2

I want to attend a conference in November. I applied for a UK visa but was denied because I didn't declare a criminal conviction of 1989. There was no jail term, but I was given 50 hours of community service and a fine of GBP230. As at the time of my application I couldn't remember in details the verdict, I didn't declare it. Besides it occurred way back in 1989. I decided to apply for a UK Police record, which I have now.

I need an honest opinion on what to say about not declaring it or perhaps a better way to approach this.

closed as primarily opinion-based by AakashM, Giorgio, Ali Awan, CGCampbell, Jan Feb 7 '18 at 6:00

Many good questions generate some degree of opinion based on expert experience, but answers to this question will tend to be almost entirely based on opinions, rather than facts, references, or specific expertise. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • 4
    There's nothing to say. You lied about your criminal record on one of the documents where this is taken most seriously in the world. How does one not remember 50 hours and a fine equivalent to £565 even in vague terms? – Nij Feb 5 '18 at 9:39
  • 3
    Well, there is only one honest opinion to be had here - tell the truth. What was your reason for not declaring it? That you were unsure of the details? That's the only reason you should give then - don't further compound the issue by lying about the lie. Sure, it's not a great explanation, but it's the truthful explanation. It might not get you anywhere, but it also won't get you into any more trouble. – Moo Feb 5 '18 at 9:45
  • 3
    @greatone I don't think that not giving leeway for "forgetfulness" is harsh - it's well demonstrated through questions on this very site that people overwhelmingly tend to be "forgetful" about things that would be negative to their application, but rarely for things in their favour... – Moo Feb 5 '18 at 21:48
  • 2
    @greatone why? What right to a trial exists here (no one is being incarcerated or otherwise punished without a trial here, the British government is simply denying you the temporary ability to enter a country you have no right to enter otherwise, there's nothing wrong with that)? Why should an interview be mandatory? Why should the a British government be forced to spend time and money on this? – Moo Feb 6 '18 at 7:31
  • 2
    @greatone criminal standard has no bearing here, and your comments about a caste system are laughable in this context. And if you don't want to pay the fee, don't apply, simple as that - it still doesn't answer the question about why interviews should be mandatory and what right to a trial exists. The process, standards and penalties are well documented and available to everyone who wishes to inform themselves. – Moo Feb 6 '18 at 9:55
4

You asked the same question a few months ago, which was closed as primarily opinion-based. Then, it was for a wedding; now you wish to reapply for a conference. After a refusal, your premise for visiting the UK is going to be examined closely.

You misjudged: the offense was committed decades ago and had you revealed it in your initial application, it might have been considered spent and a visa issued. Now, you have a much greater problem and a new application has risks, particularly inviting a long-term ban.

You haven't included your refusal notice but likely it would have been for deception (by omission) under Appendix V Section 3.6 of the rules, as covered in the linked response. The UK really dislikes this and you were caught.

Your credibility has been severely damaged; in short, the UKVI has little cause to believe and you would have to overcome that burden for a second application to have a chance of success.

Rather than random strangers on the internet, you would be better served though a discussion with a UK solicitor.

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