Rejected Business Visa , Banned 4 10 yr,Can this be reverted

[SearchPeace]

ON order to reach a decision I have taken into account

That the burdern of proof is on you.the aplpicant
the standard of proof is to a balance of probabllities
your completed application form
your interview today


I have refused your visa on thsi occasion because i am not satisfiedon the balance of probabiliities.that you meet all teh requirements of teh apragraph 41 and 46g and 320 7a of immigration rules.
thsi decsion was made on teh merits of this aplication.

However if you have a previous application or immigration history this may have been considered.

IN your previous aplication you failed to disclose your UK Criminal Conviction. I am satisfied that these facts were material to the aplpication because it clearly asks in your aplication form see question 4.14
AS material afacts were not disclosed in relation to your aplication it is refused under paragraph 320 7a of rules.


your application does not atttract a full rght of appeal under section 82(!) ofthe Nationality,Immigration and Asylum Act 2002.Your appeal is limited to any or all of the above refereed to in Section 84(1) (b) and (c) of the NAtionality act namely

he decision is unlawful by virtue of Section 19b of the Race relations Act 1976 ( c.74) ( discrimination by public authorities)

THat the decision was unlawful under section 6 of the Human rights Act 1998( c 42) (public Authority not to act conttrary to Human rights convention) as being incompatible withteh appelants COnvention rights.

[SearchPeace]

can someone please explain whether I can make an appeal or not in this case?

ALso why does it say refusal coz of 320 7a ( which is acceptable) but why 41 and 46g?

Any idea

[republique]

can someone please explain whether I can make an appeal or not in this case?

ALso why does it say refusal coz of 320 7a ( which is acceptable) but why 41 and 46g?

Any idea

You are just confusing yourself with why this rule but not this one, they explained it in plain English.
You didn't disclose your conviction in your first application. Full Stop.
An appeal can be made if it is because of facial discrimination or human rights grounds. Based on what you have provided, you do not have any claims under that basis. Thus you can not appeal otherwise.
I am sorry it is over.

[Mr Rusty]

If you had declared the conviction in your previous visa application you would have been more than likely granted the visa in any event. The conviction would not have caused any real concern.

.

This is the really sad part about this case, and an object lesson to everyone - it is better to declare something which may be disadvantageous to your application, because if you don't, you're out in the cold for a very long time.

In my opinion the refusal notice is (allowing for the OP's typos) very badly worded. The ECO says he's refusing because he's not satisfied that the applicant meets all the requirements of Paras 41 ,46G and 320 7A of the Rules - but he's totally failed to say why Paras 41 or 46G, the normal requirements for business visitors, have not been met.

The refusal notice then states that in the "previous application" he failed to disclose his criminal conviction, and then says "as material facts were not disclosed in relation to your application it is refused..." So which application is that referring to? If the applicant has only been refused because of defects in the previous application, when he afterwards complied with the conditions of the visa, it's a pretty insubstantial refusal.

Even if, as Frontier Mole has said, that an administrative failure by the ECO may not avail the applicant, the issue is whether the outcome for the applicant is proportionate to the offence he has committed - the offence being a misleading declaration on the application(s?). He can argue that the shoplifting itself is not an issue because if it had been considered serious enough at the time to merit his exclusion from the UK, the court could have recommended him for deportation, but did not.

If he had applied, for example, as a spouse, or a long-term student, he would have had a direct right of appeal to challenge not only the decision but the consequent ban. In his case he has no right of appeal, and no right to make another application for 10 years. The only possible right of appeal is under the Human Rights Act, and I wonder if he can make a claim under Article 8 on the grounds that the refusal and its consequences have an effect on his private life disproportionate to the effective application of immigration law.

In my opinion the OP should make sure he gets in an appeal in time on the grounds that the decision was unlawful under s6 of the Human Rights Act, get copies of both visa application forms and any interview notes and the refusal notice, submit them to a qualified immigration advisor or solicitor in the UK and seek an opinion as to whether such an appeal can be pursued. An initial consultation should be free or limited cost.

[SearchPeace]

they have added 41 and 46 g as the terms as well.
That is what I dont relaly undertand.

[republique]

If you had declared the conviction in your previous visa application you would have been more than likely granted the visa in any event. The conviction would not have caused any real concern.

.

