UK Entry Refusal

No words of advice, but my heart goes out to you.  I'm truly sorry and shocked that this happened.  (((((HUGS))))))  I got a bit nervous when I entered the last time before I moved over and they started asking me loads of questions, and I had a return ticket for a week later!  I told them I was visiting my fiance and meeting his family and they gave me a lecture about not being able to live here without a visa.  I am sure if I had planned to stay much longer I might have had a hard time getting in, as well.  I hope it works out for your future plans.   :\\\'(

Garry, could you please explain what the SAR is/involves, and any potential advantages/disadvantages in doing this?

There is an implicit assertion in your original post that you are British.  You would then be familiar with the Data Protection Act of 1998 and its various provisions; this is acutely so because you are involved with a foreigner who is vulnerable to immigration controls at ports of entry to the UK.

Your gf now has a pejorative immigration history.  My own experience as a practitioner (albeit no longer practicing) informs me that this may result in a premature marriage in order to "set things right".   Some premature marriages work, but others result in borken families, domestic violence, women being starved out and resorting to public funds, and the like.  So generally I'm against premature marriages.

A more rational approach is to see what the damage is.  This means lodging an SAR, Subject Access Request, with UKBA.  In the face of an SAR, the only choices UKBA have are to respond or to break the law.  They generally opt to respond.  Once the SAR has been fulfilled, the extent of your gf's future problems with UKBA can be nailed down.  This makes a better informed decision process for both of you.  She has to file the SAR, not you.  I don't keep the links on hand, perhaps Vinny will be along with some links.

Got your ears on, Vinny?

Other stuff.  I'm quite happy to help on the questionable nature of your gf's detention, and the subject is already on ILPA's "to do list".  We know about what's going on there, but it's hard getting enough people to step forward for us to get up a head of steam.  In addition to what can be done from our end, your gf (or better her parents) needs to lodge a complaint with her congressman.  There were enough angry parents stateside in 2007 complaining that they had to react, but it's clear things are sliding back into a state of regression.

The only point of the SAR is to see if they IO minuted that she admitted to the previous breach of conditions.  I also have noticed that we haven't actually asked to see her refusal statement either - if the statement covers this then a SAR may be somewhat pointless, but it will certainly do no harm.

Vicky

The only point of the SAR is to see if they IO minuted that she admitted to the previous breach of conditions.  I also have noticed that we haven't actually asked to see her refusal statement either - if the statement covers this then a SAR may be somewhat pointless, but it will certainly do no harm.

Vicky

Unfortunately, she was absolutely honest, and innocently admitted to undertaking babysitting duties a total of 3 times as a favour for a friend, and receiving a £20 gift on one occasion. This 'breach' was listed on the refusal statement, along with the alleged deception over the boyfriend/girlfriend issue...which really was nit-picking.

Would her honesty, and the relatively minor nature of the refusal reasons play a positive part in a future visitor visa application?

Thanks

J

Yes, as said on the other board (I am 'Victoria' over there by the way) she is liable for refusal under paragraph 320 of the immigration rules for a breach of previous conditions, ie working illegally on a visit visa, as well as the deception.

Vicky

Yes, as said on the other board (I am 'Victoria' over there by the way) she is liable for refusal under paragraph 320 of the immigration rules for a breach of previous conditions, ie working illegally on a visit visa, as well as the deception.

Vicky

Sorry to cross-post, I'm just trying to gain as much information as possible.

She didn't have a visit visa the last time, and didn't have any problems with immigration either. Would an ECO just see BREACH and DECEPTION, and then reject the application, or would they make their decision by looking further into the circumstances of the refusal?, and maybe give her credit for at least some degree of honesty?

Thanks

J

I think we should put out the word that the "visiting a friend" thing doesn't work very well in this particular era of UK immigration.  Especially if the visit period is longer than the average vacation of say two weeks.  A 'friend' is likely to put someone up for a weekend, maybe a long weekend, but not for a month or longer except in highly unusual circumstances.

Perhaps, "visiting a bf to undertake a trial relationship" might be a more tenable premise, because it's true and if all the other conditions of Paragraph 41 still apply, then the bounce could be avoided by threat of a Judicial Review.  

In thinking over this thread, there's also the nagging issue that the IO may have been influenced by the overall stereotype given to American women about lying.  Not that I disagree with the stereotype, in fact I agree with it.  But if they have applied a perception like that to an individual, that's additional grounds for a complaint.

