- Joined
- Feb 19, 2009
- Posts
- 3,971
- Qantas
- Platinum
- Oneworld
- Emerald
- Star Alliance
- Gold
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.
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.
), etc
Rubber gloves, truncheoned or deported to El Salvador; maybe all three!
