General grounds for refusal: understanding re-entry bans

The Home Office can impose entry bans on people who have previously breached immigration law or used deception in their application for leave. Bans can last one year, two years, five years or ten years. Generally speaking, and except for some minor exceptions, the person will not be allowed to re-enter the UK during the length of the ban. It sounds straightforward — but the detailed rules on re-entry bans are very complex. This post tries to disentangle them.

Note that we do not cover deportation in this post.

Re-entry bans: what periods apply when?

The rules relating to entry bans for the majority of applicants are at part 9 of the immigration rules.

Paragraph 9.8.1 says that entry clearance or permission to enter the United Kingdom ”must” be refused if:

(a) the applicant has previously breached immigration laws; and
(b) the application is for entry clearance or permission to enter and it was made within the relevant time period in paragraph 9.8.7.

Paragraphs 9.8.4 to 9.8.6 give more details on what counts as a period of overstaying:

9.8.4. In paragraphs 9.8.1, 9.8.2, 9.8.3, and 9.8.3A, a person will only be treated as having previously breached immigration laws if, when they were aged 18 or older, they:
(a) overstayed their permission and neither paragraph 9.8.5. nor paragraph 9.8.6. apply; or
(b) breached a condition attached to their permission and entry clearance or further permission was not subsequently granted in the knowledge of the breach; or
(c) were (or still are) an illegal entrant; or
(d) used deception in relation to an application (whether or not successfully).

9.8.5. A period of overstaying will be disregarded for the purpose of paragraph 9.8.4. (a) where the person left the UK voluntarily, not at the expense (directly or indirectly) of the Secretary of State, and:
(a) the person overstayed for 90 days or less, where the overstaying began before 6 April 2017; or
(b) the person overstayed for 30 days or less, where the overstaying began on or after 6 April 2017; or
(c) paragraph 39E applied to the period of overstaying.

9.8.6. A period of overstaying will be disregarded for the purpose of paragraph 9.8.4.(a) where the overstaying arose from a decision to refuse an application, or cancellation of permission, which was subsequently withdrawn, or quashed, or reconsidered by direction of a court or tribunal, unless the legal challenge which led to the reconsideration was brought more than 3 months after the date of the decision to refuse or cancel.

Once you have established whether or not a re-entry ban applies, you need to figure out how long it will apply for. The Home Office’s guidance on re-entry bans has a useful table which replicates paragraph 9.8.7 of the rules:

Some worked examples might help.

Example 1

John made an application for a visitor visa. At the question “have you ever been refused a visa?”, he says “no”. In fact, he had been refused a visitor visa two years earlier. The Entry Clearance Officer will say that he has used deception in his application and refuse the application. In addition, John will be subject to a ten year entry ban starting from the date of the refusal.

Example 2

Maria had a student visa valid until 2 March 2024. She did not make an application before the expiry of her visa and, on 3 March 2024, she became an overstayer.

Scenario 1: Maria buys herself a ticket to return home on 5 March 2024. She will not be subject to any entry ban because she left within 30 days of the overstay.

Scenario 2: Maria stays in the UK until 3 August 2024 (more than 30 days) without making any new application. On 3 August 2024, she is served with a removal notice. On 5 August 2024, she returns home through an Assisted Voluntary Return programme paid by the Secretary of State. She will be subject to a two-year entry ban because she left at the expense of the Secretary of State but left within six months of her notice of removal.

Scenario 3: On 1 March 2024, before the expiry of her leave, she made an application to extend her leave. This was refused and on 3 June 2024, she became “appeal rights exhausted”.

On 10 December 2024, more than six months after she became appeal rights exhausted, Maria returned home through an Assisted Voluntary Return programme paid by the Home Secretary. She will be subject to a five-year entry ban because she left at the expense of the Home Secretary, more than six months after she became appeal rights exhausted.

When does the ban period start?

The ban will start on the date the person leaves UK or, in the case of a ten-year ban following the use of deception in an application, from the date of the refusal of that application.

When do re-entry bans not apply?

The re-entry bans in part 9 do not apply to applications made under:

• Appendix FM
• Appendix Private Life
• Appendix EU
• Appendix EU (Family Permit)
• Appendix S2 Healthcare Visitor
• Appendix Service Provider from Switzerland
• Appendix Electronic Travel Authorisation

The suitability routes for each of the routes should be checked, for example Appendix FM has its own separate re-entry ban in the suitability requirements, this also applies to Appendix Private Life (see paragraph PL 2.1):

S-EC.1.8. The applicant left or was removed from the UK as a condition of a caution issued in accordance with section 22 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 less than 5 years prior to the date on which the application is decided.

Refusal is mandatory where this paragraph applies.

Under paragraph 9.8.4, those who breached immigration law while they were minors will also not be subject to re-entry bans.

The guidance “Suitability: previous breaches of immigration laws” also provides for the following two groups to be exempted from re-entry bans:

• the person has been accepted by the Home Office as a victim of trafficking
• the person was in the UK illegally on or after 17 March 2008 and left the UK voluntarily before 1 October 2008

Applying after the relevant time period of the ban

Paragraph 9.8.2 says applications for entry clearance or permission to enter “may” be refused if:

(a) the applicant has previously breached immigration laws; and
(b) the application was made outside the relevant time period in paragraph 9.8.7; and
(c) the applicant has previously contrived in a significant way to frustrate the intention of the rules, or there are other aggravating circumstances (in addition to the immigration breach), such as a failure to cooperate with the redocumentation process, such as using a false identity, or a failure to comply with enforcement processes, such as failing to report, or absconding.

This means that even after the time period for the re-entry ban has passed, where there are aggravating factors as listed above the applicant is still at risk of refusal. Do note that this is a discretionary rather than mandatory ground for refusal and so it will be possible to persuade the decision maker that entry clearance or permission to enter.

Can entry clearance be granted despite a re-entry ban?

Where a mandatory re-entry ban applies it may still be possible to apply for and be granted entry clearance outside the rules. This is not straightforward and the applicant will be expected to establish “compelling compassionate grounds”.

It is unlikely that an application invoking this policy will be successful. The guidance on leave outside the rules confirms that:

A grant of LOTR should be rare. Discretion should be used sparingly where there are factors that warrant a grant of leave despite the requirements of the Immigration Rules or specific policies having not been met. Factors raised in their application must mean it would not be proportionate to expect the person to remain outside of the UK or to leave the UK.

In practice, if there were exceptional circumstances or the person had a strong article 8 claim, it is more likely they would be able to apply under Appendix FM, or that they would have applied for leave to remain when still in the UK.

This article was originally published in March 2017 and has been updated most recently by Sonia Lenegan so that it is correct as of the new date of publication shown.