4 ms·

I have experience with both the UK and US immigration systems. I agree, it is very easy with how complicated the processes can be to make mistakes, even seeming

I have experience with both the UK and US immigration systems. I agree, it is very easy with how complicated the processes can be to make mistakes, even seemingly big ones, just by misunderstanding a single requirement. Even non-immigration lawyers make serious errors. > Lucas made his application for naturalisation on 14 May 2014, a couple of weeks before the expiry of his visa. I'm playing devil's advocate here, but neither indefinite leave to remain OR naturalization would be processed in "a couple of weeks." So even if he had filled the right application he might have ran into problems. As the article points out, indefinite leave does technically extend their existing visa (whereas citizenship does not), but in both cases you have the same issue: If you're denied then you get deported since your visa has expired. They should have extended their existing visa first, only then apply for indefinite leave to remain or if eligible citizenship. Otherwise you've built a house of cards, which is one denial away from deportation. > So instead of Lucas’s application being promptly returned to him [...] It took eight months for him to receive a refusal of his application with the above explanation That exceeds the government's estimates, but they tell you before you apply it can take 6+ months: https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/uk-visas-and-immigration/about-our-services https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/uk-visas-and-imm... They don't even look at the application until it is processed, and there's a huge backlog. Plus they cannot deny until the application is fully vetted, otherwise they might miss another avenue for acceptance, or it might be a data problem their side. Essentially the article is complaining that the other applicants that applied before him were processed before him. It is unfortunate what happened to him after the initial mistake, and I won't defend that, but his mistake wasn't only applying for the wrong thing, he also left it until the last possible moment.

comex 8y ago
> Essentially the article is complaining that the other applicants that applied before him were processed before him. Only if you assume that the Home Office's capacity is fixed. I don't know any of the details myself, but presumably they could have avoided creating such long backlog by hiring more employees.
- tssva 8y ago
  Since the Home Office is a government agency which operates on a fixed budget it is unlikely they can just hire more employees as the number of applications rises. They can request a budget increase for the following year so they can hire more employees then, but the decision to approve the request is a political one outside of their hands.
  - stevesimmons 8y ago
    Home Office delays are a deliberate political choice... Home Office visa requests all require the payment of substantial fees, certainly enough to pay for the staff to process them. So you would have thought staffing levels would increase in line with applications without any recourse to annual fixed budgets. (Actually from memory, over the last few years, pax numbers are up 20%+ and staff numbers down 15%...) Similarly for Heathrow etc not having enough immigration officers to process incoming arrivals... I estimate the average passenger costs less than £2 to process [1], while outgoing flights pay Air Passenger Duty at rates starting from £13 per passenger (economy/short haul) and £78 (economy/long haul). More than enough to pay for higher staffing levels. [1] £2 is my quick estimate, based on 130m passenger movements in 2016, Border Force having 7670 staff in 2016-17, with annual FTE costs around £32k for base salary, NI, and associated variable employment costs.
    - tssva 8y ago
      Just because an agency charges a fee which covers or exceeds their costs doesn't mean they get to keep those fees. They may go to the government's general revenue fund or they may be used within the Home Office to fund other activities within the agency. Even if the fees are directly returned to the immigration agencies with the Home Office they still may not be authorized to hire additional staff without prior approval through the budgeting process. Most governments don't like to give agencies unfettered ability to increase agency staff. I have no idea what the situation is with the Home Office. They very well may have the required authority to increase staff but to assume they do doesn't seem logical since this is against the norm for government agencies.
UncleEntity 8y ago
> I'm playing devil's advocate here... I'm actually in total agreement, if they wrote an article about half the things that went awry in my life because of my total slackitude towards dealing with bureaucracy there would be a lot of work for some aspiring journalist -- like that time I was an "illegal immigrant" in both Mexico and Guatemala...

comex 8y ago

> Essentially the article is complaining that the other applicants that applied before him were processed before him. Only if you assume that the Home Office's capacity is fixed. I don't know any of the details myself, but presumably they could have avoided creating such long backlog by hiring more employees.

tssva 8y ago
Since the Home Office is a government agency which operates on a fixed budget it is unlikely they can just hire more employees as the number of applications rises. They can request a budget increase for the following year so they can hire more employees then, but the decision to approve the request is a political one outside of their hands.
- stevesimmons 8y ago
  Home Office delays are a deliberate political choice... Home Office visa requests all require the payment of substantial fees, certainly enough to pay for the staff to process them. So you would have thought staffing levels would increase in line with applications without any recourse to annual fixed budgets. (Actually from memory, over the last few years, pax numbers are up 20%+ and staff numbers down 15%...) Similarly for Heathrow etc not having enough immigration officers to process incoming arrivals... I estimate the average passenger costs less than £2 to process [1], while outgoing flights pay Air Passenger Duty at rates starting from £13 per passenger (economy/short haul) and £78 (economy/long haul). More than enough to pay for higher staffing levels. [1] £2 is my quick estimate, based on 130m passenger movements in 2016, Border Force having 7670 staff in 2016-17, with annual FTE costs around £32k for base salary, NI, and associated variable employment costs.
  - tssva 8y ago
    Just because an agency charges a fee which covers or exceeds their costs doesn't mean they get to keep those fees. They may go to the government's general revenue fund or they may be used within the Home Office to fund other activities within the agency. Even if the fees are directly returned to the immigration agencies with the Home Office they still may not be authorized to hire additional staff without prior approval through the budgeting process. Most governments don't like to give agencies unfettered ability to increase agency staff. I have no idea what the situation is with the Home Office. They very well may have the required authority to increase staff but to assume they do doesn't seem logical since this is against the norm for government agencies.

UncleEntity 8y ago

> I'm playing devil's advocate here... I'm actually in total agreement, if they wrote an article about half the things that went awry in my life because of my total slackitude towards dealing with bureaucracy there would be a lot of work for some aspiring journalist -- like that time I was an "illegal immigrant" in both Mexico and Guatemala...