Deception Refusals And UK Visit Visa Applications

• Published date: 31 December 2021
• Subject Matter: Government, Public Sector, Immigration, Human Rights, General Immigration, Work Visas
• Law Firm: Richmond Chambers Immigration Barristers
• Author: Ms Elana Kaymer

In this post, we discuss accusations of deception in visitor visa applications. Paragraph V 3.1 of Appendix V: Visitor provides that when you apply for entry clearance as a visitor, you must not fall for refusal under Part 9 of the Immigration Rules. Deception is mentioned in Part 9 as both a mandatory and discretionary reason for refusal.

What Is Immigration Deception?

Deception is not defined in the Immigration Rules. The Home Office guidance states:

"There is a distinction between information that is false but where you are not satisfied there was an intention to deceive by the applicant and cases where you are satisfied there was deception by the applicant."

This confirms that although false information may have been provided as an innocent mistake, e.g. misspelling a postcode on the application form, this should not be considered deception. However, if the information is material to the decision, and benefits the Applicant, it may be considered deception as this increases the likelihood of it having been provided purposefully to increase the chances of a successful application.

Deception can also be the absence of any material information. For example, in relation to the 'genuine visitor' requirement, you must satisfy the Home Office that you will return to your home country at the end of your visit. Therefore, you should make sure to provide full details of all your ties to the UK, whether personal, financial or otherwise, as well as those in your home country. Similarly, you should provide information about any previous visa refusals (even those not in the visitor category), and of any criminal convictions (even if they are spent), however minor they may seem to you e.g. driving penalties.

When false information has been provided by a third party and could easily and reasonably have gone unknown by you, this may not be considered deception. However, in making this assessment, the Home Office must evaluate the circumstances such as whether you ought to have known the information was false e.g. because you signed a statement of truth, and how reasonable it was that you understood the information. This is confirmed in the judgement Chanda v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2018] EWCA Civ 2424. Although the application in that case was for leave to remain as a Skilled Worker, it is a useful example of the distinction: the Applicant provided a degree certificate from the University of London despite never having attended or graduated from...