The refusal notice then states that in the "previous application" he failed to disclose his criminal conviction, and then says "as material facts were not disclosed in relation to your application it is refused..." So which application is that referring to? If the applicant has only been refused because of defects in the previous application, when he afterwards complied with the conditions of the visa, it's a pretty insubstantial refusal.

The second one because he already used the visa from the first application in which he did not declare the conviction either. I think you missed that in the reading of the the thread.


If he had applied, for example, as a spouse, or a long-term student, he would have had a direct right of appeal to challenge not only the decision but the consequent ban. ... I wonder if he can make a claim under Article 8 on the grounds that the refusal and its consequences have an effect on his private life disproportionate to the effective application of immigration law.

That is not grounds for a Human Rights claim but hey, you might want to use it as a subtext to get to court and see if the judge agrees that the penalty is disproportinate to the offence.

In any case, if the OP really wants to try it, he shouldn't do it. He needs to hire a solicitor.

[Mr Rusty]

"The second one because he already used the visa from the first application in which he did not declare the conviction either. I think you missed that in the reading of the the thread."

I didn't miss anything. My point is that the refusal notice is defectively-worded, and the meaning you give can't be inferred.

"That is not grounds for a Human Rights claim but hey, you might want to use it as a subtext to get to court and see if the judge agrees that the penalty is disproportinate to the offence."

Getting to court and seeing if the judge agrees is the point of appealing. Human Rights claims arise when a public body applies the law correctly, but in doing so acts unreasonably.

I don't know whether the OP has much chance of success; maybe he hasn't. But given that his future working life could be severely affected by this decision (which is something he would have to demonstrate to the court), I think we both agree that he should take professional advice. Unfortunately this may cost him some money.

[republique]

"The second one because he already used the visa from the first application in which he did not declare the conviction either. I think you missed that in the reading of the the thread."

I didn't miss anything. My point is that the refusal notice is defectively-worded, and the meaning you give can't be inferred.

"That is not grounds for a Human Rights claim but hey, you might want to use it as a subtext to get to court and see if the judge agrees that the penalty is disproportinate to the offence."

Getting to court and seeing if the judge agrees is the point of appealing. Human Rights claims arise when a public body applies the law correctly, but in doing so acts unreasonably.

I don't know whether the OP has much chance of success; maybe he hasn't. But given that his future working life could be severely affected by this decision (which is something he would have to demonstrate to the court), I think we both agree that he should take professional advice. Unfortunately this may cost him some money.

I disagree, It is quite clear. The wording no matter how poorly put doesn't give him a loophole when the facts indicate otherwise.
And the strategy to get it to court is a long shot. He really has no basis to get it there and his case has no merit. For all intents and purposes, he would simply by throwing himself at the mercy of the court. Yeah his future work life is affected but it is a business visa, he can do business elsewhere.

[SearchPeace]

I have read all the replies that have been posted here.
Now the fact is that I am based in India. can Someone suggest how I could hire someone ( and where should I hire someone ( in India or UK) ) to ask for advice and see if I can get more justice on this one.

This will surely affect my work life since I;m a consultant and I need to travel to various countries for projects.
I don't mind spending some money on it if someone can tell me if this can really be done or at least tried.

if anyone of you are in Uk could you please help me this?

Thanks in Advance.

[Frontier Mole]

Do not waste your money, the facts are accurate, you have committed a crime, were prosecuted and have failed to declare the conviction on more than one occasion.
Nothing is going to change history.

As for Mr R - he does not believe the 10 year ban is justified and gives the impression that you can do something about it. Unless you have a few tens of thousands of GBP to spare to take it all the way to ECJ, it is dead in the water. It might have been better to point to existing ECJ cases that uphold this type of sanction for other EEA countries.

Out of interest Mr R can you give any case law that point to a 10 year ban for deception being overturned? This would be based solely on the ban, not the immigration matter being overturned with the result of the 10 ban going with it.

I do not believe you have an HR claim that is valid or has any merit. You are basically trying to get the appeal on the back of a legal point that will be dismissed very quickly in court.

[SearchPeace]

As for Mr R - he does not believe the 10 year ban is justified and gives the impression that you can do something about it. Unless you have a few tens of thousands of GBP to spare to take it all the way to ECJ, it is dead in the water. It might have been better to point to existing ECJ cases that uphold this type of sanction for other EEA countries.