Any comment on these ideas?

http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/policyandlaw/immigrationlaw/immigrationrules/part9/

Refusal of entry clearance or leave to enter the United Kingdom
320. In addition to the grounds of refusal of entry clearance or leave to enter set out in Parts 2-8 of these Rules, and subject to paragraph 321 below, the following grounds for the refusal of entry clearance or leave to enter apply:

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

(7B) subject to paragraph 320(7C), where the applicant has previously breached the UK's immigration laws by:

(a) Overstaying;

(b) breaching a condition attached to his leave;

(c) being an Illegal Entrant;

(d) using Deception in an application for entry clearance, leave to enter or remain (whether successful or not);

So, the ECO will see an admission of previous breach of conditions, and will have no choice but to refuse under 320 7 (b).  He may also refused under 320 7 (d), for the deception over the relationship, and will probably also refuse under para 41 as he won't believe she is a genuine visitor and doesn't intend to work.  But these are only possibles - refusal under 320 7 is mandatory.


Vicky

refusal under 320 7 is mandatory.

That's the key point - the IO wasn't being "mean", he or she was doing their job as they had been trained to do, and as they are expected to do.

I guess I'm just trying to establish whether the alleged 'breach' and 'deception' would be viewed objectively from the ECO. Is any kind of compassion used in the decision-making process?

Obviously, from a legal view, the decision is clear-cut, and it seems a waste of time even considering applying for a visit visa. I really hope this is not the case.

Thanks

J

Can I just also add that the same advice is being given on another forum!

Basically, the refusal under 320 of a further VISIT visa would be to do with the previous breach of conditions, as Kitson has said and as I have said elsewhere.  She admitted to working illegally, so another visit visa is almost certainly going to be refused and subject to a ban.

If she applies for a settlement visa, it is 50/50 as to whether she is approved or not.  Depends on the mood of the IO.  But she may well win on appeal if she is.

Vicky

I think this kind of answers your question.  It is a difficult position she is in.  ECO's aren't given their job to have compassion.  Unfortunately, they are there to follow the laws and decide who can enter or not.  It can be very heartbreaking.

What about you visiting her until you decide to get married?  Or meeting in a third country.  It sounds more likely that she can get approval for a settlement visa when/if you guys decide that is the route you want to go.

In this particular case, I think the OP needs to scan in the paperwork and send it.  I think the SAR is a needed step, but nothing helps gain clarity than to put an eyeball on it.

I still need the detention narrative too.

The UKBA webpages are impossible!  They mention on the FOI page that you *can* make an SAR, but there's zilch about actually doing it.

Thankfully, the ILPA has a wonderful sheet that gives all the information for making an SAR....

http://www.ilpa.org.uk/infoservice/Info%20sheet%20Subject%20Access%20Request1.pdf

I did an SAR back in March.  I received a letter in April asking for the £10 fee (fine, whatever) and they also said the following interesting things which aren't (yet?) addressed in the info sheet:

- 'We would be grateful if you could also send us your proof of your address such as a utility bill.  This would assist us with processing the subject access request but is not a requisite under the Data Protection Act 1998.'

I presume sending the £10 and a utility bill means you can bypass the need for them to send you a letter about it.

But also note:

- 'Please note that time spent validating your request does not count towards the statutory 40-day deadline.'

I'm assuming that's a sneaky way to get around the deadline, because how is anyone going to know how much time they take 'validating your request'?

The OIC website has a template letter:

http://www.ico.gov.uk/Home/what_we_cover/data_protection/your_rights/how_to_access_information.aspx

They sent me photocopies of my previous applications, and full copies of entry cards.  I haven't verified that every entry card is there (I went in and out a lot in the 1990s), but they certainly have plenty.

I guess I'm just trying to establish whether the alleged 'breach' and 'deception' would be viewed objectively from the ECO. Is any kind of compassion used in the decision-making process?

As a visitor, it is unlikely.  A 'breach' is a 'breach' and the documentation that they ECO will review will be clear that she was in breach of her terms.  It would be one of those "well it would be my ass if anyone found out about this, so I can't take a chance."  When it comes to a family based visa, it is a different story.  Previous breaches MAY affect her, but this is where the severity of it would be taken into account, and I highly doubt they would use 302(11) in this case.

You can go for the SAR, but again, and all due respect for Garry, what will it do?  In my opinion it would be false hope.  It will just give you more details that the IO did what their instructions told them.  Also, while she was interviewed alone with a male, pursuing it may result in the IO being delt with, but won't suddenly undo what has been done.

Again, these are just opinions, as anything could happen, but I personally think applying for a visitor's visa is a waste of time of money.

That was my thinking too Kitsonk.  I think it will be good information to have and useful from the advocacy perspective, but I do not think the SAR will necessarily help the OP and their partner get her into the UK as a visitor.  I think it may be false hope, however having the information may be helpful if they ever do go for a spousal visa.