Timeline for Refused entry at Gare du Nord due to stolen BRP
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 15, 2019 at 9:59 | vote | accept | Ellyria | ||
| Jan 14, 2019 at 21:50 | comment | added | Andrew Savinykh | Someone I know was refused a visa because their "application did not meet the requirements". They applied for a visa countless time after that, each time answering "were you ever refused a visa" positively, and it has never been a problem. | |
| Jan 14, 2019 at 16:32 | comment | added | Ellyria | Thank you so much. I'm glad someone else sees it this way too. It was very naive of me but because Gare du Nord is in France I did not think it was refusal of entry, compared to, say, if someone was turned away at Heathrow. Obviously I know better now and will declare it from now on. I'll just have to cope with the delays that will result in them checking my applications, probably. Thank you so much for your help and advice. | |
| Jan 14, 2019 at 16:30 | comment | added | phoog | @Ellyria I believe that your mentioning the incident will in fact serve as proof that it is not deception. Your describing what happened clearly shows that you weren't trying to deceive anyone, so it supports your assertion that you misunderstood whether the incident constitutes a refusal of entry for the purpose of that question. I wouldn't worry too much about it. | |
| Jan 14, 2019 at 16:19 | comment | added | Ellyria | I used priority service which they say is 1 week (if there are no complications). That is still 1 sleepless week though, especially after I found out about the deception rule. I am hoping the fact that I mentioned the incident in my cover letter is enough proof that this is not deception. (I did not say I was refused entry as I didn't think it was, I said that the IO told me this wouldn't affect me and I'm following their instructions on seeking a replacement visa.) Would this be reason enough for them to not judge deception or grounds for explanation if it comes to it? | |
| Jan 14, 2019 at 16:13 | comment | added | phoog | @Ellyria if they try to get you on deception then you ought to be able to explain that you misunderstood the meaning of your experience at the border. How long did they say you would have to wait for the replacement visa? When you applied, did you include in your application any information about what happened at the border? | |
| Jan 14, 2019 at 16:03 | comment | added | Ellyria | I'm obviously going to declare it from now on, but I was in such a shock after being turned away and in such a hurry to file a replacement application I did not think this through. I have more than ten years of entry history/visa history in the UK with no problems whatsoever. I'm really worried this one mistake will jeopardise everything. Will I be able to appeal/explain if they do find this deceptive? Note that I am not seeking a new visa but rather it's a replacement visa (no need for a new sponsorship number, for example). | |
| Jan 14, 2019 at 15:58 | comment | added | Ellyria | Many thanks for this. I am actually worried about the deception point. I quickly filed my replacement visa application on the day after I was turned away at Gare du Nord, and did not realise at the time that this was a refusal of entry (hence I'm seeking clarification now). I did not tick the 'refused entry' box. I'm now really worried this will be seen as deception. When deciding if non-declaration was deception or not, do they check on the condition of refusal and look into it or is it automatic? I did mention the Gare du Nord encounter in my cover letter. | |
| Jan 14, 2019 at 14:14 | history | answered | phoog | CC BY-SA 4.0 |