5

I will be applying for a study visa to Germany soon. But the thing is that I have been deported from a GCC country for overstaying my visa. There are no deportation stamps on my passport as I didn't have it with me at the time of deportation. They took my picture and fingerprints before deporting me.

So now when I apply for a study visa to Germany, will the deportation affect my chances of getting the visa? I am applying with a new passport. I am worried that if I lie about my it on the application and they find out later, I will not get the visa. If I tell the truth about it on the application, I will not get the visa. What do you suggest I do?

Edit: The country is Kuwait. Edit: Yes definitely deported and not removed. I just want to know if there will be a problem getting the study. Sorry I cant comment back properly even on my own question because of no reputation :/

  • 1
    GCC? In general, lieing on the application has worse consequences than not. If you tell the truth, your visa may indeed be denined. If you omit the truth, then you may not only have a visa denined, but be banned from making future applications. Having a good (documented) reason for the overstay may help. – CMaster Jan 18 '16 at 14:43
  • 2
    Being deported from a country does not automatically cause you to be refused a visa from another country. But lying about it does automatically cause you to be refused. – Michael Hampton Jan 18 '16 at 15:33
  • Ahhh, GCC = Gulf Cooperation Council? – CMaster Jan 18 '16 at 16:10
  • You are asking about a 'refusal' not a 'rejection'. read the tag descriptions – Gayot Fow Jan 18 '16 at 16:13
  • 4
    If you register your account, you'll be able to comment on your own questions, I think. – David Richerby Jan 18 '16 at 17:28
7

Lots of people are reluctant to disclose something in their past that might affect a visa application. Some of the strategies they may opt for are...

Available Strategies

  1. Full disclosure with a strong mitigating excuse. This is the safest strategy because there is no Sword of Damocles to contend with going forward. This strategy maximises your control over describing the incident and has the greatest positive influence in the outcome.
  2. Full disclosure with a weak mitigating excuse and a substantial change of circumstances. Incidents that happened early in life and can be successfully attributed to youthful adventure or naive judgement error can often discount the incident as a one-off in the past and unlikely to reoccur. This strategy also maximises your influence towards a favourable outcome.
  3. Full disclosure, weak excuse, no change of circumstances. This strategy might be useful if a lot of time has passed or if you have visited lots of other visa countries in the interim.
  4. Partial disclosure, disclosing that there was an incident but you can't remember the details and have no further information. This is a poor strategy because they will try to get the information and you will have no control over or influence on what they learn.
  5. Non-disclosure/full on deception. This has the near-term advantage that you may be able to rely on weak data sharing connections to apply successfully. This is an optimal strategy if you have a very strong application and there is a 100% chance you will not be found out. This is the only strategy that has a long-term impact if it fails.

If the deception strategy fails, the application will be refused on grounds of deception and there's no 'statute of limitation' on its deny-ability. It will generally need to be declared forever going forward. While every kind of infraction offers some possibility for a mitigating excuse (however weak), there are no ways to mitigate deception and decision-makers are universally harsh when they find it.

Another downside to the deception strategy is that you can be caught well after the application stage, even 5 - 10 years later. I.e., the "Sword of Damocles" remains perilous forever. The need to keep up the lie can have a devastating effect, if for example a future employer needs you to visit or take up a post in the host country and you have to explain that you may not qualify. In the UK, when someone is caught downstream, all subsequent leave is retrospectively revoked up to and including naturalisation (they will even revoke your British citizenship). The university may opt to rescind your diploma in order to stay in favour with the government.

So because of the risks, most responsible advice givers will advocate strategy 1 or 2.

Moreover, there are qualified legal practitioners in Schengen, the UK, the USA, Canada, Australia etc who have a reputable practice area in applicants with a pejorative history. If a decision-maker sees that you could have benefited from professional representation but chose not to do it, that's a point against you. On the upside, many decision-makers are kindly disposed towards candour and you may benefit from that in future applications.

This is an unordered list of questions to ask yourself when deciding which of the above strategies is right for you. In your case the host country = Germany and the incident country = Kuwait and the incident itself = overstaying plus whatever else they got you on.

To lie or not to lie

  • How long ago was the incident?

  • Why did it happen? How well can you explain it?

  • How severe was the incident (i.e., simple overstay or were there multiple catches like working in breach)? Was there media attention given to the incident?

  • How does the host country treat similar incidents?

  • Were there others involved in the incident?

  • Was I caught by accident? Or was I informed upon by someone?

  • Did I lodge an appeal? Is there a path of appeal still available to me? Would I be able to benefit by claiming an appeal is still pending?

  • Do my colleagues, peers, friends, acquaintances, relatives, ex-gfs/bfs, or relatives know about the incident? Am I likely to be informed upon in the host country by a jealous colleague, spiteful ex, or similar motivation?

  • Have my personal circumstances between then and now significantly changed?

  • What are the data sharing connection between the host country and the incident country right now and likely to be in the future?

  • Am I qualified in every other way for the visa?

  • How thorough are the background checks in the host country?

  • Will disclosing the incident absolutely result in a refusal? Is there no opportunity to introduce a mitigating factor?

  • Can I get qualified help in developing a strong mitigating excuse for the incident?

  • If I lie and get caught, is it likely to cause permanent damage to my credibility? Does the host country have data sharing arrangements likely to restrict my mobility for a long time?

  • Does the host country treat deception by silence as the same thing as outright deception?

  • Do I have any plans for future involvement in the host country (work or study)? Or in the case of Schengen, any of the other members?

  • Were my biometrics captured at the time of the incident? Will I be required to enrol my biometrics to apply in the host country?

There's so many questions and so many variables that it's nearly impossible to rely upon random people on the net to be of any substantive help. So returning to your question...

What do you suggest I do?

Conventional wisdom strongly asserts that in the absence of all other factors strategies 1 or 2 are the best options.

  1. full disclosure with either a mitigating excuse or a substantive change of circumstances. Be as helpful as you can in providing a full account of the incident. Rely upon transparency and candour to help carry the application.
  2. get a qualified practitioner to prepare your application and help 'wordsmith' your excuse. Silver tongues can be incredibly persuasive!

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.