I would like the UK Border Agency to be fairer and more transparent in its treatement of highly skilled migrants when they are subject to visa renewals.
On 17 June 2010, I applied for a Leave to Remain under Tier 1 General of the Points-based system. On 08 July 2010, my visa application was turned down under the same circumstances that happened over a year ago when I applied for an extension of stay under Tier 1 Post-study Work of the Points-based system.
The ground for refusal being that my salary is lawfully being paid into my brother's bank account due to the predicament I have with UK high street banks and CIFAS (the UK Fraud Prevention Service). The UKBA refuses to acknowledge the fact that the money held into my brother's bank account is lawfully mine in accordance with Part II (7), point (c), page 22 of the Wages Act 1986 c.48, which states that an employee’s “money payment” can lawfully be made “into any account kept with a bank or other institution”.
This Article of Law contradicts the UKBA guidance on Tier 1 General of the Points-based System, which requires visa applicants to submit personal bank statements as evidence of earnings claimed.
Almost a year ago, I had the UKBA decision overturned in AIT Courts by two immigration judges subsequent to two Court Hearings. All documentary evidence had respectively been provided to relevant ministers more than 10 days ago and I am still awaiting their replies. Not one of them has been polite enough to acknoledge receipt of my letter supported with documentary eveidence. I am apolitical but this was a lot better with a single party in power; decisions were far better and quicker.
In the meantine, I am likely to incur £55,000 loss in furture earning from September 2010, as I have a firm job offer at £40,000 and a renegotiated contract with my current employer at £15,000. Finally, I am likely to secure a £35,000 job position from September or October 2010.
In its witch hunt, the UK Border Agency is making the taxpaper lose extraordinary amounts of money by constraining me to appeal against its unfair decision. Rather than allowing me to have access to administrative review as an in-country applicant to reduce costs and bureaucracy, the UKBA prefers to automatically refer me to the AIT Tribunal.
Why is this idea important?
The April 2006 AIT Review Report stated that, the average administrative and judicial costs to the taxpayer of hearing a non-asylum appeal was estimated at £691.00 for the year 2007/2008.
Before anybody start complaining about me or any other highly skilled foreign national "stealing British jobs", one needs to understand that employers are looking for more than knowledge and skills. The only way to survive in this competitive market whether at home or abroad is through self-improvement, hard work, and dedication. Protectionist labour market policies cannot address real issues. Raising educational standadrs, reinstating discipline, making people accountable and responsible for their actions in society are primarily what we need. The blame culture is totally unproductive and short-sighted both for businesses, children, young people, and the society at large.
The UKBA protracted witch hunt on highly skilled migrants is misguided as those people with international students are the bread and butter of the Teasury and UK educational institutions thanks to their taxes and student fees.
Integrating people in the long run will be more beneficial to the UK, for the country could draw upon its worldwide talent pool to compete globally with the BRIC and other emerging nations.