Australian Father Wins Humanitarian Appeal Against Vietnam Entry Ban After Separation From Young Daughter

An Australian father who was deported from Vietnam after overstaying his tourist visa by almost two years has successfully secured the removal of his immigration entry ban following a humanitarian petition presented to Vietnam’s Ministry of Public Security by SJP.

The case, centred on the welfare of a three-year-old Vietnamese child who had been separated from her father, has been described as an example of how compelling humanitarian circumstances and carefully prepared legal submissions can assist immigration authorities in considering exceptional cases involving genuine family relationships and the best interests of a child.

Privacy Notice: To protect the privacy of the client and his family, the names used throughout this article have been changed. Certain identifying details have also been modified to preserve the family’s anonymity while accurately reflecting the legal issues, humanitarian considerations and outcome of the matter. The family requested that their identities remain confidential so they can move forward with their lives following this difficult period. The events, legal proceedings, humanitarian petition and outcome described in this article accurately reflect the case; however, pseudonyms have been used out of respect for the family’s privacy and, most importantly, the welfare and best interests of their young daughter.

WhatsApp Zalo Email Facebook

A Family Separated

Mr. Tim Pearce, 38, an Australian citizen from Perth, Western Australia, had been living in Cần Thơ with his Vietnamese partner, Ms. Van Thi Nguyen, and their three-year-old daughter.

Mr. Pearce had originally entered Vietnam on a 90-day tourist visa but remained in the country for an additional 22 months after his visa expired.

According to evidence later submitted to the Ministry of Public Security, Mr. Pearce admitted that he knowingly remained unlawfully in Vietnam. He explained that he feared leaving the country because of a historical theft conviction in Australia dating back approximately 18 years. Although the conviction was historic and he had rebuilt his life, he believed that if he departed Vietnam he would never be allowed to return to his family.

Instead of seeking professional immigration advice, Mr. Pearce chose to remain in Vietnam with Ms. Nguyen and their daughter while continuing to operate a successful online business exporting Vietnamese products to customers throughout Australia.

Although financially successful, that decision left him in continuous breach of Vietnam’s immigration laws.

Immigration Investigation

Authorities first became aware of Mr. Pearce’s unlawful immigration status in early August 2025 after local police conducted enquiries relating to temporary residence registration requirements at the apartment where he had been living with his Vietnamese partner and their young daughter in Cần Thơ.

Under Vietnamese law, foreign nationals are required to ensure that their place of residence is properly registered with the local authorities. During routine administrative checks, officers discovered that Mr. Pearce had not been registered as residing at the address. Further enquiries with Vietnam’s Immigration Department revealed that his authorised period of stay had expired approximately twenty-two months earlier.

The matter was treated was an administrative immigration violation rather than a criminal offence. At no stage was Mr. Pearce accused of committing a criminal offence under Vietnamese law. Instead, the investigation focused solely on determining the extent of his immigration breaches, confirming his identity, verifying his immigration history and assessing the appropriate administrative sanctions available under Vietnam’s immigration legislation.

Mr. Pearce was taken into custody by officers from the Ninh Kiều District Police, who were responsible for conducting the initial administrative interview and coordinating with the local Immigration authorities. During the interview process, officers examined his passport, visa history, residential arrangements and the circumstances that had resulted in his prolonged unlawful stay in Vietnam.

According to documents later submitted as part of the humanitarian petition, Mr. Pearce was cooperative throughout the investigation. He openly acknowledged that his visa had expired and admitted that he had remained in Vietnam unlawfully. He explained that his decision had been motivated by his fear that, if he returned to Australia, he would be unable to re-enter Vietnam because of a historical criminal conviction dating back almost eighteen years. He also expressed concern about being separated from his Vietnamese partner and their young daughter.

Mr. Pearce remained in Police custody for six days while officials completed a comprehensive assessment of his case. During this period, authorities verified his immigration records, calculated the total period of overstay, confirmed the relevant administrative violations, considered the appropriate financial penalties and determined whether deportation should be ordered.

Once the Police investigation had been completed and all relevant enquiries finalised, Mr. Pearce was released from administrative detention pending the formal outcome of the Immigration Department’s assessment.

Following completion of the investigation, Immigration authorities issued an administrative decision requiring Mr. Pearce’s removal from Vietnam.

On 3 September 2025, he was formally served with written notice advising that he had 48 hours to leave the country. The notice required him to arrange and pay for his own commercial flight to Australia and advised that failure to comply could result in further enforcement action.

Mr. Pearce accepted the decision without objection, purchased an airline ticket to Perth and departed Vietnam on 4 September 2025, fully complying with the deportation order issued by Vietnamese Immigration authorities.

