Matters of the Heart.Has a Commercial Fuck turned into a torrid Love Affair which has turned your life upside down? Fear not. We have experts here who can help you through your roller coaster ride. Tell us your story and we'll do our best to help.
Several reason that make our ICA think when granted them to either come in here or stay here
The girl
1)Which country she from?In their eye,those third word country especially our neighbours,they will pay special attention.WHY?Look at all the bad press on viet,PRC or thai on vice or crime they commit and u will know why.Recently got 2 news,1 on wanbao on viet girls looking for customers for paid sex at chinatown and also 1 on our english paper on 4 viet came in to sg to commit crime by selling away fake hp to shops.other than that,they also commit crime like vice,shoplifting and stealing.All this is advertise big big like wanbao heading is viet girl conquer chinatown and chase away PRC lady who use to station there for business.
2)How many time she come?come too frequent like every month,they will think is come here to 'work'.Cannot blame them cos all this news about JC and geylang vice.Visting boyfriend is not a good reason nowadays
3)SG people kpkb already so they have to restrict numbers of foreigner here,so they only want good one to come here
4)a lot of fake marriage or broken marriage with foreign spouse
The sg man
1)check on your own status first before u ask a girl to come.some bro who is marry but on the process of divorce,do settle your divorce first cos offically u are still consider marry.Why risk the chance of your girl been ask to return due to this.i know is stressful due to long distance relationship cos u are here and she is there but why not take this as a test to see whether this relationship will last or not.
2)u will always think is unfair and why they dont let your girl in but some of the reason like what bro shysaint mention,u can use as a guide
There is a 'price' for marrying foreign spouse.Learn to overcome.I always tell myself that a ICA officer can be heartless to tell me that i have no choice cos i marry a foreigner.So they have to do what they suppose to do.i wont blame them cos after realise that this is the 'price'i must face.Do not try to smoke or argue with them cos they have the final decision and they are smarter than us
Apply accordingly and follow their rules.If u think in a positive way,they are protecting sg man or our country but if u think in a negative way,they are trying to spolit your relationship with a foreign girl
I believe some bro will disagree with me but any way,we have limited choice so just take things once at a time and do whatever u think u can
Apply accordingly and follow their rules.If u think in a positive way,they are protecting sg man or our country but if u think in a negative way,they are trying to spolit your relationship with a foreign girl
I believe some bro will disagree with me but any way,we have limited choice so just take things once at a time and do whatever u think u can
bro, you are spot on. others are living in their own little kingdom thinking that they can do what they wanted. or rather state of denial.
__________________
Info threads are for field reports...if you want to chat post in tcss thread
Please do not post when you PM somebody
Please Do Not reply long post, always edit...
may zap and remove post
May I asked you why the kid is not travelling on Singapore passport since he was born here. I am slightly confused here? Who was refused entry, friend's wife or kid?
The wife was refused entry and made to produce marriage cert.
After going to office and calling up the husband and a big hooha granted 7 days stay only.
The kid no issue.
My example was to show up that their so called database is not so well connected.
If connected then they would know the lady is married to a singaporean with a kid and no need ask to produce marriage cert.
And keying in an address written in the white card will not give the ICA so much info which i doubt.
Even if provide the name of the singapore bf in singapore i doubt think without an ic number they can pinpoint the bf's marital status, details etc.
She remembered that the officer told her can come Singapore only 2 years later. I assume that means banned for 2 years.
That's quite a lengthy ban especially she was not caught for any illegal activities. Just an address on a white card for a ban of 2 years?
She also said bf was asked by officer whether he is a bachelor. Bf said yes, in actual fact he is a divorcee. She asked me is this lying?
She said bf passport was also taken by officer don know for what.
She said later one woman officer told bf (say got 2 stone like this) on the shoulder, I suppose it's the rank, told the bf can write appeal at ICA.
As I just writing this, the bf asked me whether bachelor same as divorcee? Haha
Yes i ever heard story they ask the girl to call the boyfriend in the office and they will talk to him, i experience few times myself.
They ask me to verify my details as given by my gf...
Heard if no one pick up then U-turn, also the ICA officers will talk like in gangster manner threatening manner, if the guy on the other line 'beh zai' then U-turn also.
T
And keying in an address written in the white card will not give the ICA so much info which i doubt.
Even if provide the name of the singapore bf in singapore i doubt think without an ic number they can pinpoint the bf's marital status, details etc.
Thank you for clarifying.
