2

I want to attend a conference in November. I applied for a UK visa but was denied because I didn't declare a criminal conviction of 1989. There was no jail term, but I was given 50 hours of community service and a fine of GBP230. As at the time of my application I couldn't remember in details the verdict, I didn't declare it. Besides it occurred way back in 1989. I decided to apply for a UK Police record, which I have now.

I need an honest opinion on what to say about not declaring it or perhaps a better way to approach this.

S.T Oluwole
  • 69
  • 3
  • 4
    There's nothing to say. You lied about your criminal record on one of the documents where this is taken most seriously in the world. How does one not remember 50 hours and a fine equivalent to £565 even in vague terms? – Nij Feb 05 '18 at 09:39
  • 3
    Well, there is only one honest opinion to be had here - tell the truth. What was your reason for not declaring it? That you were unsure of the details? That's the only reason you should give then - don't further compound the issue by lying about the lie. Sure, it's not a great explanation, but it's the truthful explanation. It might not get you anywhere, but it also won't get you into any more trouble. –  Feb 05 '18 at 09:45
  • 1
    Any explanation that you give should be reasonable to shift the burden of proof back on the ECO. However, according the the UK Courts forgetfulness does not meet that criteria. The system is harsh and I don't agree with it but it is what it is. –  Feb 05 '18 at 10:10
  • 3
    @greatone I don't think that not giving leeway for "forgetfulness" is harsh - it's well demonstrated through questions on this very site that people overwhelmingly tend to be "forgetful" about things that would be negative to their application, but rarely for things in their favour... –  Feb 05 '18 at 21:48
  • @Moo The system should allow individuals accused of using deception to offer an innocent explanation before being banned and labelled as dishonest. An interview should be mandatory before 320(7a) bans. In some cases a ban based on paperwork may be disproportionate and may infringe on an individual's right to a trial. –  Feb 06 '18 at 07:16
  • 2
    @greatone why? What right to a trial exists here (no one is being incarcerated or otherwise punished without a trial here, the British government is simply denying you the temporary ability to enter a country you have no right to enter otherwise, there's nothing wrong with that)? Why should an interview be mandatory? Why should the a British government be forced to spend time and money on this? –  Feb 06 '18 at 07:31
  • @Moo In some cases a ban without proving intent beyond the criminal standard is disproportionate (opinion based). Determining rights based on where and to whom a person is born is akin to the caste system. That however, is an entirely different discussion. The visa fees charged by the UK government are ludicrous and higher than anywhere else in the world. The UK government isn't spending their own money on this--they are just providing a service. –  Feb 06 '18 at 09:43
  • 2
    @greatone criminal standard has no bearing here, and your comments about a caste system are laughable in this context. And if you don't want to pay the fee, don't apply, simple as that - it still doesn't answer the question about why interviews should be mandatory and what right to a trial exists. The process, standards and penalties are well documented and available to everyone who wishes to inform themselves. –  Feb 06 '18 at 09:55
  • @Moo why are the comments about a caste system laughable? Interviews should be mandatory because a ban not based on facts may cause disproportionate hardships. An applicant pays the visa fee has the right to be judged based on facts and not assumptions. The burden of proving mens rhea is upon the ECO. This cannot be reasonable expected to have been overcome without an interview. Your logic about not applying if you don't like it reflects the heavy handedness used by the UK government in their immigration policies. –  Feb 06 '18 at 10:30
  • 1
    @greatone they are laughable for the same reason that people touting "no borders" are easily dismissed as hippies - citizens and non-citizens have different rights, that's a fundamental thing and as such the government in control of the border gets to decide what dance has to be done to be granted a temporary right of admission. To liken the right of control of a countries borders to a caste system is stupid. The simple fact of the matter is that you must provide a truthful, complete application and can be penalised if you do not - and I see nothing wrong with that at all. –  Feb 06 '18 at 10:35
  • @greatone the ECO and the country receiving the application also has the right to expect a truthful and complete application, and the onus is on the applicant to provide that, no one else. An interview isn't needed. –  Feb 06 '18 at 10:37
  • 1
    @greatone this is an issue that the UK courts have already decided - and I trust no other countries legal system over the UKs. I don't see it as heavy handed, I see it as fair to both the applicant and the citizens of the UK. The fact that a refusal and a ban may create "disproportional hardship" isn't something the UK government nor the ECO should be concerning themselves about - and the bans are made on facts, the fact of an untruthful or incomplete application. –  Feb 06 '18 at 10:41
  • @Moo I'm pretty certain that opponents of slavery and caste system were considered hippies in their times too. It's easy for those at the top of the pyramid. Just because something is being done in a certain way does not make it right. Second, bans are supposed to be made on intent, not innocent mistakes. I believe that decisions on intent to deceive cannot be made without an interview especially in cases which involve nondisclosure of an event that wasn't life changing almost 30 years old. –  Feb 06 '18 at 10:57
  • @greatone just because someone wants something changed doesn't make it wrong in the first place, and frankly the comparison here to slavery is insulting but it says it all as to your position. –  Feb 06 '18 at 11:03
  • @Moo You have not provided any counterargument to my analogy except insults. I wonder whose position is undermined. Different rights for different people based on where and to whom they are born is reminiscent of the caste system and shares some similarities with slavery. International borders encourage economic exploitation. –  Feb 06 '18 at 11:09
  • 2
    @greatone except I have provided counter arguments - criminal standards have no bearings here, there is no right to trial, the UK courts have ruled on the issue of "forgetfulness", the right of a country to control its borders etc etc etc. Just because you don't like them doesn't mean I haven't provided them - conflating the right to control borders with slavery or a caste system doesn't help, or even make a convincing argument imho. It's obvious that you don't like the fact that a prosperous country has the right to control movement across its borders, but I simply don't care. –  Feb 06 '18 at 11:13
  • 1
    @greatone let's not pretend that this is kindergarten and that as such I have to pretend that your position has any merit at all. I don't think it does - I don't have to provide any counter argument as to why borders are good or why conflating freedoms of movement and slavery is a bad thing. If you want that discussion, I'm sure there are other Stack Exchange sites which would provide good content - http://philosophy.stackexchange.com for example. –  Feb 06 '18 at 11:20

1 Answers1

4

You asked the same question a few months ago, which was closed as primarily opinion-based. Then, it was for a wedding; now you wish to reapply for a conference. After a refusal, your premise for visiting the UK is going to be examined closely.

You misjudged: the offense was committed decades ago and had you revealed it in your initial application, it might have been considered spent and a visa issued. Now, you have a much greater problem and a new application has risks, particularly inviting a long-term ban.

You haven't included your refusal notice but likely it would have been for deception (by omission) under Appendix V Section 3.6 of the rules, as covered in the linked response. The UK really dislikes this and you were caught.

Your credibility has been severely damaged; in short, the UKVI has little cause to believe and you would have to overcome that burden for a second application to have a chance of success.

Rather than random strangers on the internet, you would be better served though a discussion with a UK solicitor.

Giorgio
  • 35,409
  • 14
  • 78
  • 197