Out of interest Mr R can you give any case law that point to a 10 year ban for deception being overturned? This would be based solely on the ban, not the immigration matter being overturned with the result of the 10 ban going with it.

I do not believe you have an HR claim that is valid or has any merit. You are basically trying to get the appeal on the back of a legal point that will be dismissed very quickly in court.

Can you explain what that means?

[republique]

... It might have been better to point to existing ECJ cases that uphold this type of sanction for other EEA countries.
...

Can you explain what that means?

For you, it doesnt mean anything, all you need to know you it is practically impossible to win on appeal. If you can't understand or figure out what the reference means, then you know you shouldn't pursue it.
If you don't want to follow the good advice on the forum, then find a solicitor but do not keep asking us what does this and this mean when the matter is for a solicitor.
As for whom to find, open the yellow pages or google immigration solicitor and start making some calls.
Good Luck

[Mr Rusty]

Out of interest Mr R can you give any case law that point to a 10 year ban for deception being overturned? This would be based solely on the ban, not the immigration matter being overturned with the result of the 10 ban going with it.

No.

Have there been many appeals on this point so far?

I did say "I don't know whether the OP has much chance of success; maybe he hasn't." You are saying he most certainly hasn't. But in the end it's up to him whether he accepts advice from an anonymous internet forum or seeks it from a qualified source and accepts the cost of doing so.

[SearchPeace]

I've spoken to someone from UK who said they think nothing can be done.
But someone else has still showed me some hope.
I think i;m grateful to all of you.....for all your advices and would keep all posted further with what happens.

Anticipating further support as well.
Thanks

[Frontier Mole]

Be careful - make sure the person showing you the hopeful route is not just filling their pockets at your expense. Suggest that you get a quote as to the costs before you go and spend your hard earned cash.

Be lucky

[transpondia]

not have to declare the conviction in MOST circumstances. One exemption is immigration where no such relief is granted - of course it would be!

No. Please see the bottom of http://www.londonelegance.com/transpond ... inal.shtml which contains an extract of a letter sent last year to ILPA from the UKBA Policy Unit.

[Frontier Mole]

I know you are stating a claimed extract from a letter from the UKBA Policy Unit. I am inclined to point out what they say has to be shown in the actual published policy or internal guidance. If that is not the case then you will find that the way the visa is dealt with may not reflect what they have stated.

It is generally considered that all offences have to be declared regardless of the spent elelment.

[transpondia]

The full letter is in the archives of the Immigration Law Practitioner's Association. You can access these archives by simply providing them with your membership number or other evidence that you are an accredited practitioner.

And moreover, the Appeals Tribunal has already upheld the point in a starred decision. The case is published on their site.

I would suggest researching the subject more thoroughly lest readers gain the impression that you are not very well informed on the topic.

[Frontier Mole]

I have read the information and quote the OP

I travelled to UK in 2006 on W permit.During this there was a conviction on me and I had to pay a fine and had a statement of discharge.
Statement of discharge was for a year which ended in 2007

Now there was another application made to the UK in 2007 w/o mention of the conviction which got through easily and I traveled and came back as well.I did nt mention anything about the conviction since I thought it was over and done and I did not know it was a conviction first of all.

You seem to have overlooked the fact that his conviction was not spent at the time of the application in 2007. This is the reason he has received the ban and not as you seem to want to suggest for not declaring a “spentâ€

[Frontier Mole]

[transpondia]

The key words in your citation are "Failure to declare an unspent conviction...".

Spent versus Unspent. There is difference you seem to not acknowledge. One must be declared, the other not. Despite your assertions to the contrary, immigration law must not violate UK law.

But no matter, I take it you're not in practice so the only harm you can do is misinforming people on this board, or other boards in which you participate.

I'm done in this thread. The last word is yours if you wnt it...

[Frontier Mole]

That is the point - he failed to declare an unspent conviction!

Glad you agreed in the end

[PaperPusher]

Transpondia

You are not always right either:

http://www.immigrationboards.com/viewto ... ht=#153932

I just do not agree that employers will have to apply AGAIN for a licence for the work permits they applied for possibly as much three or four years ago.

Certainly you are free to disagree, but that's the way it's going to happen. The work permit scheme is over, get used to it.

[transpondia]

I think it has been proven accurate...