Agenda

UK-Yankee^© Advocacy Agenda 2007-2008

UK-Yankee^©1) is a community comprising primarily Americans, but including members from around the world. We operate under a self-funded and volunteer-driven management scheme and at the time of this publication our membership stands at 5,3232) of which approximately 3,500 are active. Our membership base includes those in all stages and aspects of immigration, but our heaviest membership comes from those in the Family Formation and Youth Mobility Programmes. This is to say we are predominately spouses, fiancés or partners of someone settled in the United Kingdom or we ourselves are settled or on the settlement track.

UK-Yankee^© has been in continuous operation since 1999 and is not politically aligned. Similarly we are not in joint venture with any other organization. Our stakeholder role became manifest following the exorbitant fee increases introduced in April 2007. Our membership as a whole wrote a letter of complaint to the Minister of Immigration as the first step in our advocacy campaign. This agenda is being laid out to provide a clear statement of our views and goals for the coming year.

Our agenda for 2007-2008 was formulated by internal consultation between 1 April 2007 and 9 June 2007. The membership adopted this agenda on 1 July 2007. The UK-Yankee^© Agenda is made up of nine main items which are listed below. These are the issues closest to our hearts and the ones that have had the most impact on our members as a whole.

• Clarity of Language and Forms
• Establishing the Government’s Position on Family Formation
• Transparency in the Policy-Setting Process
• Quality and Accountability of the 900# Premium Rate Advice Contract Service in Consuls Abroad
• Inclusion of the Immigration Service in the Monitoring Body
• Rates of Removal of American Women at UK Ports of Entry
• Irregularities at the New York Consulate
• The Online Application System
• Route to Utilizing the Long-Term Partner Provision

Most who are immigrating do not have a background in immigration law or procedure, so it makes little sense that the language used in guidance and forms is written in unclear, overly complicated language making them difficult to understand. At issue is also information that is missing from public view while under review. There is little one can do if the guidance needed is just not available while changes are being made.

UK-Yankee^© advocates:

• An improvement in the clarity in which guidance and forms are laid out
• Enabling Stakeholder access to the Borders & Immigration Agency to point out areas where improvement is needed

Since 2005, numerous controls and regulations have been imposed to deal with other immigration issues, but those who immigrate to the UK in the Family Formation Programme have endured collateral damage from these changes. In addition, while the Government has issued statements outlining its position on economic migrants and asylum seekers, there has been no such statement on the value of those immigrants in the Family Formation Programme. The end result is confusion in the British public.

UK-Yankee^© advocates:

• A clear and unambiguous statement from the Government on the value of immigration of those in the Family Formation Programme
• An on-going assessment of new and proposed rules to assure they are consistent with the Government’s position on Family Formation
• An assessment of the rules implemented since 2005 with a view towards provisioning them to be family-friendly

The consultation, “A Consultation on a New Charging Regime for Immigration and Nationality Fees”3), issued by the IND in October 2006 is a prime example of a lack of transparency in the policy-setting process. The questions set forth in this consultation were largely abstract and rhetorical and only later were the responses tallied to a decision-making process. The objective was hidden from those most affected by it. It has been noted in both the media and in Lords that those invited by the IND to respond were not stakeholders in the outcome of this consultation.

UK-Yankee^© advocates:

• Visible and substantive steps taken by the IND to restore the public trust in the consultation process
• Clear and transparent objectives given at the outset of each consultation
• Relevant stakeholders invited to respond to a given consultation

UKVisas4) uses an outside contractor to provide immigration advice, via a premium rate phone service, to North Americans who contemplate applying for entry clearance. There is no other option for these people as the consulates in North America do not accept enquiries from the public. In July 2007, the rate for this phone service was £1.50 ($2.49) per minute with charges including time spent on hold.

