Suitability refusals: alleged deception, false information and innocent mistakes

Making a mistake on an immigration application form can be disastrous. If the mistake is interpreted by officials as an attempt to mislead or deceive, the application may be refused and can also lead to a ten-year ban on re-entry to the UK.

Following a Court of Appeal decision that drew a distinction between submission of a false document and the use of deception, this distinction was inserted into the immigration rules. The relevant rules are set out in Part Suitability of the immigration rules, at paragraphs SUI 9.1 to SUI 12.1. These must be read with paragraphs SUI 1.1 to SUI 1.4 which set out which sections of Part Suitability do not apply to certain applications. For example, Part Suitability does not apply to Appendix EU.

The suitability provisions were previously contained in Part 9 of the rules. As of 11 November 2025, these provisions moved to Part Suitability. The principal difference between Part 9 and Part Suitability, in the deception context, is that Part 9 had put false representations and deception together in one cluster. Part Suitability separates them into deception (paragraph SUI 9) and false representations (paragraph SUI 10). The legal position remains the same. Deception, when proven to the civil standard, carries a mandatory refusal. Otherwise, when not proven to the civil standard, including in relation to statements made or documents adduced without the applicant’s knowledge, it carries a discretionary refusal or cancellation.

There are Home Office policies that may be useful if such a situation does arise, although of course it is far, far preferable to avoid such a problem in the first place.

What are the immigration rules on deception?

Discretionary refusals: false representations, documents or information

An entry clearance officer or Home Office official may refuse an application where false representations, information or documents have been provided. Paragraph SUI 10.1 states that an application may be refused where:

the applicant or a third party, in relation to the application, or to obtain documents from the Secretary of State or a third party:

(a) made false representations or provided false documents or false information in relation to the application (whether or not relevant to the application, and whether or not to the applicant’s knowledge); or

(b) did not disclose relevant facts in relation to the application.

This paragraph applies whether or not the applicant knows that a false document was given. The application can be refused if a false document was submitted, irrespective of whether the applicant knew that it was a false document.

SUI 10.2 is in identical terms to SUI 10.1, but states that entry clearance or leave that has already been granted may be cancelled where false information or documents have been provided.

Another provision that allows an entry clearance officer or Home Office official to refuse an application is at SUI 11.2. It relates to previous breaches of the rules:

An application for entry clearance or permission to enter may be refused where:

(a) the applicant has previously breached immigration laws as defined in SUI 11.4;

This includes where the applicant has used deception in relation to a previous application, whether or not successfully.

and

(b) the application was made outside the relevant time period in SUI 12.1; and

(c) the applicant has acted to frustrate immigration controls (see SUI 11.7.). 

This rule is sometimes used to refuse applicants with a very poor immigration history in the UK. You can read more about the rule in a previous blog post (concerned with paragraph 9.8.2, the predecessor to SUI 11.2).

Where an applicant has used deception but none of the other grounds apply – for example, because they attempted to deceive a body other than the Home Office – the application may be refused relying on the grounds relating to an applicant’s conduct. This can be found at paragraph SUI 3.1.

Automatic refusals: deception

Deception is defined in the guidance as where there is a deliberate intention to deceive by the applicant. There are two key effects of a finding of deception under these provisions:

1. The application concerned could be refused.
2. Future applications for entry clearance may also be refused for a period of ten years from the date of refusal of the application in which the deception was used.

The relevant paragraph is SUI 9.1. This incorporates a mandatory duty to refuse applications in which deception has been used. It states that:

An application for entry clearance or permission must be refused where the decision maker is satisfied that the applicant used deception…

The deception guidance calls the application of SUI 9.1 a ‘mandatory refusal’. It states that the applicable standard is on the balance of probabilities which means that it is more likely than not that the applicant has deliberately and dishonestly made false representations, submitted false documents or information or failed to disclose material facts.

SUI 11.1 combined with SUI 12.1 row (f) means that where an applicant used deception (‘previously breached immigration laws’) in an application, any application for entry clearance will be refused for a period of ten years from the date of the decision. Although Part Suitability does not specify this, the Home Office guidance on the mandatory refusal period states that:

The 10-year mandatory refusal period starts from the date of the refusal decision rather than the date the individual made the application, or they left the UK.

Distinction between mandatory and discretionary refusal

It may be clear by now that SUI 9.1 and SUI 10.1 are slightly different, though similar in nature. They both require deception and attract refusals. But SUI 9.1 is expressed more harshly compared to SUI 10.1.

The wording sheds some light on the distinction between the two. If SUI 9.1 is engaged, an application will be refused. And therefore, more has to be done to engage it. The deception guidance, at section 3.1, requires decision-makers to be satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that deception has been used by the applicant. Only then can a mandatory refusal under SUI 9.1 be made. The deception guidance also prohibits the use of this power in certain circumstances:

An allegation of deception must not be made unless there is evidence to support the allegation.

If the information provided is incorrect but there is insufficient evidence of deception the application must be considered for refusal on eligibility grounds, as incorrect information may mean they do not meet the requirements of the rules. 

SUI 10.1, on the other hand, is less strict. If engaged, an application may be refused. This leaves room for discretion on the decision-maker. Conversely, it can be triggered more easily or by more innocent conduct. The deception guidance states this at section 3.2:

In all other cases where you cannot prove deception by the applicant refusal / cancellation is discretionary and if the applicant (or a third party) makes false representations or submits false information or false documents or fails to disclose relevant facts you may refuse the application, or existing permission may be cancelled under paragraphs SUI 10.1. or SUI 10.2.

