17

My friend just received his refusal letter, and he was so distraught to learn that he had been given a 10-year ban on the grounds that he had used deception, because he forgot to mention in this application that his visa was revoked a year ago when his circumstances changed.

Upon reading his letter, and referring to other letters in this group, I am thinking he didn't get a 10-year ban yet, but he will be once he applies and gives false information.

Can you please enlighten me if he does have a 10-year ban now, or is it just a "warning" on future applications should he fail to declare information?

Scan of refusal note

  • 14
    That looks to me like a 10-year ban. – Mark Perryman Dec 19 '17 at 12:44
  • 7
    @Aganju, I would not be that harsh, the 10-years ban is already harsh enough. I think you can only call people stupid for forgetting things if you yourself never forgot anything in your life, which I find hard to believe. If you are young and have good memory enjoy it while it lasts, but please do not call other people stupid because their memory is not as good as yours. This particular person already paid enough for that without you calling them stupid. – Andrew Savinykh Dec 19 '17 at 19:40
  • 12
    @AndrewSavinykh Requesting a visa is something that should be done carefully and with plenty of effort, especially if you know you're having trouble with situations like this (due to bad memory). If you can't do it alone, ask for help. Now, your friend is too late. Many countries do not tolerate mistakes in the visa application, so I'll say again, approach such a situation carefully. Especially if you know you're having difficulty with it. Don't attack others for observing your friend should've been more observant. – Mast Dec 19 '17 at 19:57
  • 5
    @Mast, sorry you misunderstood me, I did not mean that Aganju or yourself are factually incorrect. What I meant is that it is insensitive to say what you guys said, regarding the person already in a tough situation. Leniency is a good word in the context of this conversation. You might think that you personally will never end up in this same situation, but this is not a guarantee. – Andrew Savinykh Dec 19 '17 at 20:07
  • 4
    @Andrew It certainly would be nicer, but let's be honest here: There's just no sane explanation for someone without special needs to forget a visa application. You don't apply for one on a hunch and filling one of them out and going through the whole process is rather excruciating. You don't just forgot about something like that in a year, particularly when explicitly asked about it! – Voo Dec 19 '17 at 20:14
30

Once again, a peek into the Immigration Rules of the United Kingdom which are publicly accessible on the official site will clear up all remaining issues.

First, let’s take a look at the refusal note; or rather, the small fragment we have which here is enough:

You should note that this application for entry clearance has been refused under paragraph V3.6 of the Immigration Rules and I am satisfied that you have used deception in this application.

Paragraph V3.6 of Appendix V reads:

V 3.6 An application will be refused where:

(a) false representations have been made or false documents or information have been submitted (whether or not material to the application, and whether or not to the applicant’s knowledge); or
(b) material facts have not been disclosed, in relation to their application or in order to obtain documents from the Secretary of State or a third party provided in support of their application.

In case you did not notice, the ECO/ECA also spelt it out for you: they accuse you of having used deception, i.e. false representations or materials. As user Gayot Fow mentions in many of their answers, the United Kingdom does not approve of deception being used in visa applications. (The former sentence is a somewhat mild British understatement.) A number of rules spell this out, for example paragraph A320:

Grounds on which entry clearance or leave to enter the United Kingdom is to be refused

[…]

(7A) where false representations have been made or false documents or information have been submitted (whether or not material to the application, and whether or not to the applicant’s knowledge), or material facts have not been disclosed, in relation to the application or in order to obtain documents from the Secretary of State or a third party required in support of the application.

(7B) where the applicant has previously breached the UK’s immigration laws (and was 18 or over at the time of his most recent breach) by:
(a–c) […]
(d) using Deception in an application for entry clearance, leave to enter or remain, or in order to obtain documents from the Secretary of State or a third party required in support of the application (whether successful or not);

unless the applicant:

(i) […]

(ii) used Deception in an application for entry clearance more than 10 years ago;

Maybe the corresponding sub-paragraph of Appendix V is even more relevant since that appendix is concerned with visitor visas:

Breaches of UK immigration laws
V 3.7 An application, except an application for an extension of stay as a visitor, will be refused if:
(a) the applicant previously breached UK immigration laws as described at V 3.9; and
(b) the application is made within the relevant re-entry ban time period in V 3.10 (which time period is relevant will depend on the manner in which the applicant left the UK).

