Visa Fraud, Fake Visa & False Documents advice in UK Immigration

Understanding how visa fraud occurs and what penalties apply is crucial for both applicants and employers.

Worried about visa fraud risks? Our immigration experts can review your application, verify documents, and help you stay compliant with UK immigration law, reducing the chance of costly mistakes before they happen.

Visa fraud in UK immigration law means using deception, false documents, or misrepresentation to obtain or seek entry clearance or leave to remain in England and Wales. The two primary criminal statutes are section 24A of the Immigration Act 1971 and section 1 of the Fraud Act 2006. A finding of deliberate deception triggers a mandatory 10-year re-entry ban under Part Suitability of the Immigration Rules, which replaced Part 9 on 11th November 2025. If you are under investigation or have received a refusal citing deception, legal representation should be your first step.

Summary

• Visa fraud is a criminal offence in England and Wales under section 24A of the Immigration Act 1971 and section 1 of the Fraud Act 2006), carrying a maximum of ten years’ imprisonment on conviction on indictment.
• The Home Office must prove deliberate dishonesty on the balance of probabilities before a mandatory refusal under the new Part Suitability rules applies; an innocent mistake does not automatically meet that threshold.
• A proven finding of deception triggers a 10-year mandatory refusal period under Part Suitability, meaning every visa application made within that period must be refused.
• Deception can have consequences beyond refusal: cancellation of existing leave, loss of Indefinite Leave to Remain, and, in the most serious cases, deprivation of British citizenship under section 40(3) of the British Nationality Act 1981.
• Procedural fairness rights established in Balajigari and others v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2019] EWCA Civ 673 require the Home Office to alert applicants to any suspicion of dishonesty and allow them to respond before refusing on that ground.

Section 24A of the Immigration Act 1971 has treated deception in the immigration process as a serious criminal matter since its introduction. Section 24A creates a specific offence for a person who, by means including deception, obtains or seeks to obtain leave to enter or remain, or attempts to secure the avoidance, postponement, or revocation of enforcement action. On summary conviction, the maximum sentence is six months’ imprisonment; on conviction on indictment, the maximum rises to two years. Separately, section 1 of the Fraud Act 2006 applies where the conduct involves fraud by false representation, fraud by failing to disclose information, or fraud by abuse of position, and carries a maximum of ten years’ imprisonment on conviction on indictment. Both statutes can apply to the same facts, and the Crown Prosecution Service regularly charges immigration fraud under one or both.

On 11th November 2025, the Home Office replaced Part 9 of the Immigration Rules entirely with the new Part Suitability framework. Part Suitability now governs all suitability-related refusal and cancellation grounds across most immigration routes, including the Family and Private Life rules, which previously carried separate suitability requirements. For anyone whose case involves a past allegation of deception, understanding the interaction between the criminal law framework and the new administrative suitability rules is central to building an effective response.

What counts as visa fraud under UK law?

Visa fraud under the law of England and Wales covers any deliberate attempt to deceive UK Visas and Immigration (UKVI) during an immigration application. Section 24A of the Immigration Act 1971 focuses on deception used to obtain or seek leave; section 1 of the Fraud Act 2006 covers fraud by false representation, failure to disclose information where there is a legal duty to do so, and abuse of position. Both statutes require dishonest intent: an accidental error or immaterial omission does not constitute fraud, though either may still trigger a discretionary refusal under Part Suitability.

The most common forms of visa fraud seen in casework include:

• Submitting false or altered documents, such as fabricated bank statements, payslips, or employer letters.
• Creating fictitious job offers or misrepresenting employment history to meet points-based or salary thresholds.
• Entering into a marriage or civil partnership solely for immigration purposes (sham marriages), which UKVI investigates through interviews and background checks.
• Misuse of sponsorship licences, where a business issues Certificates of Sponsorship to individuals who will not genuinely work in the role described.
• Identity theft or the use of forged travel documents, sometimes connected to organised criminal networks.

Non-disclosure of a material fact can also constitute deception. Where an applicant fails to disclose a previous immigration breach, a prior criminal conviction, or a relevant change of circumstances, and the Home Office concludes the omission was deliberate, the result is treated in the same way as an active false statement. The Guidance on Part Suitability confirms that non-disclosure of relevant facts can ground a deception finding even where no document has been falsified:

How does the Home Office prove deception?

The Home Office must prove deception on the balance of probabilities: it is more likely than not that the applicant deliberately and dishonestly provided false information. The mandatory refusal ground under Part Suitability (paragraph SUI 9.1) requires proof of a deliberate intention to deceive; by contrast, false representations made without proven dishonesty are assessed under the discretionary ground at paragraph SUI 10.1, which does not carry an automatic 10-year ban.

