Skilled Worker Reconsideration Requests
January 14, 2012
“Neither IRPA nor administrative guidelines provide for the reconsideration of case decisions; at the same time, there is an expectation that errors will be corrected. This creates a dilemma for an office such as New Delhi, rendering about 100,000 decisions per year.” “Between November 2009 and April 2010, the IPM examined all requests for reconsideration of SW refusals.”
1. Document request not received per New Delhi’s protocol: “Cases were reopened where document request had been sent to a non-functioning e-mail address or, most frequently, where document request had been sent by regular mail, but refusal letter by registered mail, and applicant responded immediately on receipt of refusal letter stating that document request had never been received.”
2. Administrative reopening, but no clear ‘error’: “For example, documents received the same day that a refusal letter for non-compliance was sent. Case must be reopened, but there was no reasonable way for the office to have prevented the mailing of the refusal letter.”
3. “Wrong kit”: “Applicant refused due to failure to submit documents which were not requested in the Delhi- specific kit available to the applicant at time of application.”
4. Decision deemed unreasonable, unclear: “These decisions were normally where the standard of evidence implied in the notes for demonstrating work experience was deemed either unreasonably high or related to documents not requested in our kit, or the officer notes did not provide a sufficiently clear rationale.”
Trends Identified and Steps Taken:
1. “Repeated errors in calculation of language points and other mistakes by a TD Officer were identified. As a result, all refusals of that TD Officer were reviewed by Unit Manager to ensure fairness.”
2. “A tendency for visa officers to refer to ‘missing’ employment documentation that were not listed in kit was noted. Reminder sent to all ECU Officers on what documents the kit does ask for and to ensure refusals not based on failure to submit documents that have not been requested.”
3. “Due to variant Delhi-specific kits on website over recent years, it was noted that reviewing for fairness was difficult. Delhi obtained electronic copies of former online kits from HQ to serve as reference when reviewing cases.”
4. “It was noted that several officers were interpreting ‘ad hoc’ to mean ‘part-time’ employment. Note sent to all ECU Officers. Reminder sent to ECU Managers in June so as to in turn ensure new officers are aware.”
5. “As it was clear that review of cases needed to continue, to streamline handling and provide applicants with immediate reply, a new standard reply was developed that advised applicants not to expect a subsequent reply and to not await a reply should they wish to exercise appeal rights. On files where this auto-reply has already been sent by CSU, there is no need for further ‘no reconsideration’ reply from ECU if the decision is maintained.”
“Even on a non-random sample, the 14% identified error rate is too high.” “Due to this rate of error, it is clear that review of decisions must continue, in spite of the inefficiency created.” “In the majority of the cases reviewed, the IPM found that the decisions were correct for a total of (71%) of the decisions remained unchanged. In cases, however (28%), the cases were re-opened for further processing for a variety of reasons, including 14% determined to be officer errors. This demonstrates the need for ongoing review of all requests for reconsideration and further work on how to carry out this process in a fair and effective manner.” 2009-10 Quality Assurance Framework and Final Report
* Reproduced with permission from Richard Kurland (LEXBASE 2012, VOLUME 23, ISSUE 1)
Back to NewsTweet
