14

Edit: it turns out I was neither removed nor required to leave. No error was made.

I made an error on my last application for entry clearance while answering whether or not I have ever been removed from another country. I answered no--my 10 year visitor application was approved.

However, now, three years from the date of issue of the entry clearance I have realized that I was in fact "removed" from Canada about 8 months earlier. I used to be a Canadian Permanent resident but on entry, the IO found that I did not meet my residency requirements. I was allowed to enter but given a "departure order" to leave within 30 days. I did leave and have never needed to enter Canada again.

So now what? I still have seven years of entry clearance remaining. I did not mean to deceive anyone. I just had just assumed that a departure order was issued because my PR status had been revoked--and it wasn't a "removal" per se--just a 30 day leave to enter. The removal order would not have been material to my UK application IMO. In fact, it would prove that ties to my home country are so strong I decided not to move to Canada legally. Do I do anything now? How do I proceed on my next entry clearance (which is very far away of course)?

I know Canada does not share immigration details about its citizens and PRs (which I was when I was "removed"). But I am no longer a permanent resident. Any suggestions for which lawyers I should contact?

  • 1
    Have you ever traveled to the UK with that visa? Why do you think it will cause any issue? – JonathanReez Mar 12 '17 at 16:55
  • 4
    Yes I have traveled thrice on that visa and intend to do so many more times. I'm worried that someone (either an IO or ECO on my next attempt at entry clearance) will accuse me of deception and hiding material facts. When I'm asked this question next time, if I say I was removed, they will say I lied last time. If I say no and they find out about my "removal", they will say I'm lying. –  Mar 12 '17 at 16:58
  • 4
    I'd see a difference between a 'departure order' and a 'removal' - the latter would be enforced by government agents, with physically transporting you. So you would have not misrepresented. But I am not a lawyer. – Aganju Mar 12 '17 at 17:59
  • That's what I had thought too. But in Canada, a "departure order" is a kind of "removal order." I don't know what that means in the UK though. Also the question had "otherwise required to leave?" Then again, I was "required to leave" but after 30 days--just like any other visit entry. I think a lawyer would be a good person to ask. –  Mar 12 '17 at 18:08
  • @tgb87 when in doubt it's usually better to disclose something and explain why are you disclosing it than to ignore it. But I agree that you will most likely need professional legal help here, as to handle this properly the details matter. – Aida Paul Mar 12 '17 at 18:13
  • 8
    I think your case warrants (as you do see yourself) getting professional legal advice. Have a look to How do I find an immigration lawyer/solicitor to help with my UK Visa application? and upvote the A by GayotFow as I did. – mts Mar 12 '17 at 18:24
  • 2
    I don't know about the part about Canada not sharing citizen and PR immigration information. I've lost the link but have seen reports of participants in the UK Registered Traveller service being dumped out for Canada infractions as minor as "failure to declare" customs violations. – user38879 Mar 12 '17 at 20:40

1 Answers1

15

You received an administrative removal from Canada (or what could be construed as an administrative removal) and you did not disclose it on an application for UK entry clearance. You are worried that you might have your visa revoked or be unable to successfully apply again.

First things first. You wrote...

The removal order would not have been material to my UK application IMO.

...and the Upper Tribunal wrote...

“When a direct question is asked, and answered untruthfully, there is both a false representation and a non-disclosure; and it is not open to an Appellant who gives an untruthful answer to a direct question in an application form to say that the matter was not material.”

The head note to Kenya [2010] UKUT 165 (IAC)

That's a direct contradiction and since the high court has taken a position on it your argument on immateriality fails.

So now what?

You should get a reading on whether there has been deception or not. You cannot do this on the net because all you end up with are opinions from random people. Instead, it means arranging a consultation with a member of the UK Law Society (the organisation that accredits solicitors).

Ideally you need someone who has an acknowledged practice area in deception and there are several of them out there. Those guys attract a fee and I am guessing you would need to pay GBP 300 - 400, but that's an onageristic guess.

If the solicitor decides there was no deception, he will give you a letter that explains his rationale. The letter will cite the relevant authorities like court decisions and so forth and you're off the hook forever going forward.

If he decides that there was deception, he will give you a letter that explains his rationale and what you need to do about it. You can use that letter as a road map or simply ignore it and continue on the way you are doing now.

The act of getting a reading will crystallise your situation. If you are having stress about it, then it's the way to relieve it.

You can locate a solicitor using the ILPA search pages. For a head start, I listed a few law firms in this answer, and in particular for your situation, the first and third in that list.