The white card will have an address and if this is HDB then they can tell who is the owner without NRIC. If your hubby name is the owner then the officer will know who is the other owner very quickly. If your hubby name is not the owner then the ICA officer will have to ask your hubby NRIC to check marriage status or ask you to produce marriage certificate to prove relationship.
__________________
Minimum 8 points to exchange. Sure return favour.
If any person upped me and I have yet to return please pm me with your lastest URL.
Yes i ever heard story they ask the girl to call the boyfriend in the office and they will talk to him, i experience few times myself.
They ask me to verify my details as given by my gf...
Heard if no one pick up then U-turn, also the ICA officers will talk like in gangster manner threatening manner, if the guy on the other line 'beh zai' then U-turn also.
I was told the bf volunteered himself to the office and he was asked by officer about his marital status... I think was also asked about whether he knows she is banned...he said he don't know about the ban but knows that she was refused entry...
This time, the VB was issued with a white form.. inside its just a tick under "refused entry under current immigration policies" or something like this.. no reasons were given... At least this was what I was told.
The VB also said when she returned to Vietnam, she was also asked by the officer there how come return so fast, she made up a story about something happened at home so have to return to Vietnam. Why would Vn immigration border when she is returning..
__________________ Why are guys more rational? Becos they have 2 heads.
The white card will have an address and if this is HDB then they can tell who is the owner without NRIC. If your hubby name is the owner then the officer will know who is the other owner very quickly. If your hubby name is not the owner then the ICA officer will have to ask your hubby NRIC to check marriage status or ask you to produce marriage certificate to prove relationship.
In the case I shared, tThe VB told me that her bf passport was taken by the officer, and was later asked by the officer whether he was a bachelor. So with the passport, ICA should know that he is a divorcee (the bf told me he divorced about 6 yrs ago, so why still ask him whether he is a bachelor?)
__________________ Why are guys more rational? Becos they have 2 heads.
I was told the bf volunteered himself to the office and he was asked by officer about his marital status... I think was also asked about whether he knows she is banned...he said he don't know about the ban but knows that she was refused entry...
This time, the VB was issued with a white form.. inside its just a tick under "refused entry under current immigration policies" or something like this.. no reasons were given... At least this was what I was told.
The VB also said when she returned to Vietnam, she was also asked by the officer there how come return so fast, she made up a story about something happened at home so have to return to Vietnam. Why would Vn immigration border when she is returning..
What I know those banned with get a hard copy or worst passport will be chopped.
My gf's friend was refused entry U turn and given a form to say not to come back at least a period of time (think was 3 or 6 months). Her problem was come too often but she is an auntie not even a milf but come here to work in Joo Chiat doing manual chores. Problem is this auntie did not understand english or bothered to find out the form says so return in a few weeks time again....this time ICA damn tulan and banned her 1 year, she called my gf and ICA spoke to her say why she never follow instructions. She came in after one year plus from the incident and no problem.
The white card will have an address and if this is HDB then they can tell who is the owner without NRIC. If your hubby name is the owner then the officer will know who is the other owner very quickly. If your hubby name is not the owner then the ICA officer will have to ask your hubby NRIC to check marriage status or ask you to produce marriage certificate to prove relationship.
So private they cannot check? if private address got more chance for entry?
So private they cannot check? if private address got more chance for entry?
If the BF lives in a private housing and may or may not be owner then require his NRIC to check marital status. If the BF is single and lives in private housing then sure okay. Still the VB entry depends on her merits at the counter ie. not banned before or stayed too many days under the foreigner tourist visa restrictions.
__________________
Minimum 8 points to exchange. Sure return favour.
If any person upped me and I have yet to return please pm me with your lastest URL.
Even if provide the name of the singapore bf in singapore i doubt think without an ic number they can pinpoint the bf's marital status, details etc.
I agreed Name is difficult ...
With NRIC number ... Yes ... I strongly believe a lot of details Can be checked ...
Likewise for foreigners , all entry info n details about this "tourist" can be Known ...
Sometimes gal thought they have records because they are caught in checks where their details are recorded , however these details are not keyed into the system and therefore they are safe ...
Gals although married to Singaporean but have previous records do also posses problems ... Doesn't mean after marriage is smooth sailing.
My wife's friend have her LTVP revoke because she was caught working in KTV n was checked that her marriage was faked (although ROM-ded n their Cert was submitted to ICA during her application) now was banned !