The procedural fairness obligation in these cases was confirmed by the Court of Appeal in Balajigari and others v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2019] EWCA Civ 673. As Lord Justice Underhill held, giving the leading judgment: “[the decision-maker] is required as a matter of procedural fairness to indicate clearly to the applicant that he has that suspicion; to allow the applicant to respond, both as regards the conduct itself and as regards any other reasons relied on; and then to take that response into account before drawing the conclusion that there has been such conduct.” Although Balajigari arose under the former paragraph 322(5) of Part 9 (ILR refusals for Tier 1 General migrants), the principle is now applied by practitioners and tribunals to deception-based decisions across all routes. A finding of deception made without prior notice to the applicant remains legally vulnerable to challenge.

UKVI uses several tools to detect fraud. Document verification involves cross-referencing submitted materials with issuing banks, employers, and educational institutions. Data sharing with domestic and international databases enables officers to check immigration history and travel patterns. Compliance visits to sponsor licence holders examine whether genuine employment is taking place. Biometrics, interviews, and comparison of statements across different applications are also used.

What are the immigration and criminal consequences?

Criminal prosecution under section 1 of the Fraud Act 2006 can result in up to ten years’ imprisonment on conviction on indictment and an unlimited fine. Prosecution under section 24A of the Immigration Act 1971 carries a maximum of two years’ imprisonment on indictment. A criminal record obtained through either route affects future immigration applications worldwide, not just in the United Kingdom.

On the immigration side, a Home Office finding of deception under Part Suitability carries the following automatic consequences:

• Mandatory refusal of the current application.
• A 10-year mandatory refusal period, during which any new application for entry clearance or permission to enter must be refused.
• Continued relevance even after the 10-year period: the deception finding remains part of the applicant’s immigration history and may be considered under the discretionary suitability grounds if the Home Office considers the applicant to have acted to frustrate immigration controls.
• Cancellation of existing leave if the deception is discovered after leave was granted, including cancellation of Indefinite Leave to Remain.

In the most serious cases, where citizenship was obtained through fraud, section 40(3) of the British Nationality Act 1981 allows the Secretary of State to deprive an individual of British citizenship, provided the fraud was directly material to the grant of citizenship and dishonesty is proved on the balance of probabilities. Deprivation is not an automatic consequence; the Secretary of State must exercise the power and take account of proportionality, including any human rights considerations.

For businesses, the consequences can be equally serious. An employer found to have issued false Certificates of Sponsorship or to have facilitated sham employment may face revocation of the sponsor licence, civil penalties, and criminal prosecution of directors or HR personnel involved. Sponsor licence revocation carries no automatic right of appeal. It effectively prevents the business from sponsoring overseas workers in the future. If you are facing a suitability refusal or a deception allegation, our team has extensive experience in defending these types of cases.

Can a deception finding be challenged?

Three routes exist to challenge a refusal based on deception in England and Wales:

• Administrative review
• Appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber)
• Immigration Judicial Review in the Upper Tribunal or the Administrative Court.

The time limits for administrative review are 14 days from an in-country decision and 28 days from an out-of-country decision, so advice should be sought without delay.

Administrative review is available where the refusal was made under an eligible route, and the applicant believes there was a caseworker error in applying Part Suitability. An appeal to the First-tier Tribunal is available in cases involving human rights grounds, including Article 8 private and family life claims. The Court of Appeal in Balajigari and others v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2019] EWCA Civ 673 confirmed that Article 8 will typically be engaged in ILR cases given the length of residence. However, each case turns on its own facts. Judicial review is the appropriate route where the Home Office failed to follow the procedural fairness requirements confirmed in Balajigari, for example, by making a deception finding without first notifying the applicant of the suspicion and providing an opportunity to respond.

A successful challenge to a deception finding does not automatically secure leave to remain. The outcome may be remittal to the Home Office for a fresh decision following the correct procedure. Where the deception finding is overturned, the 10-year mandatory refusal period ceases to apply to that application. However, the underlying eligibility requirements must still be satisfied. Early assembly of evidence demonstrating that an error or innocent mistake occurred is central to any effective challenge.

Talk to Gulbenkian Andonian Solicitors

Allegations of visa fraud or a deception-based refusal can end long residence in the UK and close off future immigration routes for a decade or more. Gulbenkian Andonian Solicitors has decades of experience representing individuals and families facing serious immigration challenges, including deception findings, sponsor licence revocations, and deprivation of citizenship proceedings. If you have received a refusal citing deception, or if UKVI has raised concerns about documents in your application, contact our team today.