See also duplicate posting: https://www.immigrationboards.com/general-uk-immigration-forum/removed-from-another-country-t226957.html

Community
  • 1
Gayot Fow
  • 85,024
  • 26
  • 229
  • 405
  • Do you mean Vicki and Ian? Or the law firms? –  Mar 12 '17 at 18:38
  • 2
    The law firms. Vicki and Ian do other things that what this situation calls for – Gayot Fow Mar 12 '17 at 18:43
  • This answer is very correct. I just wanted to note my understanding that a Canada departure order isn't by itself very serious. It is issued when they have a reason to want to know when a person leaves (lack of exit records leaves them otherwise ignorant), as they might in this case. As such its closest equivalent might be an old, paper US I-94. It is a "removal order" only in that it becomes a deportation order if you overstay, but that just saves them the trouble of issuing a separate order. Getting a lawyer to align that with what the UK considers a "removal" is really good advice. – user38879 Mar 12 '17 at 21:23
  • 6
    I was unable to find a definition of "onageristic" anywhere online. It doesn't seem to be a useful word to use when talking to people many of whom won't be native speakers. – David Richerby Mar 12 '17 at 21:47
  • 5
    "The letter will cite the relevant authorities like court decisions and so forth and you're off the hook forever going forward." This makes it sound like the solicitor's findings are somehow legally binding. They are not. The solicitor's opinion doesn't get the OP off the hook in any way at all (although it may provide excellent grounds of support if the OP later finds themselves in trouble over this). – Lightness Races in Orbit Mar 12 '17 at 23:24
  • 1
    @DavidRicherby: FWIW it seems to be a minority slang for "wild ass" guess. An odd expression that I also have never heard before, and for which the internet provides very little documentation (only 259 mentions found by Google, total! 259!). Odd as it may seem after my earlier comments regarding not necessarily dumbing down everything we write for non-native speakers, I would tend to agree with you in this case that this is an odd choice of word here. – Lightness Races in Orbit Mar 12 '17 at 23:26
  • 3
    @DavidRicherby I shot this photo some years ago at the Kunming zoo, IIRC. The beast is also known as an onager. The connection should be obvious. – Spehro Pefhany Mar 13 '17 at 05:28
  • 1
    @Dennis it's all very confusing. In the UK a removal attracts a 10 year ban. Apparently, if you are served a notice of liability for removal, it's not a removal. But it may be a requirement to leave. The visa application form is so ambiguous and open to interpretation. Isn't everyone required to leave once their visa expires? I will consult a lawyer for the real advice--but UK visa applications are the worst. They don't give you the chance to explain a situation face-to-face to minimize confusion. –  Mar 13 '17 at 07:53
  • What is the difference between "administrative removal" and "voluntary departure?" Which would be the closest match to a "departure order?" –  Mar 13 '17 at 09:15
  • 2
    @tgb87 likely a notice of liability for removal, but that's what the reading would identify – Gayot Fow Mar 13 '17 at 11:04
  • Thanks @Gayot Fow I found this:Remember that making a decision to remove an immigration offender (Form IS 151 A part 2 or IS 151B), or issuing a notice identifying him as an immigration offender (IS 151A) do not in themselves mean that the applicant has been removed from the country. It is perfectly possible for someone to leave the country voluntarily after a decision has been taken to remove him, in which case future applications should only be refused for two or five years, not ten. According to the UK equivalent I wasn't "removed" but may (or may not) have been "required to leave." –  Mar 13 '17 at 14:56
  • 2
    I've been doing a little reading on the Canada side of things. It seems that when I entered, I was served a departure order which meant I had 30 days to leave or appeal before that order turned into a deportation order. Whilst in Canada during those 30 days I was not liable to removal forcefully. When I left, I enforced the departure order. Therefore, I believe I wasn't "removed" but may have been "required to leave" and left voluntarily before my departure order was "in force" (i.e my leaving enforced that order). If I had a deportation order, I could have been removed forcefully. –  Mar 16 '17 at 19:02
  • @Gayot Fow I haven't been able to contact any solicitors yet but I have established that I wasn't removed. I left on my own. There is a good chance that my incident was a "requirement to leave" even though I left before the order came into force. I am confident that if I am interviewed I will be able to clear why I wrote "no." However, I can't cite anything that requires me to inform them beforehand. I signed no such agreement on my form. However, I don't trust the ECOs. How do I show in writing that this was an "innocent mistake?" 320(7b) won't be applicable since the time would have passed –  Mar 22 '17 at 09:20
  • @tgb87 all that's fine but my answer still stands, sorry. You need a reading from a solicitor which gets you off the hook. Rationalisations offered by you cannot guarantee that. But it's your choice :) – Gayot Fow Mar 22 '17 at 09:28
  • 1
    @Gayot Fow Thanks. What would happen in the unlikely event they decided on "a higher balance of probabilities" I used deception? –  Mar 22 '17 at 10:40
  • 1
    @tgb87 then they retrospectively add illegal entrant to your file. Then they do whatever action is appropriate for an illegal entrant. – Gayot Fow Mar 22 '17 at 10:47
  • @Gayot Fow I am trying to obtain my files under the privacy act before deciding whether or not to spend $1000 on a lawyer. In the meanwhile I have two questions.1) My position can be construed to be that of a person against who a decision to remove has been made but he cannot be removed or required to leave due to a pending appeal. His appeal is not considered abandoned when he leaves but the judge later decides the decision was valid. Will he be considered removed? 2) What is the difference between order and require? Can an order not yet in force require? –  Apr 09 '17 at 07:44