The curious part for me in ur case is why Ur friend did not apply for LTvP for his wife?
What will happen if she declare honestly in the white card that she has ever enter Singapore using another different & fake passport more than 3 years ago when working in GL? This is not uncommon for them I think.
Will she be sentenced to CWP on arriving the airport during checkout or ask to U-turn back on the next flight? If so, what's the point of being honest in the while card?
Or perhaps they should declare it during the VISA application process back in the country, which will probably be rejected.
I'm asking on behalf of an ex-GL-WL who wish to visit Sg after more than 3-5 years, don't mind declaring whatever, but worried about being sent to CWP. What's the best approach?
I suddenly remember one 2006 judgment case whereby you and some bros here can upon.
Quote:
Public Prosecutor v Tessie Cuyam Verterra alias Chen Tessie Verterra
[2006] SGDC 187
Judgment
30 August 2006
District Judge Malcolm BH Tan:
The Background of the Case
1 The accused pleaded guilty to one charge under the Immigration Act, Cap 133 (‘the Act’) on 20 July 2006. Two other charges under the Act were taken into consideration for the purposes of sentencing. I imposed a sentence of 13 months’ imprisonment, and ordered the removal of the accused from Singapore upon completion of her sentence. The accused appealed against her sentence on 28 July 2006.
The Charges
2 The first charge (DAC 32442/2006), under s 36 of the Act, to which the accused pled guilty reads -
You, Tessie Chen Verterra @ Chen Tessie Verterra, are charged that you, on 19 December 2005, being a person who was lawfully sent out from Singapore on 13 November 2004, did enter Singapore without the permission in writing of the Controller of Immigration, Singapore, and you have thereby committed an offence under section 36 of the Immigration Act (Cap 133) 1985 Ed, punishable under section 36 of the Act.
3 The other 2 charges are for offences under section 57(1)(k), punishable under section 57(1)(vi) of the Act for obtaining a social visit pass and an extension pass by making false statements in the disembarkation forms, on 19 December 2005 and 3 May 2006 respectively.
Facts
4 The accused admitted the facts without any qualification. She is a Philippines national. She had been arrested by Anti-Vice officers on 10 November 2004for soliciting. She was not charged, but on 13 November 2004, she was lawfully sent out of Singapore to Manila. Prior to her repatriation, she was served a written notice informing her that she was barred from entering Singapore between 13 November 2004 and 13 November 2007. She was also informed that she would have to make a prior application for the written permission of the Controller of Immigration before she can enter Singapore. She was also warned in the same notice that a failure to do so could result in prosecution and a sentence of between 1 to 3 years upon conviction.
5 The facts state that the accused then consciously decided to return to Singapore with a new passport. She obtained a new passport with a different serial number and a slightly different name, viz. “Chen Tessie Verterra”, and entered Singapore with it on 19 December 2005. This entry was made without the prior written permission of the Controller and while the ban was still in force, thus contravening s 36 of the Act.
Antecedents
6 The accused has no previous convictions.
Plea in Mitigation
7 The plea in mitigation was short. She stated that she was sorry for the offence. She pointed out that she was married to a Singaporean and had a 4 month old baby. She implored the Court not to impose a custodial sentence as no one would look after the baby.
8 I must note at this point that the accused had not shown any indication that she did not comprehend the charges, the facts and the effects of pleading guilty. The charges and facts were read to her in the Tagalog language by an interpreter. In fact, she showed every indication of understanding the proceedings and was able to articulate a short plea in mitigation.
Sentence
9 In sentencing the accused, I took into consideration the seriousness of the offences and the need for a deterrent sentence for offences of this nature. The problem of illegal immigration offenders faced by Singapore is a real and acute one. Illegal immigration offenders pose a serious threat to Singapore’s safety and security. Such is the severity of the problem that Parliament saw it fit to enact various mandatory minimum sentences of imprisonment or caning for various immigration offences. It is clear that the draconian nature of the Immigration Act is to curb the rise in the large number of illegal immigrants flocking to our shores to seek illegal employment, or for other purposes.
10 Offences of such nature are difficult to detect, and Singapore, being a small island State, is vulnerable to the serious threat posed by immigration offenders, who have no qualms in contravening the immigration laws of this country. This is despite the strict enforcement measures taken and stiff punishments enacted to curb the flow of immigration offenders. The accused in this case was one such person. She was not deterred by her previous experience of being arrested by the police. After being repatriated and banned from Singapore, she decided to return unlawfully barely a year later, in contravention of the ban issued to her by the Controller of Immigration.
