made by women and 145 (47%) by men. Of the 1140 unsuccessful applications, 491 were by women (43%) and 649 (57%) by men. One might speculate whether the gender imbalance is related to it being more difficult for women to sponsor the partner under the harsh financial requirements of the new rules. It is interesting that in 57% of applications the applicants were men, although with account of same sex couples it is not immediately clear what percentage of sponsors were women.

'We will be making a repeated request for information about applications on the basis of family life as a parent and will update this blog when we know more.'

Full text here :
http://www.kadmos.org.uk/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/FOI-2367-27802-Response.pdf

Mirrored here :
http://www.scribd.com/doc/174250627/FOI-2367-27802-Response

Presenting Officer training materials Freedom of Information request response!

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/presenting_officer_training_mate

Sneak peek into the Home Office Presenting Officer induction training course.

Opposition to the MAX.

http://www.jcwi.org.uk/blog/2013/10/01/opposition-max

'We need an immediate campaign as well as the more long term existing strategies on defending immigration and human rights. The Immigration Bill must become a target for civil society, people and organisations, faith groups, trade and student unions to mobilise around.

'It just so happened that over the summer, JCWI, working alongside Lee Jasper of the South London Immigration Monitor, put a lot of work into creating a new coalition of groups to do just that. A new organisation which will make sure that the xenophobia  employed by Theresa May and others like her doesn’t go unchallenged. The Movement Against Xenophobia (MAX) has had a couple of initial meetings, we are still working at drawing together a coalition strong enough to stop the Immigration Bill. We also have an eye on the two coming elections: the European election in May next year and the general election a year later...'
---

Zambrano internal guidance used by Home Office.

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/159548/response/392395/attach/2/FOI%2027354.pdf
 
Following the European Court of Justice judgment in ‘Ruiz Zambrano’, the UK is now required to grant EU law rights of entry and residence to the primary carer of a British citizen who would be forced to leave the EEA if a right of entry to or residence in the UK was not granted to their primary carer.

The threshold is high: the judgment will normally only apply to a person who is the primary carer (usually a parent) of :
A child who is a British citizen; or
A disabled adult who is a British citizen, and who relies on the non-EU citizen to provide them with essential care...

Mirrored here :
http://www.scribd.com/doc/172529995/FOI-27354

https://twitter.com/wayne_pearsall
---

Theresa May unveils Tory immigration plans.

http://www.freemovement.org.uk/2013/10/01/theresa-may-unveils-tory-immigration-plans/

How the drive to deporting foreign criminals has worked in practice in America #lessonsfromhistory :

http://www.gluckman.com/CambodianRefugeez.html

'After escaping the long war and the Khmer Rouge genocide, hundreds of Cambodian refugees reached safety in America, only to wind up, decades later, deported to a land many never even knew. Isolated and ill equipped to fit into society, they form a strange sub-culture in one of the world's poorest countries, turned into a human dumping ground in yet another shameful sidebar to America's relentless search for Homeland Security. '

 ---

5 things we learned from Labour party conference

http://www.migrantsrights.org.uk/blog/2013/09/5-things-we-learned-labour-party-conference

... Labour has been willing to stake out some principled positions on specific aspects of immigration policy. The confirmation last week that Labour would bring back the migrant domestic worker visa was a significant victory for organisations such as Kalayaan and campaigners in the Justice for Domestic Workers movement. Immigration shadow Chris Bryant also said that he would repeal any introduction of bonds for visitor visas by the coalition government – another positive development. There is now scope for Labour to go further, in particular by staking out its policy on family migration.
---

Are foreign nationals being denied legal advice?

http://slimcampaign.blogspot.co.uk/2013/08/legal-limbo-are-foreign-nationals-being_23.html

 Virgo Consultancy Services Ltd a new immigration firm based in South London has discovered through a Freedom of Information Act to the Metropolitan Police Service that the majority are foreign nationals detained in London in from the 1st June 2012 – 31st May 2013 were not provided access to immigration legal advice as is their rights under Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 section 38.2

5834 individuals were arrested for immigration offences during this period.  The number recorded as having a solicitor is 1900 that leaves 3484 people who were denied legal advice to which they are entitled in law. (That's about 70%).

