Have you ever found yourself subjected to an allegation of deception made by the Home Office under Part 9 of the Immigration Rules?
The Immigration Rules, in particular Part 9 which deals with grounds for refusal for all types of immigration applications contains some very draconian rules which if not challenged could have an impact on your life for the next 10 years.
What is Part 9 of Immigration Rules?
The main section of Part 9 which applies to deception states as follows:
False representations, etc. grounds
9.7.1. An application for entry clearance, permission to enter or permission to stay may be refused where, in relation to the application, or in order to obtain documents from the Secretary of State or a third party provided in support of the application:
(a) false representations are made, or false documents or false information submitted (whether or not relevant to the application, and whether or not to the applicant’s knowledge); or
(b) relevant facts are not disclosed.
9.7.2. An application for entry clearance, permission to enter or permission to stay must be refused where the decision maker can prove that it is more likely than not the applicant used deception in the application.
9.7.3. Entry clearance or permission held by a person may be cancelled where, in relation to an application, or in order to obtain documents from the Secretary of State or a third party provided in support of the application:
(a) false representations were made, or false documents or false information submitted (whether or not relevant to the application, and whether or not to the applicant’s knowledge); or
(b) relevant facts were not disclosed.
9.7.4 Permission extended under section 3C of the Immigration Act 1971 may be cancelled where the decision maker can prove that it is more likely than not the applicant used deception in the application for permission to stay.
In our case the client was refused under paragraph 9.7.2 because of false bank statements that were provided as part of her student entry clearance visa application.
How we assisted our client to challenge the deception decision?
On being instructed our robust approach meant that the administrative review application which we filed had all of the correct information for the decision maker to look at our client’s case again.
The KEY aspect of this case was the fact that our client faced an automatic refusal for 10 years no matter which type of application that they would have filed in the future. The other worrying aspect for our client was the fact that her dependent who was attached to the application was also refused under the same grounds which meant his future was also at stake.
For clarity the grounds for refusal table has been reproduced below for our readers to see the timeframes that you will be refused for depending on which breach of the immigration rules occurred:
Time from date the person left the UK (or date of refusal of the application under row (f)) | This applies where the applicant | And the applicant left the UK | And the applicant left the UK |
(a) 12 months | left voluntarily | at their own expense | N/A |
(b) 2 years | left voluntarily | at public expense | Within 6 months of being given notice of liability for removal or when they no longer had a pending appeal or administrative review, whichever is later. |
(c) 5 years | left voluntarily | at public expense | more than 6 months after being given notice of liability for removal or when they no longer had a pending appeal or administrative review, whichever is later. |
(d) 5 years | left or was removed from the UK | as a condition of a caution issued in accordance with section 22 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (and providing that any condition prohibiting their return to the UK has itself expired) | N/A |
(e) 10 years | was deported or removed from the UK | at public expense | N/A |
(f) 10 years | Used deception in an application (for visits this applies to applications for entry clearance only). | N/A | N/A |
After being instructed by our client we were informed that the main ground that needs to be removed is the 10 year automatic refusal ground from (f) in the table above which applied to her and her husband.
We filed our client’s Administrative Review with evidence that was allowed to be submitted even though ordinarily it would be ignored by the decision maker.
The result – Successful Part 9 Deception Decision Challenge
What followed was a successful outcome for our client in removing the automatic refusal period of up to 10 years and also the reasons for refusal based on an allegation of deception.
At NIDO our experience means that we are one of the leading immigration deception / fraud defence firms in the UK, at our Firm we have a very high success rate in Immigration Deception Cases and pride ourselves as being one of the best in this small niche area of Immigration Law.
If you or someone that you know needs our assistance in complex immigration cases which involve defending yourself against an allegation of deception made by the Home Office then contact our team for help now.