11 The gravity of this particular offence is reflected in the mandatory minimum imprisonment term prescribed by the legislature. In this case, the accused knew full well that she had been banned from entering Singapore and required the prior written permission of the Controller of Immigration if she wanted to re-enter Singapore. Nevertheless, she made a calculated decision to subvert the ban in order to visit her husband. She proceeded to re-enter Singapore, knowing full well that she was labouring under a ban. A deliberate deception was practised on the immigration authorities when she used a different passport to enter Singapore, thereby concealing the fact that she was subject to an entry ban. This was exacerbated by her conduct in making false declarations, as set out in the 2 charges that were taken into consideration.
12 Apart from the plea of guilt, there was precious little mitigation in this case. On the plea of guilt, it is established law that a such a plea carries little or no weight when the offender is arrested in circumstances in which the prosecution would have no difficulty in proving the charge, or if the offender had been caught red-handed: Sim Gek Yong v PP [1995] 1 SLR 537, and Xia Qin Lai v PP [1999] 4 SLR 343. The present case clearly falls within that category.
13 Nevertheless, I paid heed to her mitigation plea. She claimed that there was no one to look after her baby. I was not informed where the baby was, but since she had illegally entered Singapore on 19 December 2005, and the baby was said to be four months old, the inference is that the child was probably born in Singapore and is thus still in Singapore as there is no indication that the accused had left the country since her return. This would explain the apparently heartless comment of the Prosecuting Officer that the husband could look after the baby.
14 After a careful consideration of all the circumstances of the case, I was of the view that the minimum sentence would not be appropriate or sufficient in this case, especially as two charges were taken into consideration. In PP v Mok Ping Wuen Maurice [1999] 1 SLR 138,the High Court held that "the effect ... is to enhance the sentence that would otherwise be awarded."
15 Taking the facts and mitigation plea into account, I sentenced her to 13 months imprisonment and further ordered that she be removed from Singapore after serving her sentence. I had in fact exercised leniency in her case after considering the fact that she would be parted from her baby.
16 The accused is currently serving sentence.
__________________
If you think you will lose, you have already lost.
If the ICA officer access the VN base on the number of days per year entry, yes that is immigration matter. The officer have said, they are not interfering into personal matters, only immigration matter.
Base on Shysaint cases & my own personal encounter, whether you are married or singles, & have foreigner GF, this is our personal matters ----- not immigration issues...
And after banning the VN due to the man problems is not going solve anythings..... the officers penalty the girls - the man can still look for another girls.... And all these is social matters or our personal wrong doing ----- not immigration matters.
You missed something here. ICA don't care a hoot whether you have X number of gerfrds, whether you single, happily married, unhappily married or divorced.
You are at liberty to engage in any foreign girls, but it you are trying to sponsor different foreigners within a short period of time, then they will start to come in.
There is a term called desirable visitors or undesirable visitors. Hope you can get a clearer picture.
__________________
If you think you will lose, you have already lost.
Hope al Snr Bros can share some knowledge and advise, eg what is "IMS/DXXXXXX", what is the most likely ban period, and what is the best solution to appeal? Thanks a million on behalf of Charlie.
I maybe wrong. IMS/DXXXXX is issued when caught during raids/checks etc. IMS/WXXXXX is refused entry by ICA. Both are ban status. Starting point for ban period range from 1yr to 3yr and it's extendable.
S1 and AXXX are restrictions stamps prior to stringent data profiling.
__________________
If you think you will lose, you have already lost.
I suddenly remember one 2006 judgment case whereby you and some bros here can upon.
Bro, thanks for taking time to dig into the past & response to my question
However, I don't see how that case relates to the scenario I described since the charges for that "accused" is more of illegal entry within the ban period.
For my case, she is out of the ban period & never arrested. She is just one ex-WL who completed the tour of duty, but using a fake pp during that period. So I'm guessing that if she'll be questioned on entry by declaring she had previously used/worked here using a fake pp, she will still be charged as anyone else that enters the country with a fake one; the ex-WL status will complicates matter more.
So my question, perhaps never mind ex-WL or not, but 1) What severity it is for someone [anyone] who enters Sg with a fake pp in the past and now enters again with a real pp? 2) Anyway to redeem the wrong now? 3) How to best redeem?
30-10-2011, 11:06 AM
Re: Issue with ICA
