Post
by jei2 » Sun Nov 23, 2008 2:46 pm
This sounds very sneaky and silly. And I suspect not uncommon practice now.
I'd request a review from the Entry Clearance Manager (and appeal). The ECO is supposed to set a high standard of proof on any suspicion that there was intent to make false representation. That wouldn't be possible in this case.
Point out politely that these facts were disclosed in the representation by both your husband and yourself. What reason would your husband have for admitting to overstaying in his own evidence while denying it in the application form (which can be very confusing anyway)?
You should also draw attention to the concession as it relates to overstaying. I would argue that the issue of false representation is irrelevant in this context because your husband falls under the concesssion.
Even if it he had completed the form correctly (and its debatable that he didn't), they would still have had to ignore the overstaying element.
If memory serves me right, Round about June or July this year ECOs were instructed to grant entry clearance on any applications that had been refused after 1 April 2008 where the refusal was simply due to overstaying. This might help your case.
I'd suggest you seek legal advice (the Citizens Advice Bureau is free) and fight this all the way. If you've got your facts right I would expect the refusal to be thrown out at appeal.
Oh, the drama...!