The practical effect of these paragraphs can be very different. Pursuant to section 3.2 of the deception guidance, if a refusal is made under SUI 10.1, it does not lead to an automatic re-entry ban. This accords with the reading of SUI 11.4(d) and 12.1(f). The fact that this discretionary power does not lead to an automatic re-entry ban is sensible. This is because in those cases, an applicant could have used deception, but they might not have. Their immigration advisers or an agent could have used a false document, unbeknownst to them.

On the other hand, if a refusal is made under SUI 9.1, the decision-maker would have been satisfied that deception has been used by the applicant themselves. The decision-maker would have to prove this on the balance of probabilities. In those cases, where the higher threshold has been reached, the immigration rules provide the power to subject an applicant to a re-entry ban.

Avoiding mistakes that might be interpreted as deception

Given the length of some immigration application forms and the wide range of questions, it is easy to make a mistake. Some immigration officials can be very suspicious people, and even where you answer a question incorrectly but include with the application information that shows that the answer was incorrect – which surely shows you had no real intention to deceive – deception is still sometimes alleged.

The main types of accidental ‘deception’ I come across in my work are:

1. Failure to declare minor criminal convictions such as driving offences
2. Wrong answers about previous refusals or immigration history
3. Allegations of use of false documents

Let us have a think about each in turn.

When is a conviction a conviction?

The first problem arises where the applicant either does not really understand that a minor conviction where the sentence was only a fine is nevertheless still a conviction. This seems obvious to lawyers, judges and Home Office officials but when many people hear ‘criminal conviction’ they associate that with prison and with serious or dishonest offences.

Entry clearance officers take a strict line in such cases. Where there is a failure to declare a conviction despite a question in the form asking for disclosure, it is almost inevitable that the application will be refused on deception grounds.

Immigration history

As a general rule applicants should be encouraged to disclose absolutely everything that have ever happened, including when they are not strictly speaking answering to the question asked. For example, applications for entry clearance contain a question as to whether the applicant was ever refused a visa application. Strictly speaking, this relates to application for entry clearance, not for leave to remain. However, an applicant who has never been refused a visa but has been refused leave to remain would be better off disclosing the leave to remain refusal too, to be on the safe side and ensure that they cannot under any circumstances be accused of deception.

Alleged false documents

Sometimes an application will be refused because a Home Office official believes that a false document was submitted. This suspicion is sometimes unfounded and sometimes as a result of perfunctory investigations.

The first step to challenge the refusal is to request disclosure of the document verification report. This is the document which should be produced by the person verifying a document, setting out the steps that officer took to verify the document and recording the results of the verification check.

The report should give a better idea of what the allegation is and whether there was a misunderstanding. It will also make it clearer what kind of evidence should be gathered to rebut the allegation that a document was false.

Home Office policies on deception

In some circumstances, the Home Office has an obligation to give the applicant a chance to respond to an allegation of dishonesty:

You must not assume that an applicant who has submitted a false document has also used deception. The applicant has used deception if they knowingly submitted a false document. You must consider whether, on the balance of probabilities, the applicant knew they were submitting a false document. Examples of evidence that might support this finding include:

• evidence that the person paid someone to provide the document and that person was not authorised to accept such payments and/or produce documents of that type

• the evidence relates directly to the person’s circumstances and they should therefore have known it is false, for example it is reasonable to expect a person to know what qualifications they have or where they studied or worked

• the evidence contradicts claims or evidence that the applicant has previously made or submitted

• there are obvious deficiencies in the quality of the evidence that would be apparent to the applicant

The above is not an exhaustive list and you must consider any other relevant evidence that an applicant use deception.

It goes on to confirm that:

Even if one or some of the above applies, you must also consider whether the applicant may have a plausible explanation for why they did not know the document was false.

Finally, the guidance states that, where a false document was submitted but there is doubt as to the intention to deceive, applicants should be given a chance to explain any potential false documents by being invited to an interview.

The deception guidance instructs decision makers as follows:

You must consider whether an innocent mistake could have been made. You must not refuse on grounds of deception or false representations grounds if there may have been an innocent mistake, or because there are minor but immaterial inaccuracies, such as typographical errors in the application. For example: if an applicant has given an incorrect postcode or misspelt a name on their application form.

It may still be right to refuse the application if the mistake means you are not satisfied that the requirements of the rules are met. For example: if the applicant has said they have an income of £40,000, but has provided evidence only for £4,000, you may take the view that the higher figure was an innocent mistake but may still refuse the application on eligibility grounds if on the evidence provided the required income under the rules is not met.

This is also the guidance which instructs decision-makers on when and how to give applicants the opportunity to respond to an allegation of dishonesty, mentioned above.

How to avoid bans based on deception

Rather obviously, not committing deception or anything that might be interpreted as deception is by far the best way forward. This means:

• Double checking application forms before they are submitted; many clients will tell that their applications were submitted through agents. This is never a valid reason to submit false or inaccurate information, and the Home Office will always hold them responsible for any information contained in the form.
• Paying close attention to potential problem questions, like previous convictions and previous immigration history (see above). If in doubt as to whether an issue that arose in the past will be considered a conviction, it would be a good idea to raise it in the application. It is often better to disclose more than less.
• Checking passports to make sure the applicant has not forgotten anything and has given correct dates in relation to past travel history.
• Telling the truth!

Nevertheless, accidents happen and sometimes applicants are refused for false information, representations or documents, or deception either because of a mistake or a misunderstanding. In these cases, the applicants can (and should be encouraged to) challenge the refusal by submitting new evidence explaining why and how a mistake was made. Applicants should be particularly encouraged to challenge decisions when these attract a ten-year re-entry ban.