Frontier Mole wrote:My only reply is to let DUA decide what is or is not good advice. After all it is her own circumstances that dictate what is or is not the best way to go forward.
As for assumptions, some know the facts, some do not. Those that do know the facts will always have the upper hand. Those that do not know the facts will always assume that their knowledge is the facts. The gulf between these two points of view is massive. It is just human nature to believe that our own knowledge is the complete picture. Only once the whole picture is revealed do we realise the scale of our incomplete knowledge.
In this case however, there is no good or bad advise. The only advises I see so far are from myself (wether positive or negative). Vince put in a valuable post (providing the OP a link).
What have you done, Frontier? Run through your posts and see if you have actually offered this lady any advise. Do you call castigating an advice?
Did you give any basis for your conclusion that she will never return to the UK? You kept on knocking on deception and I said: so what? She isn't the first to and wouldn't be the last. It isn't a good thing but tell me if you haven't done far worse things in your life.
I don't like cowards but I can see that the internet give a lot of you cowards to be faceless and take out your issues on others. You live and drink immigrationboards, that I wonder if you do have a day job. Perhaps you need to get out more. Immigration isn't the be it all and end all. You can be subjective and blunt without being mean. Frontier Mole, you are insensitive and rude!
So what if she didn't divulge the whole truth? Does it give you the right to slate her? How are you sure that the others you have offered advise in the past haven't been economical with the truth? Can you categorically say that they told nothing but the truth?
If this Lady can come out to say she used deception, what more could be worse? What else could she be hiding? Oh, you'd rather know how she met her husband and the first time they had sex? Of what relevance is the whole story to you?
She's a lady of a certain age who entered the country at the age of 18 under an assumed identity and later went on to continue her tetiary education in the UK. Ok, so she may have used deception to obtain entry onto the course, so what? Whether she worked illegally, studied illegally or married illegally (lol), she has received the maximum sentence for her previous wrong doing and she can't receive more than that! And guess what, she didn't receive the 10 years ban for deception, she received it for the removal order!
So you see, the issue of deception didn't even come up here at all! She has left the country before the end of September 08 so she couldn't and I mean ever be refused for deception! Well...not except she lies in her current application. If in doubt, return to paragraph 320 of the immigration rules and refute all my claims. The maximum ban she should ever receive if there wasn't a removal order should have been 3 years for previous deception but even that does not apply to her because the concession covers her.
Yes, 320(11) can be used but it can be fought in court. Article 8 can still be strong as supported by the High Courts in recent case laws. Even stronger in out of country cases as it is deemed you are applying under the rules and not currently in the country as an overstayer.
You disagree then counter my argument.
Your serve Frontier Mole - your serve!