Statistics on spouse/civil partner applications, for the 6 months before and after 9th July 2012

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/gender_of_spouse_and_partner_app
(FOI request made by Colin Yeo, http://freemovement.org.uk/ )

Before 9th July 2012

Applications : 25664 (17379 f, 8285 m)
Issued : 18331 (12604 f, 5727 m)
Refused : 7019 (4559 f, 2460 m)

After 9th July 2012

Applications : 10854 (8050 f, 2804 m)
Issued : 3970 (3031 f, 939 m)
Refused : 5075 (3653 f, 1423 m)

Showing a sharp drop in applications, and therefore a sharp rise in #dividedfamilies.

Freedom of Information, and Wayne Pearsall's campaign

Freedom of Information requests are a great tool and probably underused in our ongoing campaign. But they are yet another crucial weapon in the armoury of any campaigner.

Tony Blair (whose government introduced freedom of information legislation in the UK) himself said :
"For political leaders, it's like saying to someone who is hitting you over the head with a stick, 'Hey, try this instead', and handing them a mallet."

Which is really another way of saying that they are a fantastic way of holding those in power to account. Blair also described the D as "One of the biggest mistakes of his career", which is also a great vindication of the act. Freedom of information requests can be tricky - government departments (and especially those dealing with immigration) can be tardy, evasive, and hard to pin down unless the FOI request is worded just right, but practice makes perfect.

You can create your on FOI requests very easily using the website https://www.whatdotheyknow.com . You can also track other users and other requests here, and people can track you. So tardiness of the government department being chased for answers will be very obviously.

BritCits has a few FOI requests outstanding, which you can read here :
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/user/britcits
---

This person - Wayne Pearsall, a campaigner for immigration justice - has clearly put a lot of effort into his FOI requests, in a way that's most commendable :
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/user/wayne_pearsall

He also runs a couple of sites campaigning for his wife's right to reside in the UK :
http://our-ukba-battle.tk/

So, it comes to something when a family is restricted to when and how they can live together.  It becomes even worse when the family consists of British Citizens and wish to live in Britain.
Therefore, I am now fighting for my wife's right to reside in the UK.

And here :
http://pearsall.eu/recent-posts/

As Wayne says here :
http://our-ukba-battle.tk/1_8_FOI-Requests.html

I have therefore filed numerous FOI (Freedom of Information Requests) to UK Border Agency to help clarify a number of issues.  Now, the responses (where there have been responses) have not always been so helpful.
However, if you can read between the lines... there is some useful information in many of the FOI requests.
---

Freedom of Information in different countries, and some tips on how to write a good one :
http://www.metafilter.com/121159/Freedom-of-Information
---

Hat tip to https://twitter.com/bold_laura for the pointer to Wayne's site.

New BritCits freedom of information request

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/ukba_website_2#incoming-417618

Dear Home Office

I note that your website has been amended recently: EUN2.14 (at this site: http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/policyandlaw/guidance/ecg/eun/eun2/#header14 )

has had the following text removed: "It does not matter if the only reason the British national went to another Member State was to exercise an economic Treaty right was so that he / she could come back to the UK with his / her family members under EC law."

Could you please
a) confirm the date this text was removed?
b) explain why it was removed?

Yours faithfully

BritCits

Previously :

http://britcits.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/down-memory-hole-spotted-on-facebook.html?m=1
http://britcits.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/for-future-reference-ukba-on-surinder.html

A key paragraph on the website has changed. The question is when and why. We have some ideas, but we need an answer.

The crucial paragraph is also referred to here (19th April 2013):
http://www.jcwi.org.uk/blog/2013/04/19/surinder-singh-and-family-unity
It is a move as good as sanctioned on the UKBA website. The guidance notes on EEA family permits clearly state:
“It does not matter if the only reason the British national went to another Member State was to exercise an economic Treaty right was so that he / she could come back to the UK with his / her family members under EC law.”

