Real Cases. Honest Outcomes.
Anonymised summaries of actual cases — what the file contained, what the diagnosis found, what changed, and what the outcome was. Cases we declined are included.
What We Found. What We Changed.
Applicant had been refused a UK Standard Visitor visa. The refusal cited V4.2(a) — the officer was not satisfied with the financial evidence. The applicant had submitted six months of bank statements showing a reasonable balance.
Review revealed a pattern of large deposits in the two months before application — amounts inconsistent with the declared salary. The declared income on the form also did not align with the transaction pattern.
Application deferred for four months. Salary deposits accumulated naturally. A tax return and employer letter explicitly linked salary to bank credits. The large deposits were absent from the new statements.
Application approved on second submission.
Applicant was refused a US B2 tourist visa at interview. The applicant was 26, unmarried, employed in a junior administrative role, and had no property.
The applicant's profile had no strong ties to anchor them in Bangladesh. The stated visit purpose, while genuine, was not supported by documentation and the applicant had no prior international travel history.
We advised the applicant that their current profile did not support reapplication. The recommended path was to develop genuine ties over 12–18 months: career advancement, documented financial footprint, then reapply when the profile substantively changed.
Case deferred. Client informed. No premature reapplication.
Senior-level professional refused a French Schengen visa for a ten-day Paris visit. The refusal cited both purpose of stay and intention to leave.
The itinerary submitted was generic with no specific bookings and no explanation of why this particular trip. The employer letter was a standard one-paragraph template without leave dates, salary figures, or return obligation.
A specific itinerary with confirmed paid accommodation and dated bookings was prepared. A detailed employer letter was obtained with explicit leave approval dates, the applicant's monthly salary, and a return-to-work statement.
Application approved on second submission.
Applicant contacted Refusal Klinik after receiving a PIC 4020 finding on an Australian visitor visa. A third-party agent had prepared the application — the applicant was not aware of the finding's implications.
PIC 4020 imposes a three-year bar on all Australian visa applications. The agent had misrepresented aspects of the employment documentation. This was outside Travel Router's scope.
We informed the applicant that this case required specialist immigration legal advice — no travel advisor, including Travel Router, was the appropriate resource. We declined to proceed and explained the correct next steps.
Case declined. Client referred to immigration legal advice.
We Have Turned Away Cases Where A Lawyer Was Needed, Not Us.
No BD visa advisory service publishes this. We do — because accepting every case regardless of appropriateness is a disservice.
Cases with PIC 4020, misrepresentation findings, or equivalent grounds in any country
Cases where reapplication is clearly premature and the root cause has not been addressed
Cases involving security-related refusals where the ground is not disclosed
Cases requiring formal immigration legal proceedings — appeals, judicial review
Cases where the applicant requires coaching to misrepresent their circumstances