- FAQ
- Login
- Register
- Call Workpermit.com for a paid service +44 (0)344-991-9222
ESC
Welcome to immigrationboards.com!
Moderators: Casa, Amber, archigabe, batleykhan, ca.funke, ChetanOjha, EUsmileWEallsmile, JAJ, John, Obie, push, geriatrix, vinny, CR001, zimba, meself2
I do trust their judgement on such cases, but I don't trust the statistical relevance of their report. First, the sample size:rosebead wrote:Report says there are a high amount of refusals down to supposedly "sham" marriages. What the report doesn't tell you is how caseworkers come to such a conclusion and on what basis. I don't trust the judgement of caseworkers, not when I've seen so many laughable errors in law and mistakes in many refusals that I've read about. If you look at the bar graph in the report, it looks like nearly half of all registration certificate and residence card applications were rejected in the last 2 years. I am so sure that these extremely high numbers of rejections were all correct, of course (not).
During the analysed period (April to September 2013), 29,442 applications were processed. This means that the sample corresponds to 0.61% of the total. Besides this, the sample is biased towards cases which where refused. For registration certificates, only 22% of the cases were refused, but the sample is composed 50% of refused cases.4.6 The 180 cases comprised 60 applications each for:.
- • registration certificates split evenly between issue and refusal by the Home Office;
• residence cards split evenly between issue and refusal by the Home Office where no marriage/civil
partnership interview had been scheduled; and
• residence cards split evenly between issue and refusal by the Home Office where a marriage/civil
partnership interview had been scheduled
I believe UKBA can do with your sophisticated statistical knowledge and expertise.Hubba wrote:I do trust their judgement on such cases, but I don't trust the statistical relevance of their report. First, the sample size:rosebead wrote:Report says there are a high amount of refusals down to supposedly "sham" marriages. What the report doesn't tell you is how caseworkers come to such a conclusion and on what basis. I don't trust the judgement of caseworkers, not when I've seen so many laughable errors in law and mistakes in many refusals that I've read about. If you look at the bar graph in the report, it looks like nearly half of all registration certificate and residence card applications were rejected in the last 2 years. I am so sure that these extremely high numbers of rejections were all correct, of course (not).
During the analysed period (April to September 2013), 29,442 applications were processed. This means that the sample corresponds to 0.61% of the total. Besides this, the sample is biased towards cases which where refused. For registration certificates, only 22% of the cases were refused, but the sample is composed 50% of refused cases.4.6 The 180 cases comprised 60 applications each for:.
- • registration certificates split evenly between issue and refusal by the Home Office;
• residence cards split evenly between issue and refusal by the Home Office where no marriage/civil
partnership interview had been scheduled; and
• residence cards split evenly between issue and refusal by the Home Office where a marriage/civil
partnership interview had been scheduled
For residence cards, the analysis is even more biased. Besides the unbalance regarding issued/refused applications (only 41% of the applications were refused, whilst the samples contain 50% of refused applications), there's absolutely no data regarding the total proportion of refused applications where a marriage/civil partnership interview had been scheduled. There's also no data whatsoever pointing out what is the Issued/Refused proportion for cases where a marriage/civil partnership interview had NOT been scheduled (these would also encompass cases where the Non-EEA family member is not a spouse).
The statistic relevance of the sample they have taken is simply ridiculous. For registration certificates, the sample size would only allow for a confidence interval of +/-13%.
No wonder the system was on shambles before more people were poured in. They don't even know how to evaluate it properly. Or this is just what they want, some misinformation to stir up anti-immigration sentiment agaist the EU.