Handling of a historic inadmissible PAX (INAD) situation

[Warragul]

Try the NZ high Commission, they have immigration and customs liaison officers based in Australia or the NZ Immigration department and/or Customs Service directly.

 

[nancypants]

The grammar bully in me says you can’t be refused entry from a country (only to a country). Not sure that would stand up in court though

 

[MEL_Traveller]

The grammar bully in me says you can’t be refused entry from a country (only to a country). Not sure that would stand up in court though

I was wondering exactly the same!

Maybe the use of the word ‘from’ is intended to limit the scope of the question… and apply it to situations where a person is already ‘in country’ and is departed from it?

If they had wanted the question to have a broader application they could have phrased it as ‘have you ever been excluded, deported or refused entry *by* a country’.

 

[nancypants]

I was wondering exactly the same!

Maybe the use of the word ‘from’ is intended to limit the scope of the question… and apply it to situations where a person is already ‘in country’ and is departed from it?

If they had wanted the question to have a broader application they could have phrased it as ‘have you ever been excluded, deported or refused entry *by* a country’.

I think the issue is they’re trying to use a single preposition for 4 separate terms, 3 of which require the word “from” (deported, removed, excluded) and one of which requires the word “to” (refused entry). So it theoretically should say “have you ever been deported, removed, or excluded from, or refused entry to, any country” or something alone those lines. But I imagine they’ve tried to simplify it for readability. I’m not certain they’re signifying a different legal definition of “refused entry” through their choice of preposition

 

[MEL_Traveller]

I think the issue is they’re trying to use a single preposition for 4 separate terms, 3 of which require the word “from” (deported, removed, excluded) and one of which requires the word “to” (refused entry). So it theoretically should say “have you ever been deported, removed, or excluded from, or refused entry to, any country” or something alone those lines. But I imagine they’ve tried to simplify it for readability. I’m not certain they’re signifying a different legal definition of “refused entry” through their choice of preposition

Use of the word ‘by’ fixes the issue of brevity and is clear. But they haven’t used that.

 

[clifford]

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.

Why not just apply for a visa online before you travel and see how it goes?

 

[kookaburra75]

That question from the paper form has been softened somewhat, and so is harder for me to say no to.
This is what they have in the NZTD:

View attachment 515718

To me, you originally you were turned away from entering India, as you had incorrect paperwork. You were then allowed to enter once you had the correct paperwork. You were never refused entry. For example, you didn't have any undisclosed criminal history.

But as you have now provided a reason to brighten up a dull day for NZ immigration officers by having a flag on your profile, it might be best as suggested, to ask to have a chat and cup of tea to clear the flag.

 

[Warragul]

To me, you originally you were turned away from entering India, as you had incorrect paperwork. You were then allowed to enter once you had the correct paperwork. You were never refused entry.

Counter point- the first attempt can be deemed a refused entry ( in Australia) as the paperwork was not accepted. If one arrives and is not permitted clearance then that's refused entry.
If the reason for the paperwork being unacceptable is determined to be an error by the visa issuer, then corrections can ( not always) be made at the port and clearance granted.

 

[kookaburra75]

Counter point- the first attempt can be deemed a refused entry ( in Australia) as the paperwork was not accepted. If one arrives and is not permitted clearance then that's refused entry.
If the reason for the paperwork being unacceptable is determined to be an error by the visa issuer, then corrections can ( not always) be made at the port and clearance granted.

Good point. I'm half tempted to get an AI Tool to dig into Indian Law and Cases to find any precedents. But knowing the intricacies, twists and opaque nature of the Indian legal system, that might be a bridge too far even for Claude/Gemini/ChatGPT et al.

 

[dairyfloss]

Supposedly, there are countries that will allow you to withdraw your visa application at the border in cases like this, such that you are not left with a refused entry matter on the record; you would simply be turned around. India doesn’t do this, and so at least on their system, I’ve been refused entry at a given point in time. I suspect it’s at the lowest end of concern, given the cause, and the many Indian entries that followed, but a refusal nonetheless. Australia seems to disagree it should be treated as such, and it’s not clear yet what New Zealand wants… except for consistency in my selected response to the NZTD question!

 

[Seat0B]

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.

Oh this is a helpful frame for me to think about too.