While much of the advice may be acceptable, there is a significant amount that is either misleading, incorrect or in some cases harmful. It has been noted that separate phone calls regarding the same question are given entirely different or conflicting answers and there seems to be little in the way of quality control for the advice given. While we concede that the gross percentages of accurate responses may be in line with targets, expecting an applicant to know whether or not they have received inaccurate information is not only unreasonable, but also defeats the intent of the service.

In addition to the quality of advice, there is the issue of accountability. As these contractors are offshore, they operate outside the body of laws protecting vulnerable immigrants from poor advice. We also question why an advice system such as this is not run by a contractor from within the UK, thereby being subject to the laws set in place to protect those seeking advice.

Both UKVisas and the contracted companies providing advice have complaint procedures in place, but many are too fearful of jeopardizing their relationship with UKVisas and their subsequent applications to file using this procedure when poor or harmful advice is given.

UK-Yankee^© advocates:

• Greater accountability for inaccurate and harmful information, as well as more consistency in response
• Improvement in the quality of advice provided by the contractor without further cost to the caller
• A satisfying explanation of why a British contractor subject to British law who is capable of providing British immigration advice cannot be found and a foreign contractor must be used instead

The Immigration Service has not been included in the new monitoring body being put into place. This removes transparency from its procedures and does not allow for early corrective measures.

UK-Yankee^© advocates:

• Inclusion of the Immigration Service in the monitoring body

There has been little evidence to indicate that a single American woman traveling to the UK to pursue an internet relationship, or other long-distance relationship, will overstay their visa; in fact, there has been much evidence to the contrary. Yet there seem to be disproportionate rates of removals for this particular group. There is no consistency in criteria for successful landing, making for an even more difficult situation for someone who, at the time of entry, has broken no laws. In the report “Exploring the Decision Making of Immigration Officers”5) it is stated “that internet relationships tend to generate a lot of cases, and are a particular problem among American passengers”.

UK-Yankee^© advocates:

• The publication of hard evidence showing that significant numbers of American women are overstaying visas or otherwise breaking immigration law so as to warrant a higher rate of removal than other groups
• A great uniformity in the criteria for successful landing in the UK

The appointment booking system at the New York consulate6) does not appear to be available at all times. While appointments can only be booked a maximum of two weeks in advance, many members have reported appointments only being made available 3 or 4 days prior, allowing little time to acquire reasonable airfare and lodging for those needing to travel to New York to apply. There also appear to be abrupt changes in what the consulate will accept that vary from other North American consulates. An example of this variance would be the abrupt halt of accepting handwritten applications in February, 2007.

UK-Yankee^© advocates:

• A more reliable and open appointment booking system in the New York consulate
• The ability for families or individuals to book appointments up to two months in advance
• A greater convergence between the governance of the New York consulate and the other consulates in North America

The New York Consulate requires that applications be filled out online. While many of the technical glitches have been corrected over the past year, the user documentation and help facilities for the on-line system still leave much to be desired. The VAF forms are multi-purpose and some questions will not be relevant for every application. The on-line forms are filled out in step-wise progression but do not closely track the VAF forms as they exist on paper resulting in confusion.

UK-Yankee^© advocates:

• A marked improvement in the availability of end-user documentation and on-line help facilities
• The availability of a sandbox system so the applicant may see all screens before starting their applications

While we are thrilled that the Long-Term Marriage/Partner Provision7) had been saved, we have concerns over how this provision can actually be utilized. There is no clear message on how a person can apply under this provision and be able to meet the Knowledge of Life in the UK requirement while still abroad. We have been informed by the Border & Immigration Agency8) that one may not enter the UK as a visitor for the purpose of taking the Knowledge of Life in the UK test9) as doing so would make the visitor an illegal entrant.

UK-Yankee^© advocates:

• A clear route for one to follow to meet the Knowledge of Life in the UK requirement and apply successfully under this provision

UK-Yankee^© will, over time, review this agenda and publish updates for its members and other interested parties noting progress on each issue. This agenda is meant to stand for one year, at which time a new internal consultation will be undertaken.