In India, which is the world’s largest democracy, the UKBA and Chennai police have jointly conducted the arrest of a UK visa applicant for visa fraud. The applicant was arrested at the UK Border Agency offices in Chennai, South India on 8 October following their submission of falsified documents to support a bogus Tier 1 (General) visa application.
Consequently, the UKBA entry clearance manager, Ms Gemma Dodgson while indubitably referring to the infamous rule 322(1A), explained:
‘Unfortunately we are seeing increasing numbers of forged documents. Our document checks are very thorough. The UK Border Agency refuses applications that are supported by false documents and the applicant also faces a ban of up to 10 years on travel to the UK. As this case shows, we will also refer cases to the police, with whom we have good co-operation.’
Just to be able to comprehend the vast number of refusals under rule 322(1A), and to be able to ascertain the scale of the problem, in the first 9 months of 2010 almost 1000 visa applicants have had their visa applications refused by the UK Border Agency in Chennai. The magnitude of the problem really is immense. These failed applicants will now most certainly face a 10-year ban because they submitted forged documentation or false information. However, due to the poor advice provided to applicants by ”agents” in India it would only be fair that these unscrupulous people are also punished for aiding and abetting in forgeries by applicants.
Rule 322(1A) requires that leave to remain in the UK should be refused:
“where false representations have been made or false documents or information have been submitted (whether or not material to the application, and whether or not to the applicant’s knowledge), or material facts have not been disclosed, in relation to the application.”
The word “deception” is not used in paragraph 322(1A). Instead it is defined, for the purposes of paragraphs 320(7B) and 320(11), in paragraph 6 of the immigration rules, as “making false representations or submitting false documents (whether or not material to the application), or failing to disclose material facts”.
It should be noted that from our experience in Indian cases we can very objectively say that the UKBA is wrong in numerous instances and their benefit in denying applications is to just take the money which they do charge as fees – quite substantive sums of money no doubt!
Since we have the experience of dealing with complex matters, it is very possible that we can help persons with adverse immigration antecedents in clarifying their protracted matters.