Refused UK visit visa TWICE but my circumstance is very different

Question

I am an Indian citizen. My spouse and I applied for a UK visit visa on 29/11/2017 and re-applied on 14/12/2017 with tourism as the purpose. We were refused both times. I feel the ECOs are very inconsiderate and unfair.

I wish to bring to your notice that I earlier lived and worked in the United Kingdom from 2003 to 2007. Now kindly go through the concerns of the ECO in the following notices of refusal followed by my replies to their refusal.

After getting this refusal notice I stood up and gave them answers in my cover letter, with a new visa application, because I knew I was genuinely seeking entry and my intention was very clear in visiting the UK. Here is my cover letter which gave answers of their concerns/objections.

Now please can someone tell me where I went wrong or what else I should have done to satisfy the ECO? Every time they are coming up with new concerns. I am terribly disappointed and frustrated. Please help me out and explain what should have I done.

I can't post the second notice of refusal as it is not allowing me to post more than 8 links without having a reputation of 10 or more. I don't know, I am a new user. I can mail that if you like.

Do I have any merit to apply ever in the future? How do I change the circumstance other than my financial status? After all, I cannot go back in time and change what happened unknowingly and unwillingly.

They got you on the work visa, and you aren't understanding their argument - work visas can be tied to a particular job, and the visa expires if either the expiry date is reached or you leave the job. You left the job. The visit you made in 2009 was therefore made on a visa which was no longer valid, you should have applied for another visa. — , Dec 22 '17 at 04:43
How did they allow you to enter the UK in 2009 on a visa they claim was curtailed in 2007. What did you tell the immigration officer in 2009? They should have known your leave was curtailed and you had no valid leave. If they let you in despite that, the ECO should have no reason to object. They are concerned you want to work in the UK. In my opinion, the refusal letter is weak. — , Dec 22 '17 at 06:07
@Moo this should be an answer. I am surprised Mr Raut was able to enter the UK in 2009. — user16259, Dec 22 '17 at 06:17
@greatone the counter argument is that the visa holder should know the terms of their visa, and are lawfully obligated to abide by those terms. The Home Office records may not have been updated until after the 2009 trip (the HO may have contacted the employer to ensure the visa was renewed), but that doesn't mean the visa was valid - leaving the job automatically invalidates the visa, no notification is needed. Yes, this means there is a loophole where an ECO may admit a person under an invalid visa, but that just puts the visa holder in the wrong, it doesn't overrule the terms of the visa. — , Dec 22 '17 at 06:49
@Moo the OP may have told the officer about the change in circumstances and that he was here for a visit. Refusal letters shouldn't be based on assumptions. — , Dec 22 '17 at 09:03
@greatone you are saying that an ECO knowingly allowed someone to enter the country on an invalid visa...? You are going to have to point out where an assumption was made in the refusal letters with regard to the issue I highlight. — , Dec 22 '17 at 09:09
@greatone Thank you for empathising my situation. All I want to say is, I was not aware about the fact that my Visa was curtailed when the employment was left. I thought it was valid by date and so I made a visit in 2009 to collect my belongings, claim tax refunds and close bank account that I had. It was that simple. Also, one must consider that I did not overstay at that period because that was a common sense one should have if he doesn't intend to breach the immigration rule. I was never notified about this curtailment, so how am I accused?Should that mean "I am banned to enter the UK?" — Abhijeet Raut, Dec 23 '17 at 10:56
@Moo I appreciate your honest and straight response to my post however try to be in my situation where you have no idea of your visa term. I simply did not make a silent entry. I had told the ECO in my landing interview that I was away for some family emergency and now I came back to claim tax refunds, close accounts and leave UK permanently. He then looked at me and smiled. I am grateful that they didn't deport me, but also I am surprised how they let me enter then? — Abhijeet Raut, Dec 23 '17 at 11:01
@AbhijeetRaut you are supposed to know the terms of your visa - did you tell the ECO in 2009 that you were had not been employed at the job linked to the visa since 2007? If not, then I stand by my comments. If you did, then you need to prove that to overturn your record, as the ECO broke a huge number of rules and landed you on an invalid visa, when they could have issued you with other entry clearance instead and not be risking their own job. — , Dec 23 '17 at 11:05
@AbhijeetRaut I currently live in a foreign country, where both myself and my wife require work visas - I personally have researched the intimate details of both our work visas and know the terms and conditions of them. It's not hard to do, especially with a UK visa - ignorance of the visa conditions simply don't fly here as an excuse. — , Dec 23 '17 at 11:07
@Moo I agree I never looked in to the terms of my visa. I simple thought it was needless. Who reads terms & conditions honestly. But ok let me admit it was my mistake. Coming to the question you asked, "did you tell the ECO in 2009 that you were had not been employed at the job linked to the visa since 2007?" ---- NO. I don't think either if I was really asked this question or I felt necessary to disclose this information at that moment. — Abhijeet Raut, Dec 23 '17 at 11:12
@AbhijeetRaut then my comments stand - you screwed up. Big time. And these refusals are the result. When it comes to visas, you read the conditions - in detail, and you get legal help if yout do not understand them. That's your obligation - if you don't want to do it, don't take on the visa. So you ended up lying to the ECO through omission, which has already been proven in UK court as a bad thing when it comes to immigration. You should never have attempted to visit the Uk on that visa in 2009 - the fact that the ECO let you in without knowing all the facts does not make it OK. — , Dec 23 '17 at 11:18

score 2 · Accepted Answer · answered Dec 22 '17 at 07:54

First, you should look up what they refused you for. The refusal note says Appendix V4.2(a) and (c). The corresponding rules for visitors can be found on the websites of the Home Office. The paragraphs relevant for you read:

V 4.2 The applicant must satisfy the decision maker that they are a genuine visitor. This means that the applicant:
(a) will leave the UK at the end of their visit; and
(b) […]; and
(c) is genuinely seeking entry for a purpose that is permitted by the visitor routes (these are listed in Appendices 3, 4 and 5); and […]

This already gives you a big clue that they are not all too concerned about your finances (that would be V4.2(e)).

Now, let’s look at this with the eyes of the ECO. He sees that you have entered the UK in 2009. He proceeds to check what entitled you to enter then. He finds out that while you had a work visa, that expired 14 months after your employment ended. There are no records of other visas. Thus, you entered the UK illegally.

You claim that your visa has a date printed on it meaning it was valid until the end of December 2009. But it is irrelevant what date is printed on the visa if it is tied to your employment. I did not find the relevant paragraphs while skimming across some parts of the immigration rules but I am positive that this is stated somewhere. (Reasoning: the Home Office has no reason to make up rules.) Therefore, your single defense crumbled away.

They probably let you in at the airport in 2009 because they just looked at the date and did not check the record whether you were still employed.

Under the basis of your previous illegal entry, the ECO will assume (and has every right and requirement to do so) that you will go underground once you arrive, attempt to seek illegal employment (V4.2(c)) and overstay (V4.2(a)). The ties to your home country you showed were deemed not strong enough. That is the point you want to fix and my gut feeling tells me you want to be represented by an established solicitor if you want to reapply. Otherwise, you may well fall into a serial refusals chain.

Please also see the question I am about to link your’s as a duplicate of.

There was no illegal entry. Illegal entry is entry without leave. The OP entered legally and appeared at an immigration point where he was legally allowed to enter. — , Dec 22 '17 at 09:06

Refused UK visit visa TWICE but my circumstance is very different

1 Answers1