11

In 2009, I was banned for deception (I applied as a student/dependent and my sponsor’s tax document was deemed fake). My sponsor claims (still) that the document wasn’t fake and it was obtained from the appropriate authorities even if he used a broker (which he still uses till date).

Unfortunately, we never received the document back from the Visa Office (it was withheld) and could not ascertain the validity of the claim (we submitted the original copy).

I was not allowed to appeal and my attempt at an administrative review was not received at the consular. I also didn't have the funds to get a UK immigration lawyer to help with my case. After several failed attempts to get my case looked at, I simply concluded that I was a guinea pig of a flawed system in my own country.

November 30, 2019 made it 10 years. I have served my time, gained full employment and have a work related meeting coming up in our London office in March 2020 (In the past, I have missed several work opportunities due to the ban even if I was a student and knew nothing about the document).

I am Nigerian but was recently assigned to a project in a different country. Curious to know what my options are and general next steps after one has gone through the 10 year ban period.

I don’t want this to affect my career growth like it has done in the past couple of years.

  • 7
    If your ban has expired the next step is to apply for a visa, making sure your application is impeccable (possibly with the help of a qualified immigration lawyer if you can afford it). Reading this comprehensive answer travel.stackexchange.com/questions/92121/… should help. – Traveller Jan 7 at 12:09
  • 2
    What's you nationality? – BritishSam Jan 7 at 13:20
  • 3
    Was the document in fact fake? – phoog Jan 7 at 14:50
  • 1
    @phoog Why does that matter now, given that the OP knew nothing about it at the time of application? – Patricia Shanahan Jan 7 at 15:37
  • 3
    @uberqe and how can you prove lack of awareness? I'd be extremely skeptical of anyone claiming to not know something they give me is a fake, especially in cases like this where the person handing over the document must have either produced it themselves or know the origin very well indeed. – jwenting Jan 8 at 5:07
6

For refusals, the ECOs are required to provide a refusal letter stating why they believe you are not eligible for a visa. Since the ban has now expired, you cannot be refused under paragraph v3.6. However, your credibility has been dented and your application and your purported intentions will be more closely scrutinized.

You now need to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that you are eligible under the visitor rules published here: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/immigration-rules/immigration-rules-appendix-v-visitor-rules

You should explain the circumstances that led to the submission of false documents—short of an apology. If you can show on a balance of probabilities that you were not aware of the false documents, there would not have been a ban in the first place. If you can’t, tell them it was an error of judgment on your part and explain how your circumstances have changed for the better and why they should believe you now.

It would be a good idea to hire a UK-based solicitor. Good luck.

|improve this answer|||||
  • 1
    "If you can show on a balance of probabilities that you were not aware of the false documents...": or that the document was not in fact false. – phoog Jan 7 at 21:14
  • @phoog but it was sourced from the sponsor, and the whole sponsor thing is unexplained, and it could be that the entire context for the sponsorship is corrupt. Last thing you want is to prove the document is genuine but reveal an illegal purpose for the prior trip. Who knows; the OP never tells, and we never ask. – Harper - Reinstate Monica Jan 8 at 21:50
  • @Harper-ReinstateMonica sure, all sorts of reasons might exist why proving that the document wasn't fake would be a bad idea. My point is only that proving that it wasn't fake at all is another way of beating the deception rap. In general, it is easier to prove something concrete like that than to prove something less tangible like knowledge or lack thereof. I've read many immigration appeals where the home office made completely unreasonable findings of deception. If that was the case here, it's probably easier to attack the original determination than to claim ignorance. – phoog Jan 9 at 5:19

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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