Handling of a historic inadmissible PAX (INAD) situation

[dairyfloss]

Hi Folks - this is a bit of a long one, but hopefully an interesting read, as well! Hopefully a reasonable place for the thread, too.

I'm here for thoughts as to how I might handle a historic and presumed 'inadmissible passenger' situation, where in 2015 I showed up at BLR (Bengaluru, India) after the arrival date range of an approved India eVisa had passed, and was deemed inadmissible by BLR immigration due to my improper paperwork. I was returned to KUL on the same flight I had arrived on. Once I got to a hotel in KUL the next morning, I reapplied for a new e-visa, followed it up with their support team, and it was approved later that day. I flew back to BLR the following day and breezed through immigration like it had never happened. There was nothing stamped in or added to my passport when I was turned around, I think I only have the story & mental scars to prove that it ever happened (plus some cheeky extra QF SCs which I managed to claim from the 'deportation' flight to KUL! )

It was a particularly frustrating situation, and it turned out from some testing at the KL hotel the next day, the cause of the problem/confusion was that the [then] newly launched eVisa form for India had a design flaw, in that it would allow you to create & submit a request based on specific future travel dates, even where it was earlier than the process wanted to allow. I don't remember the exact timeframes in the lead-up, but for example, the rule was something like 'You can only apply within 21 days of travel', but the form allowed me to submit around 25 days out. The system accepted my application, but when the eVisa was issued, it set the arrival window based on the 21-day maximum from submission - not my actual travel dates. I missed the system's automatically applied date change being made as it came with no warning. Later iterations of the system design prevented early applications from being submitted - I suspect I wasn't the only one that was caught out by it.

OK - so that was the cause... and now to some effect! I've travelled internationally countless times since this occurred, including many more times to India over the 5 years following that event, and never had any issues. Recently, however, and since NZ introduced their electronic travel declaration, I have had some grief with NZ travel, at arrival, but also a few weeks ago at departure from SYD, due to the question on 'Have you ever been denied entry... etc' on their digital form. Admittedly, the first time I used the NZTD (late 2024), I must have missed or misread the question, as they identified me as having marked it as a 'No' with all the other 'No' responses on the form. The next entry (2025) I was clearly more thorough and marked it as 'Yes', and then with family in tow I was pulled aside at ZQN for probably 45 mins while they went through what that was about, why the answer from the previous entry had changed (which was news to me - I'd not realised the mistake before that), and I needed to speak with immigration officers at length before they eventually let me through and said to be more careful next time. Most recently (last month) I travelled to WLG, was careful as advised and selected the answer as 'Yes' again, but this time around, I was stopped at the gate while boarding at SYD (error on the gate agents screen was 'unable to board'), and I had to talk to immigration officers here, who asked what the declaration was about. Surely that would have been better handled at immigration, but in any case, I explained the situation to the officer, and he said that given I returned to India the following day and was admitted without issue, this was not reason enough to declare it as a refused entry, and that I should not be selecting this option again next time!

So, here's my conundrum - as I understand it, an INAD case needs to be reported as a denied entry on forms such as the NZTD, but at the same time, if they will always clear it based on the cause (a clerical error) and a resulting admission the next day, then should I just take the AU immigration advice and not mark this as such, or at least for NZ? After I advised the AU officer and travelled to NZ, there was no questions at NZ immigration; I just went through the e-gate without any issue. What I'm not sure of is whether this was something that the AU immigration officer might have done, perhaps somehow changing my response for the NZ declaration or if they advised the NZ authorities in advance, or maybe it's just that NZ immigration is aware from the ZQN discussion and ok with who I am, regardless of my inability to review an email accurately, one time, 11 years ago, or to fill in their NZTD accurately, one time, 2 years ago

Given I go there fairly often, I just don't want to deal with this every time I travel to NZ. Has anyone been through something similar, and how did you handle the resulting admin? Would an NZ immigration lawyer be worth consulting, or is this the kind of thing that just resolves itself over time by picking and sticking with an answer?

Even if I don't get any answers or progress - just laying this all out is somewhat therapeutic, and so I thank AFF for the ability to dump this here

Cheers,
Matt.

 

[Bundy Bear]

Usually there is a time limit, could you imagine an 80 year old adding it to his record for a clerical error when they were 20.

What was Wellingtons response or did the Australian system mark it as No.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

I am with the Aussie officer.

I would never in the first place have ticket ‘yes’ to being refused entry.

In my mind ‘refused entry’ means you aren’t able to establish your bone fides. You knowingly applied for the wrong visa, or had previously worked or overstayed, or had committed a crime of ‘moral turpitude’ (), etc

An administrative error doesn’t apear to hit the intent of the question I would have thought? And besides, the check-in staff let you board, so at least two people failed to pick up the error!

 

[dairyfloss]

Usually there is a time limit, could you imagine an 80 year old adding it to his record for a clerical error when they were 20.

