Question re 10 year ban for deception

[safarigirl]

I am confused and a bit worried by the 10 year ban for using deception rule?

My husband was found to have a back-dated stamp in his passport when he applied for his fiance visa in 2006. I posted the full details at the time but he'd basically been on a student visa in the uk, had applied for an extension in time but had to call his passport back from the home office when his father died suddenly. Although that meant he hadn't technically overstayed he was worried it would appear that way when he applied for a fiance visa to come back on so got them to backstamp the passport by one month. A mistake we paid dearly for.

Since then we married in his home country in 2006, I moved there (i'm a uk citizen), he has his own business and I have a fulltime job. We have no current plans to settle in the UK together.

He was granted a 6 month family visitor visa in February this year as I was pregnant (we were completely honest on the application form). We now have a one month old baby, I am still in the UK and intend to be here for a couple more months and he is back in Nigeria working. His visitor visa runs out in 2 days and I am worried that he could still be hit by the 10 year ban.

Does this rule still apply if you've since been granted a valid uk visa which you haven't abused since then? He is intending to apply for another family visitor visa.

Any opinions would be greatly appreciated!

[CoolestGuyC]

Following are the relevant 10 year ban rules, taken from:
http://www.ukvisas.gov.uk/en/ecg/chapte ... 0seventeen
I have highlighted the parts that may be relevant to you and help you understand the rules better:


[quote]26.17.4 When does rule 320(7B) not apply?

Under paragraph 320(7C) of the immigration rules, You must also not refuse an applicant under 320(7B) if they are applying in the following categories:

* Spouse, civil partner, unmarried or same-sex partner (Paragraphs 281 or 295A);
* Fiance(e), or proposed civil partner (Paragraph 290);
* Parent, grandparent or other dependant relatvie (Paragraph 317);
* Spouse, civil partner, or unmarried or same-sex partner of a refugee or person with humanitarian protection (Paragraphs 352A, AA, FA. FD);
* Those applying to exercise rights of access to a child (Paragraph 246);
* They were under the age of 18 at the time of the most recent breach of the UK’s immigration laws.

As concessions outside the Rules, you should also not refuse an applicant under 320(7B) if:

* The applicant has been accepted by UKBA as a victim of trafficking (please read 26.17.6 below);
* the applicant was in the UK illegally on or after 17 March 2008 (date of announcement) and left the UK voluntarily before 1 October 2008 (please read 26.17.5 below).

In addition you must not refuse an applicant under 320(7B) if:

* false documents or false representations were used in a previous visa or leave to enter or remain application, and the applicant was not aware that the documents or representations were false (paragraph 26.17.5 below);
* the applicant has raised human rights issues (in particular right to family life under Article which would justify issuing the entry clearance;
* the applicant has raised exceptional and compelling circumstances which are likely to justify a grant of leave outside the rules, you need to refer the application to NCC2 following the usual HO Referrals process (Chapter 25) for a decision to be made outside of the immigration rules;
* the period specified in 26.17.2 for automatically refusing applications has expired; or
* following their breach of UK immigration laws, UKBA issued a visa or leave to enter or remain in the knowledge of that breach e.g. a student who has overstayed but was granted LTE following an out of time application.

Although 320(7B) may not apply, an ECO must still consider whether the applicant meets the “significantly contrived to frustrateâ€

[safarigirl]

Thanks - if I'm interpreting correctly then I assume the fact that he is my husband and has family in the UK and has been granted a visa since that episode (where we were honest about the previous incident), hopefully should prevent problems with his next application.