Immigration Forum / Australia and NZ / November 2007

On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 03:51:59 -0800 (PST),
piyush.kapoor81@gmail.com wrote in
<391f3926-25c2-452e-86e8-1f011cbbdc10@b36g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>

Hi, Piyush!

I don't know how helpful this may be, but to quote
a bit from one of my earlier posts:

Newsgroups: misc.immigration.australia+nz
Subject: Re: Just what do readers consider "revelant"?
Sender: kangaroo16
Message-ID: <e2g3e39c2g441udevhbjmofudl1i7sc0sp@4ax.com>
signature: kangaroo16
Lines: 798
Date: Sat, 08 Sep 2007 04:19:46 GMT

......"I know of one person who tried to conceal a traffic
offense on his application.  Had he been honest, it probably
wouldn't have been considered that important.  As he was caught
in the lie to trying to conceal something that is a matter of
public record in the U.S. and easily checked, he was told by
an Australian consular official that not only would his
application be refused, but that he need not bother to ever
apply again."

r.
If want this in context, some newsreaders will allow you just to
click on the above link and specify that it is a Usenet
reference.  Otherwise, go to Google search, check on advanced
search, copy the message i.d. number and paste it in the
blank provided.

As to the quote, though, this involves a friend of mind who tried
to migrate decades ago, and try to lie on an application at that
time.  He tried to conceal a "dui" or "driving under the
influence of alcohol".  

However, I want to point out that this was a live application and
a live interview.  The situation might be much different today.
Others may be able to give you far better advice.

In his case, had I been an immigration officer, I would probably
have felt that if he was trying to conceal something so easily
checked he might be concealing other, more serious offenses that
he hadn't been caught out on.  

I might not tell him not to ever reapply.  Would, for a start,
depends on my guidelines at the time.  Might refer it to my
superiors and let them decide.

If had happened these days though, I doubt that I would have
never told him to apply again, since there would probably
be an appeal process now.  Although I don't really know.

In your particular case, it is difficult to know what to advise.
I'm not an immigration official, have no idea of present
guidelines, and so on.

From my point of view, you have given the two possible
alternatives.  If you don't mention the previous application at
all, they will probably still have a copy of it.  If they do, and
compare it with a new application, they might wonder why
they differ.

In which case, they might ask you to explain, or even deny
the application.

There is even a possibility that they could give you a current
visa based on the current application, then after you settled in
here, uncover it six months later.  In which case they probably
could cancel your current visa, which would be awkward for you.

On the other hand, if you are "up front" about it and admitted
that you exaggerated your experience on a previous unused
application, then you wouldn't have to worry about it turning up,
and what action they would take if it did.

The officer may even admire your honesty in revealing that you
exaggerated a bit on the earlier application.  This may depend a
bit on what you had to certify as being true and correct on the
earlier application, though.

There are just too many variables for me to tell you what
you should do.  

Were I a current immigration officer dealing with your
application, I probably wouldn't take exaggerating your
experience on the earlier application all that seriously unless
current guidelines forced me to.

After all, are there many current readers of this post who
haven't exaggerated their experience in an employment
application?

I might mention that I once worked for a firm in the US which
had a 4 or 5 page application for even the more basic job, and
required the applicant to provide extensive information about
previous jobs, including exact starting and finishing dates, name
of immediate supervisor, duties, etc.  

At the end, the applicant had to certify that the information was
true and correct in all details, and any mis-statement would be
grounds for immediate dismissal without any severance pay.

Now in the US, this isn't unusual, and I suspect that in most
cases they don't bother to check all of the references.  

Why do it then?  Well, a cynic might say that they ever wanted to
quickly dismiss the applicant in the future, usually all they
would have to do would be to drag his original application out of
the file and make some phone calls to check every last detail.
They are likely to discover some error in such a detailed
application.

Most people don't keep detailed records of every job they have
ever held since leaving school.  They might have not bothered
to mention casual jobs.  On jobs they did quote, they may have
erred on a starting or finishing date.  Or that the name of their
supervisor was "Jack Smith" whereas his actual name was "John
Smith".   They may not have even known his actual name.

Again, even if I was in immigration, and advised you, they might
not assign you to me, but to someone with a different viewpoint.

Or I might approve your application, and later be overruled,
criticized, penalized, or even fired for approving it.

Am sure you can appreciate that it is difficult if not impossible
for most readers to tell you exactly which course of action you
should take.  This, ultimately, is your decision.

Still, this post may be of some help.  Hope so, anyway.:-)

Cheers,
Kangaroo16

yes they do keep all the record with them, because assessing authoritie
do send their record to DIAC.
this mistake can cause u a lot.
because these kind of mistakes can be a big probem (if disclosed)
and it could reach to a refusal because all the time they are jus
looking for a small mistake (specially from third world countries) an
thats what they r paid for . and this mistake can give him(the officer
a nice promoton.
thats why dont try to be a gandhi :

--
rak