Hi everyone, I have a very basic query regarding the court proceedings as its seems a dilemma...
By speaking to a number of friends and reading peoples experiences here at this forum I have become more perplexed then before regarding a standard guidelines for courts because...
1 if someone visa is refused for a straight forward reason abc... then how come the HO rep start asking questions about xyz.
some people says that the HO rep only discussed the refusal reason and did not go beyond that and in some cases even if he wanted, the judge did not allowed him, while in other cases, HO rep deviated from the refusal points and start interviewing the appellant. this is extremely unfair...how on earth can the judge allow him to do so. In most cases if HO don't have much to defend against a stupid decision by case worker...he deviate from original point.
2 Can our solicitor stop the HO rep for deviating from the refusal point/points.( I have even heard of people who says the judge started asking him questions too)
That's not how it should have been. what are your opinions about this v important dilemma since it will help others who are going through courts in near future...
- FAQ
- Login
- Register
- Call Workpermit.com for a paid service +44 (0)344-991-9222