10 Year ( Para 320 (7B) Ban Revoked At The British Embassy

[VisasPlus]

We recently had what I consider to be a major result. A client and her British partner came to our office to ask if there was any way we could help with a visit visa application, the problem being that the Thai lady had been refused two UK visit visas a year or so ago, and had received a 10 year ban under paragraph 320 ( 7B ) of the Immigration Rules for deception.

The reasons for this post are varied. Apart from my usual rants about how badly the British Embassy can treat visa applicants, I think that this result shows that there is a place for experienced visa advisers, even if they are not OISC registered ( as we are not ). A little background to the two visa refusals is necessary. My letter to the Visa Section at the Embassy is attached, but I hope it will make more sense with these explanations.

Our client had intended, some time ago, to make a visit visa application to visit her British partner. When she attended at VFS she paid her fee, etc and her fingerprints were taken. She was then informed by VFS staff that her application was incomplete. She was given the option of postponing her application until she had all the required documents. She and her partner decided to postpone. Some time later a full application was submitted. The applicant answered " no" to the question " Have you ever applied for a UK visa before ? " The Visa Officer who was dealing with the application, and who was aware that our client's fingerprints had been taken, called her by phone, and again asked the same question. Our client again answered " no" as she believed that she had not made any application. The Visa Officer asked if she had ever had her fingerprints taken, and at this stage out client panicked, and stated "no". The application was refused.

Our client and her partner applied again one month later. The Visa Officer phoned our client again, and our client again answered " no " to the questions. Application refused for the second time, plus the 10 year ban for deception.

Okay, the reasons for refusal are pretty clear, but there are points that appeared wrong to me, and they are detailed in the attached letter to the ECO/ECM. Briefly, to mention some of the points:

I was not satisfied that there had been any initial application. An application must have a result issued, refused or withdrawn. None of these happened ( and the applicant's fee was returned to her at the time ). The first refusal was, of course, based on the answers to the ECO's questions about the first " application", and our client's statement that she had never made any earlier application.

Fingerprints should never have been taken if there was no application. They certainly should not have been retained. The legislation is clear fingerprints can only be taken from " an individual who makes an application ".

A refusal notice, if refused under 320 (7A), which the first refusal was, must contain a mandatory advisory informing the applicant that any future application that employs deception can result in a 10 year ban. This advisory was not included in the first refusal notice.

The applicant could gain nothing by lying about the first " application". She was not using a new identity, or trying to hide a previous identity or any adverse immigration history. As I said in my letter, I believe she was naïve, nervous, and she panicked when confronted by the visa officer on the phone.

The Embassy replied to us, stating that there had been no satisfactory explanation for the applicant's " lack of candour", etc, etc. They stated, however, that in view of the information in my letter they were prepared to reconsider the two applications. They didn't even ask for a new application to be made. The visa was issued yesterday without interview.

Now it seems to me that, although the Visa Section never admits that they have made a mistake ( and cannot do so as any admission might attract a compensation claim), the two refusal decisions were wrong, and the Visa Section knows it. The result seems to indicate this too. I am not saying that this result could not have been obtained by other agents here in Thailand, but I do believe that experience in the world of immigration and visas helped immensely with this. The point of this post is to show that there is often a way for agents to assist visa applicants, either with the initial application, an appeal or even as in this extreme example. I'm also mindful of the fact that there may be others in a similar position to our client, that is having been refused or banned from applying for the wrong reasons, and not knowing how to proceed.

Letter.doc

[snuggzzz]

I goes to show how 'misinterpretations' of rules can be made on either side....... well done for exposing the incorrect procedure being initially adopted.

[Thanyaburi Mac]

The U.S. has a similar rule, Section 212(a)19 of the INA, Misrepresentation of a Material Fact.

Some lots of years ago I got a tourist visa and longterm suspension reversed for a Thai friend based on the interpretation "materialness" of the incorrect info on the visa application. It'd been stated that my friend made baht xxxx per month, were as he only made baht xxx. While the difference in wage was fairly substantial, the U.S. NIV section agreed that they would have issued the visa if he'd stated the actual wage, so suspension lifted.

Sometimes reasonableness prevails.

Mac

[Eff1n2ret]

Good result, and point well made about the value of a visa agent. The 'self-help' ethos of this forum is admirable but there are times when the experience of someone who is used to dealing with the Monster that is UKBA and its subsidiaries is invaluable.

Also, it should be borne in mind that mere OISC registration denotes adherence to a code of practice more than competence, as there are varying grades within the OISC system, and potential clients should ensure that the advisor is qualified to the level of the service that they need. The fact that an agent is not OISC-registered does not mean they are incompetent or dishonest (unless they are in the UK, in which case they are breaking the law).

[Seekingasylum]

An informative read and valuable insight into the process. It is also quite revealing of a culture within the UKBA visa section which seeks to trap the unwary seemingly for no other purpose than to obtain a statistic. The aftermath of the spurious refusals in which the sponsor was treated so shabbily is further evidence of a mindset currently prevailing among UKBA staff. wherein incompetence is neither addressed nor indeed even acknowledged.

The system can be quite monstrous and it is apparent that only a qualified and professional intervention may right an injustice.

Well done Visaplus in this instance but you can be assured the ' system ' will continue to provide you with more business.

Every cloud has a silver ........

[paully]

Now it seems to me that, although the Visa Section never admits that they have made a mistake ( and cannot do so as any admission might attract a compensation claim), the two refusal decisions were wrong, and the Visa Section knows it. The result seems to indicate this too.[/Quote]

Good result, VisasPlus. But there should never have been a 10 year ban imposed, that was over the top in the circumstances and to not include the advisory note was sheer incompetence by the visa section.