V 3.8 […]

V 3.9 An applicant, when aged 18 years or over, breached the UK’s immigration laws:
(a–c) […] (d) if deception was used in relation to an application or documents used in support of an application (whether successful or not).

V 3.10 The duration of a re-entry ban is as follows:

(a–e) […]
(f) 10 years used deception in an application for entry clearance (including a visit visa).

It spells out doom, even if you are not good at reading legalese: the ECO concluded your friend has been using deception in a visa application; therefore, visiting the UK is out of question for them for the next ten years. Full stop.

As the refusal notice says, there is no right of appeal. The rejection was based on the documents and information provided at the time of the application and no other time. Your friend will have put their signature somewhere, signing that all information was complete and accurate to the best of their knowledge. ‘Forgetting’ to mention a revoked visa was either incredibly stupid or deliberate (and doomed to fail) — and the ECO is required to think the latter. Thus, no hope and no chance.

  • 4
    He wasn't found guilty. Only a criminal court can find someone guilty. This is a civil matter with a much lower standard of proof. It's just that the authorities think it's more likely than not that the OP's friend used deception. The applicant signs a document stating the the documents are complete and true to his/her best knowledge. The authorities only have to show it was more likely than not that he/she knew. To have found him/her guilty the court/jury would need to be convinced about intent beyond reasonable doubt. – greatone Dec 19 '17 at 13:25
  • 18
    @greatone That's just not true. For example, a university administrative panel can find a student guilty of plagiarism. The phrase "found guilty" just means that there's a decision that you in fact did something prohibited by some rule or law. In criminal courts, the standard of proof for finding someone guilty is usually "beyond a reasonable doubt". But other forums can have different standards for findings of guilt. In particular, in this case, a finding of guilt could be made (and was made) by a mere preponderance. – David Schwartz Dec 19 '17 at 17:18
  • 3
    @David Schwartz Guilt is generally associated with criminal law and always requires a finding by a court of law. Administrative and civil forums don't find people "guilty." Private entities such as universities may declare a person guilty but those findings are not legally enforceable. "Guilt: b. Law The fact of having been found to have violated a criminal law" thefreedictionary.com/guilt – greatone Dec 19 '17 at 17:51
  • 7
    @greatstone the term guilty is still used. They arent putting you in jail. They are finding you guilty of breaking their laws and therefore subject to their punishment (i.e. rejection/expulsion/ban). For instance, a moderator might find you guilty of violating the be nice policy on this site. You're taking the word guilty far too literally. – The Great Duck Dec 19 '17 at 19:03
  • 16
    This rejection letter is clearly poorly worded. Both §320/7B and App. V §V3.7 in the Immigration Rules are quite clear that this is a non-negotiable ban, and that any applications made within the next ten years will be automatically refused, whereas the letter says that they will be “considered on their individual merits” and “may also be refused”. That’s basically making a hard ban look like a non-ban. – Janus Bahs Jacquet Dec 19 '17 at 19:54
0

The quoted text does not say anything about being banned for entry, only that for up to 10 years it is highly unlikely a new application will be honoured unless the reasons for the refused earlier application no longer apply.

So no, it's no 10 year ban, just a 10 year period during which the refused application will be kept in your records and place you under extreme and extended scrutiny when applying again.

In effect it's probably going to lead to 10 years of refused visa, and possibly to that 10 years being extended further by each future refusal.

  • 2
    The heading for A320 says "Grounds on which entry clearance ... Is to be refused". That is an imperative, "is to be" does not equal "may be". It gives the ECO no latitude. The only way a new application could overcome this is (a) provide proof that the finding of deception in the previous application was in error, that no deception in fact occurred and 320(7B) is inapplicable (this is the only way to dispute a bad finding), (b) apply for status to which 320(7B) needn't be applied (if any), or (c) wait 10 years. In this case (c) seems like the only choice. – Dennis Jan 5 '18 at 19:55
  • 1
    @Dennis the text he quoted doesn't list anything about "will be" or "is to be", only "is likely to be". So either A320 doesn't apply in this case or the text he quotes is incorrect. – jwenting Jan 8 '18 at 8:18
  • 1
    @Dennis. I'm not sure if even this would be enough as there is no right of appeal. To me it seems that the ban stands independent of later discovered facts. – magu_ Jul 30 '18 at 15:22

protected by Community Aug 16 '18 at 15:56

Thank you for your interest in this question. Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site (the association bonus does not count).

Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.