What was Wellingtons response or did the Australian system mark it as No.

This is what I don't know. I had expected I would need to talk to someone at WLG given I was pulled up at the SYD departure gate, but I didn't actually get to / need to talk to anyone at Wellington. I scanned my passport and the gates opened!

 

[Seat0B]

Now you are making me think about my "visa denied" email for an on-line tourist visa for Oman. It was rejected because I could not provide a photo of the passport used for that Visa more than 8 years before the application for the on-line one. In the end, I followed Seat Son's advice not to worry and presented myself in person at a land border, where I was given an Omani tourist visa with no issues at all.

I have blithely ticked NO to all questions about whether I have ever been denied entry etc, because ultimately I was not denied entry, even though one visa application was rejected. I think it's probably safer to keep just saying no in my circumstances, which differ from yours a bit @dairyfloss because I was not denied entry at any border.

 

[dairyfloss]

I am with the Aussie officer.

I would never in the first place have ticket ‘yes’ to being refused entry.

In my mind ‘refused entry’ means you aren’t able to establish your bone fides. You knowingly applied for the wrong visa, or had previously worked or overstayed, or had committed a crime of ‘moral turpitude’ (), etc

An administrative error doesn’t apear to hit the intent of the question I would have thought? And besides, the check-in staff let you board, so at least two people failed to pick up the error!

I know - I'm always torn on this, as it doesn't ask why - it just says 'have you ever been denied/refused entry'... I expect I'll always be able to explain it, but it's a pain to have the need!

 

[Quickstatus]

Interesting
Given that the India incident was over 10 years ago and You have travelled to India since then, I would tick No per the advice of the Aust officer

 

[dairyfloss]

Now you are making me think about my "visa denied" email for an on-line tourist visa for Oman. It was rejected because I could not provide a photo of the passport used for that Visa more than 8 years before the application for the on-line one. In the end, I followed Seat Son's advice not to worry and presented myself in person at a land border, where I was given an Omani tourist visa with no issues at all.

I have blithely ticked NO to all questions about whether I have ever been denied entry etc, because ultimately I was not denied entry, even though one visa application was rejected. I think it's probably safer to keep just saying no in my circumstances, which differ from yours a bit @dairyfloss because I was not denied entry at any border.

I wouldn't say yours would be of concern to anyone - I only tick 'yes', as I arrived at a border and was turned around and sent back to where I came from.

I'm just remembering now the look on the MH cabin manager's face when I got back on the flight I'd just left - it was a classic! They went from fawning over me in 1K in J on the way over, to being shocked and trying to avoid eye contact as I was taken to the back of Y for my return to Malaysia They did send me a nicer drink once the airport staff left the flight though.

 

[drron]

This is why I don’t travel to Japan anymore. I am a convicted felon there for having a car accident
Scared if I turn up I will be turned away.

 

[flyingfan]

I see the dilemma between lying on a very clearly stated question that doesn't have any outs for technicalities and authorities telling/wanting you to lie - a tough one, I'd personally tick no and if challenged say I was directed to

 

[MEL_Traveller]

I know - I'm always torn on this, as it doesn't ask why - it just says 'have you ever been denied/refused entry'... I expect I'll always be able to explain it, but it's a pain to have the need!

China for example has transit without visa… but you can still get ‘refused entry’ if your intended visit is ‘too short’, which can vary for anything up to 12 hours (being deemed ‘too short’).

There are cases of IRROPS - diversions or delays - where a passenger may be refused entry to the intermediate country because they can’t apply or are ineligible for a visa.

I wouldn’t classify any of those as being ‘refused entry’ for the purposes of an immigration form.

 

[dairyfloss]

I see the dilemma between lying on a very clearly stated question that doesn't have any outs for technicalities and authorities telling/wanting you to lie - a tough one, I'd personally tick no and if challenged say I was directed to

I'm leaning towards this for the next NZ departure in few weeks... just a little worried as it's with the family, and if it goes pear-shaped they might be traumatised (my young son, especially) by the process... or outcome ("Bye, dad!")

 

[Captain Halliday]

The way I see it @dairyfloss, you were not denied entry. Rather, you were asked to correct your paperwork, and allowed to enter after doing so.

To me, denied entry = you may not enter this country. At all. Ever.

*I'm neither an immigration official, nor immigration lawyer.

 

[Scarlett]

My goodness, imagine if you ever have to travel to the LOTFAP. Rubber gloves, truncheoned or deported to El Salvador; maybe all three!

The key here seems to be that even if you take the Aussie officials advice, it’s an NZ declaration you’re submitting and surely you can’t change your answer to the Kiwis ever again!

Maybe next time you’re traveling to NZ by yourself you could request an interview with NZ immigration and ask them what you should do? They might be able to expunge any flag against you or put a note in their system that you’re allowed to answer no about that particular case.