Background
Kujtim is an Albanian national in his mid-thirties. He lived on and off between Albania and Europe during his teens and eventually settled in Europe. Kujtim's immigration history is very complicated, as he has been a victim of identity theft. Every time he travelled to and from Europe and within the Schengen area, he was stopped by Border Force officers and questioned.
Kujtim had never visited the United Kingdom before, and in 2016, he applied for a tourist visa for the very first time. Unfortunately, he did not seek legal advice before making an application because he had deemed it unnecessary, and following weeks of impatience and excitement, he received a letter of refusal. Kujtim was surprised to see that the reason for rejection was an unexpected and straightforward allegation of deception.
The UKVI alleged that Kujtim had been an illegal entrant to the United Kingdom during his teenage years, not on one but two occasions! According to the Home Office's file records, Kujtim had been detained and deported twice to Albania. The UKVI alleged that Kujtim had not disclosed his poor immigration records in the application form in an attempt to deceive the authorities. Needless to say, the refusal imposed on Kujtim a ten-year ban, which would attract automatic refusals of any future applications.
What does the law say?
Part 9 of the Immigration Rules provides clear guidance on the mandatory and discretionary grounds for refusing an entry clearance or permission to stay application. Rule 9.7.1. states that an application accompanied by false representation, false documents or false information (whether or not relevant to the application and whether or not to the applicant’s knowledge) or where relevant facts are not disclosed may be refused. But rule 9.7.2 specifies that an application must be refused where the decision maker can prove that it is more likely than not that the applicant used deception in the application.
What did we do?
Although rule 9.8.7. Part 9 of the Immigration Rules sets an automatic refusal if an application is brought forward within the relevant period of entry-ban; we decided to make a fresh application accompanied by substantial evidence of Kujtim's residence and work in Europe, which challenged the facts claimed by the Home Office. We also ensured that the application was accompanied by a detailed representation letter challenging the allegations.
What was the outcome?
Following an excruciating four-month processing time (due to further investigation), the UKVI withdrew the deception allegation, removed the entry ban, and issued the visitor visa.
If you have been unfairly refused a visitor visa, contact me at annamaria.zeka@taylor-rose.co.uk or WhatsApp me at +44 2070500696. Together, we can review the reason for refusal and assess whether seeking reconsideration would be beneficial.
Disclaimer: Advokta cannot provide direct legal representation. We operate as subcontractor consultants under the supervision of qualified solicitors who hold valid practising certificates and are regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority. Advokta is not regulated by the Law Society, the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) or the Immigration Advice Authority (IAA). Advokta observes the tenets of the 2007 Legal Services Act. "Advokta" is the trading name of "Annamaria Zeka Limited", a limited company incorporated under the Companies Acts in England (Registered Number 13824263) and having its Registered Office at 16 Upper Woburn Place, London, England, WC1H 0AF.
Comments