... here (3rd July 2013) :
http://www.kingsleynapley.co.uk/news-and-events/blogs/immigration-law-blog/family-migration-routes-to-the-uk-with-a-stop-over-in-europe
 However, the Home Office guidance issued to caseworkers considering applications under this route confirms that:
“It does not matter if the only reason the British national went to another Member State was to exercise an economic Treaty right was so that he / she could come back to the UK with his / her family members under EC law.”

... and here (25th June 2013) :
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23029195
This somewhat contradicts the UKBA website which says that it does not matter if the only reason a British national goes to another member state is to exercise an economic Treaty right so that they can come back to the UK with their family members.

Interestingly, this article appeared on Wikipedia :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surinder_Singh_route

The first version appeared on 26th June, which is the day after the Newsnight piece. The Wikipedia article is incomplete because it only refers to British citizens using the Surinder Singh route - it's open to other Europeans (Dutch citizens, for example, can exercise their rights in Belgium if they wish, or French citizens in Spain). But it's an interesting appearance nonetheless.

Today's links

The All-Party Parliamentary Group on Migration ( https://twitter.com/APPGMigration ) tweets :

'There's been a massive rush in the last week to submit evidence to our family migration campaign. Have you submitted?' http://www.appgmigration.org.uk/family-inquiry

For those affected by the rules - this is a really important initiative. It's your chance to get your story out to parliamentarians who are representing us, so that they can represent us better!

Here's why : http://www.migrantsrights.org.uk/blog/2013/01/first-thing-do-year-respond-appg-family-migration-inquiry

---
How the government breaks up British families.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/comment/talking-politics/government-breaks-british-families-120449742.html

An article about one Andy (who we have written about before : http://britcits.blogspot.co.uk/search/label/andy ) makes it onto Yahoo News.

http://britcits.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/andy-my-poor-boys.html

---
One of our Freedom of Information requests has got a response. Although, unsurprisingly, it needs further clarification as the numbers don't add up.

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/non_eu_spouses_of_british_citize

'Please advice on the following, in relation to non-EU spouses of
British citizens and the new 'rules' brought in with effect from
9th July:

'a) How many non-EU spouses have applied for a spouse visa since 9th
July 2012 under the new rules (not 8th July, 9th July)

'b) Of the total number of non-EU spouses who have applied for a
spouse visa since 9th July 2012 under the new rules,
how many, by a date specified by you in your response, have been i)
approved ii)refused and iii) are pending?'

---
Debating the foundations for the new mainstream consensus on migration policy.

http://www.migrantsrights.org.uk/blog/2013/01/debating-foundations-new-mainstream-consensus-migration-policy

'...Everyone concerned with developing a frank, informed discussion on this topic should welcome the start that IPPR has made with this paper. Whether or not the invitation to contribute to debate on these points is taken up by those operating in the political mainstream, it has the potential to operate as an ethical check-list for others who are putting forward their viewpoints on what needs to be done to ensure that policy is fair and democratic....'

---
https://twitter.com/IanAustinMP tweets: 'Interesting stat-fact from Roland Rudd: less than 0.06% of Poles who came to Britain claimed benefits '

---
The Real UK Citizenship Test : http://realcitizenshiptest.co.uk/quiz.php?n=1

'What is the correct response when someone drops a tray in the middle of a canteen?

- Laughter?
- Applause?
- Offer help cleaning up?'

Via https://twitter.com/SalCardiff

---
 Ex-Windsor based soldier hands back medals.

http://www.windsorobserver.co.uk/news/roundup/articles/2013/01/18/85946-exwindsorbased-soldier-hands-back-medals/

'In a letter to Prince Charles explaining his decision, Mr Balewai stated: "I feel I can no longer accept my medals. I received them with honour and with great sadness they have now become meaningless." After leaving the Army in June, the father of two British-born children was denied British Citizenship by the UK Border Agency because of an Army conviction recorded by his Commanding Officer in April 2011, which served as a warning following a fight with a fellow soldier. '

Background on this from a few months ago : http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18940236 . Very happy that this campaign got a positive result.

Isimeli Baleiwai's Facebook support group: https://www.facebook.com/groups/280555062052017/?ref=ts&fref=ts
---