THOUSANDS of would-be visitors to the United Kingdom are being illegally turned down for visas simply because they are from poor and repressive countries, according to an official immigration watchdog.

The Independent Monitor for Entry Clearance Refusals report also said that additional fees charged by private sector firms now processing half of all the 2.5 million visa applications are illegal.

Fiona Lindsley, the former monitor, estimated that 46,000 people have wrongly been refused a right of appeal against a decision to turn down their visa application since she took up her post three years ago.

In her annual report, produced in November and published last month, the immigration lawyer said she believes discrimination is operating in the issuing of visas.

Officials are making travellers from poverty-stricken and unstable states justify their need to journey to Britain beyond the requirements of immigration rules.

Ms Lindsley said that she believed that thousands of potential visitors to Britain are being discriminated against on the ground that they come from states with records of generating asylum-seekers and illegal migrants.

“Visa nationals from poor, unstable, politically repressive countries which are known to generate asylum-seekers and which are presumed to generate significant numbers of illegal workers will be required to justify their need to travel beyond the simple requirement of the immigration rules,” her report said.

It added: “In effect they are required to satisfy a higher burden of proof to obtain a visa than others because they meet a socio-economic profile that is believed to indicate they are a risk and provide little economic benefit to the UK if granted leave to enter.” The discrimination is unlawful because there are no ministerial authorisations allowing individuals from particular nationalities to be treated differently for entry clearance into the UK.

Ms Lindsley said that she knew of no research that supported the assumption that those living in modest circumstances in poor countries posed a higher statistical risk of breaking visa restrictions. Ms Lindsley, whose three-year term as monitor ended last November, pointed out that research in Australia indicated that the largest group of overstayers came from Britain.

She highlighted a number of cases to support her arguments. A Romanian woman was said not to be entitled to a visa because she “knew the advantages of living and working/studying in UK”.

A large number of Indians were refused entry clearance to Britain because their circumstances were modest even by local standards and they were well aware of the economic advantages of living and working in Britain.

She said that the bleakest instance was discovered in Bangladesh, where officials refused an application because “you have no prospects for the future in Bangladesh”.

Ms Lindsley said that while Britain had made possible the international travel rights of European pet animals, the consequences of the country’s current visa policy was to prevent thousands joining an elite club.

“The majority of those living in poor, repressive and unstable countries are not allowed to join the privileged travelling club on the same terms as those from wealthy nations, even if they have the funds to do so,” she said in her report on entry clearance in 2004-05.

Additional fees ranging from £3.60 in Bangladesh to £17.85 in Jordan are being charged by private sector firms who process half of all applications for UK Visas, part of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

These fees are on top of the standard visa charges, which are £85 for a student on a course lasting more than six months and £50 for a standard six-month visit.

Ms Lindsley’s report found that a quarter of a sample of refusals were on the ground of allegations of forgery, with two thirds being refused on this ground in Accra, Ghana. However, 50 per cent of forgery allegations had no evidence to support them.

Ms Lindsley’s report, which covers the operation of the visa system in 2004, shows that the overall refusal rate for applications has risen from 6.5 per cent in 2000 to 19 per cent. The refusal rate for students averages 35.4 per cent but is as high as 85.7 per cent in Accra.

Keith Best, chairman of the Immigration Advisory Service, said that the report disclosed a catalogue of failings. “It is clear that there are insufficiencies in entry clearance officers, their training and the way in which we treat applicants coming to Britain. The Government must not think that because these things are out of sight from the British public they are out of mind and can be neglected. The findings are disturbing.”

Explore Law

• Columnists

• Law Panel

• Law Reports

• Student Law

Times Recommends

• BGC 'set aside £40m to lure Tullett brokers'
• Legal aid review to ensure value
• Fears as 21 magistrates' courts face closure