Visitor Visa with an Undisclosed Overstay
Mr Adeyemi Okafor, a 41-year-old Nigerian national, applies on 4 March 2025 for a visitor visa to attend his sister's graduation in June 2025. Question 6.1 of the form asks: 'Have you ever overstayed a visa or been removed from any country?' The answer recorded is 'No'. The caseworking system shows he entered in January 2019 on a six-month visitor visa and left in March 2020, 14 months after his permitted stay expired, departing voluntarily at his own expense. Under the applicable rules, voluntary departure after an overstay of more than 90 days carries a 12-month re-entry ban from the date of departure; removal at public expense carries a five-year ban. Knowingly answering a material question falsely is deception and requires refusal with a 10-year ban, unless the application is withdrawn before a decision is made. His bank statement shows £3,200 held for 19 consecutive days, against a required £2,000 held for 28 days. He states an agent completed the form and he did not read it.
1. Determine whether the 2020 overstay currently bars entry, showing the date arithmetic, and whether the false answer is material.
Read the worked answer
Does the overstay still bar entry? The six-month visitor permission began in January 2019 and expired in July 2019. He left in March 2020, so the overstay was about eight months, well over 90 days. Voluntary departure at his own expense triggers a 12-month ban running from the date of departure, i.e. March 2020 to March 2021. The proposed visit is June 2025, so the ban expired more than four years ago. The overstay is therefore not a current bar.
Is the false answer material? Yes. Question 6.1 asks about ever overstaying, not about a current ban. A truthful answer would have disclosed the 2019–2020 history, prompted verification of the departure, and allowed the caseworker to assess credibility and the funds discrepancy. The answer concealed a fact relevant to the decision, even though it would not by itself have required refusal. Materiality is about relevance and potential effect, not about whether the outcome would certainly have changed.
Second ground. The maintenance requirement is not met: £3,200 held for 19 days does not satisfy £2,000 held for 28 consecutive days. The application fails on funds independently.
2. The applicant says an agent completed the form. Does that change the outcome? What must be established before a deception finding?
Read the worked answer
Effect of the agent explanation. It does not automatically remove the deception finding. The applicant signed the declaration confirming the form was complete and accurate; the duty to check is his, and the question was plainly worded. But deception normally requires knowledge or reckless disregard, so the explanation must be tested rather than accepted or dismissed.
What must be established. Ask for the agent's identity, the correspondence, the draft form, and evidence of what the applicant reviewed and signed. If the applicant can show the agent inserted 'No' without his knowledge and he had no reason to suspect it, a deception finding may not be sustainable; the funds failure would still require refusal, but not the 10-year ban. If he signed without reading, that is at least reckless and supports deception, because the declaration is explicit and the question is not ambiguous.
The same discipline applies to the funds: a 19-day balance is a straightforward failure, not a credibility issue. Keep the two findings separate so the refusal letter does not imply that the funds point depends on the deception.
3. Set out the decision and the sequence of procedural steps, including what happens if he withdraws the application.
Read the worked answer
Sequence. (1) Verify the 2020 departure against embarkation records and recalculate the ban. (2) Verify the bank statement with the issuing bank and check the exact 28-day period. (3) Issue a pre-decision letter setting out the deception and funds points, with the evidence and a deadline (for example 10 working days) to comment; do not decide without giving him the chance to answer. (4) Consider any agent evidence. (5) If deception is upheld, refuse and impose the 10-year ban; record the materiality reasoning and the ban end date. (6) If he withdraws before the decision, the rules provide that withdrawal prevents a refusal and the deception ban, but record the withdrawal and the funds issue. (7) Check whether administrative review or appeal applies and state it accurately in the decision letter.
Decision. Refuse on funds and, if deception is upheld, on deception with a 10-year ban. The 12-month ban is not a ground now; do not confuse it with the 10-year deception ban. The letter should distinguish the expired ban from the current deception finding so the applicant can understand and challenge the correct point.