[Basil B]

It seems considerable hurt was inflicted here by what looks like to be total incompetency and bureaucracy gone mad.

Wounder what the cost to the British Tax payer would have been if the victim was a litigious American and the Embassy did not have Crown Immunity?

[VisasPlus]

It seems considerable hurt was inflicted here by what looks like to be total incompetency and bureaucracy gone mad.

Wounder what the cost to the British Tax payer would have been if the victim was a litigious American and the Embassy did not have Crown Immunity?

The Embassy would only look at compensation if the applicant could provide evidence that she has been financially disadvantaged by their decisions. They will not look at the one year that she has been disadvantaged from visiting her partner in the UK, the associated stress of two visa refusals and the ban on future applications that was imposed, etc. On the other hand, they could have said that they would lift the 10 year ban and then look at any fresh application. They, however, didn't make her pay a new fee, but reconsidered the original applications. I guess we should be grateful for that .

[Basil B]

I suppose one has to be grateful for small mercies.

I still think there was inappropriate actions taken without due consideration, I would have thought that the ECO who wrongly assumed that she had previously applied had taken the trouble to research the previous application would have found out there was no file, and inquired why not, my reasoning here is that if a person applied and stated they had never applied before but had, if it was me I would want to pull that file to see what the applicant was hiding before making any contact with them, as you put it the applicant withdrew their application and took there paper work with them so there would be no file.

This must have caused great hurt and I suspect there probably are many others who have had the same treatment, maybe the Embassy/UKBA ought to review their procedures and improve their guidelines for issuing a ten year ban.

[anterian]

I had a very similar situation 3 months back with the UKBA in Manila. After having it clearly pointed out to them by letters from myself and my son that they had disregarded their own rules, they ended up by saying that they would look favourably upon a new application. unfortunately for my son, the applicant, his girlfriend, was so pissed off she told them to stuff it

[VisasPlus]

I suppose one has to be grateful for small mercies.

I still think there was inappropriate actions taken without due consideration, I would have thought that the ECO who wrongly assumed that she had previously applied had taken the trouble to research the previous application would have found out there was no file, and inquired why not, my reasoning here is that if a person applied and stated they had never applied before but had, if it was me I would want to pull that file to see what the applicant was hiding before making any contact with them, as you put it the applicant withdrew their application and took there paper work with them so there would be no file.

This must have caused great hurt and I suspect there probably are many others who have had the same treatment, maybe the Embassy/UKBA ought to review their procedures and improve their guidelines for issuing a ten year ban.

As additional information, and adding a bit more perspective to the decisions, paragraph 320 (7A) and (7B) decisions cannot be taken by an ECO alone. The facts in such applications must be referred to an ECM for authority to refuse as they need to be considered on a "higher balance of probablities".

[RAZZELL]

Excellent result!

RAZZ

[MTS1978]

The U.S. has a similar rule, Section 212(a)19 of the INA, Misrepresentation of a Material Fact.

Some lots of years ago I got a tourist visa and longterm suspension reversed for a Thai friend based on the interpretation "materialness" of the incorrect info on the visa application. It'd been stated that my friend made baht xxxx per month, were as he only made baht xxx. While the difference in wage was fairly substantial, the U.S. NIV section agreed that they would have issued the visa if he'd stated the actual wage, so suspension lifted.

Sometimes reasonableness prevails.

Mac

OP - well done. Sometimes reason prevails - it appears it was a genuine misunderstanding

Mac - to be honest, the lifting of the suspension was a spot of luck for your friend. Even if you appy to a club-card for tesco's there's a bit at the end of the form that you sign confirming everything above is truthful ...... if a person lies about one thing, then by definition they are a liar and untrustworthy. Malice may not have been there, but the intention to decieve was, I'm afraid.

[Thanyaburi Mac]

The U.S. has a similar rule, Section 212(a)19 of the INA, Misrepresentation of a Material Fact.

Some lots of years ago I got a tourist visa and longterm suspension reversed for a Thai friend based on the interpretation "materialness" of the incorrect info on the visa application. It'd been stated that my friend made baht xxxx per month, were as he only made baht xxx. While the difference in wage was fairly substantial, the U.S. NIV section agreed that they would have issued the visa if he'd stated the actual wage, so suspension lifted.

Sometimes reasonableness prevails.

Mac

OP - well done. Sometimes reason prevails - it appears it was a genuine misunderstanding

Mac - to be honest, the lifting of the suspension was a spot of luck for your friend. Even if you appy to a club-card for tesco's there's a bit at the end of the form that you sign confirming everything above is truthful ...... if a person lies about one thing, then by definition they are a liar and untrustworthy. Malice may not have been there, but the intention to decieve was, I'm afraid.

MTS,

Well, perhaps the U.S. Congress in writing that portion of the INA considered that some times some people will fudge things a bit so they used the word "material" just to allow some leeway in determining eligibility for a U.S. visa. Good on them, for once, for allowing judgement and reason to factor into the decision.

Mac

[asiawatcher]

The whole Visa scam is about money. Costs are ridiculous and the inconvenience of going to the trouble is also high cost against the individual applying. If proof of relationship and financial support is evident it should be a rubber stamp. I am not saying that for all (the bearded fraternity and religious nuts), but for a relationship, there should be no issue. Spend some time doing DD on those that hurt the country not those who simply want an ongoing relationship.

[7by7]

If proof of relationship and financial support is evident it should be a rubber stamp.

For the UK at least, it is.