Violations Under Vietnamese Immigration Law

During the investigation, immigration authorities determined that Mr. Pearce had committed several administrative immigration violations, including:

• • • Remaining in Vietnam after the expiry of his temporary stay.
    • Failing to maintain lawful immigration status.
    • Residing at accommodation without completing the mandatory temporary residence registration required under Vietnamese law.
    • Remaining in Vietnam unlawfully for approximately 22 months beyond his authorised period of stay.

His case was dealt with under Vietnam’s immigration legislation, including:

• • • Law No. 47/2014/QH13 on Entry, Exit, Transit and Residence of Foreigners in Vietnam (as amended by Law No. 51/2019/QH14).
    • Decree No. 144/2021/NĐ-CP, which provides administrative penalties for various public security offences, including immigration-related violations.
    • The powers of immigration authorities under the Law on Handling of Administrative Violations.

As part of the administrative proceedings, Mr. Pearce paid the financial penalties imposed by Vietnamese immigration authorities before his deportation.

(Note: Vietnamese administrative fines vary depending upon the specific findings made by immigration authorities and the regulations in force at the time of the offence. The exact amount imposed in Mr. Pearce’s case has not been publicly disclosed.)

Seeking Professional Assistance

After returning to Perth, Australia, Mr. Pearce found himself separated from his partner and young daughter, with no clear indication of when, or if, he would be permitted to return to Vietnam.

Determined to reunite with his family, he spent several weeks researching possible avenues of assistance. His search included Vietnamese immigration lawyers, Australian migration consultants, international law firms, expatriate forums, immigration specialists and private consultancy firms claiming experience with Vietnamese entry bans and deportation matters.

According to Mr. Pearce, many organisations he contacted either declined to become involved once they learned that the matter concerned an existing immigration entry ban, advised that they could realistically do anything, or offered only general immigration advice without any experience in preparing humanitarian petitions to Vietnam’s Ministry of Public Security.

Several firms quoted professional fees for reviewing the matter, with estimates varying considerably depending upon the work proposed. While cost was naturally an important consideration, Mr. Pearce later explained that selecting the right representative was ultimately more important than simply choosing the lowest quotation.

During his search, Mr. Pearce discovered SJP, (we are a boutique international consultancy employing a team of seven professionals with offices in London and Ho Chi Minh City). Although SJP’s quotation was the second highest of all those he received, he was impressed by the depth of the initial consultation and the firm’s clear understanding of Vietnam’s immigration procedures.

He also considered several practical advantages offered by SJP. All communications were conducted in fluent English, ensuring there was no misunderstanding regarding the facts of the case or the legal strategy being proposed. SJP undertook responsibility for translating all supporting documents into Vietnamese where required, liaised directly with the relevant Vietnamese authorities and maintained regular communication throughout the preparation of the petition.

Following an extensive review of Mr. Pearce’s immigration history, supporting documentation and family circumstances, SJP concluded that there was no realistic basis upon which to challenge the deportation decision itself. However, SJP identified what it believed to be compelling humanitarian grounds for requesting that the Ministry of Public Security exercise its discretion to reconsider the entry ban, particularly given the welfare of Mr. Pearce’s young daughter and the strength of the family’s supporting evidence.

Having carefully considered the advice provided, Mr. Pearce formally instructed SJP in October 2025.

The matter commenced with an initial professional retainer of VND 90,000,000, enabling the consultancy to begin preparing a comprehensive humanitarian petition, gathering evidence from both Australia and Vietnam, coordinating expert documentation and developing what would ultimately become the submissions presented personally before the Ministry of Public Security in Hà Nội.
Note: The final fee were VND 120,000,000

Building a Humanitarian Case

Following its initial assessment, SJP concluded that attempting to challenge the deportation decision or deny the immigration violations would have little prospect of success. Mr. Pearce had openly admitted that he had knowingly overstayed his visa for approximately twenty-two months, had accepted the administrative penalties imposed by Vietnamese Immigration authorities and had fully complied with the deportation order. In the consultancy’s opinion, the facts of the immigration case were not in dispute and there was no legal basis upon which to argue that the authorities had acted improperly.

Instead, SJP adopted an entirely different strategy.

Rather than attempting to minimise Mr. Pearce’s immigration breaches, SJP decided that the petition would acknowledge them in full, accept that Vietnam’s immigration laws had been correctly enforced and respectfully invite the Ministry of Public Security to consider whether the continued enforcement of the entry ban remained justified in light of exceptional humanitarian circumstances.

SJP’s strategy was based upon a simple but compelling principle: while immigration laws exist to protect the integrity of Vietnam’s borders and must be enforced consistently, every administrative decision also affects real people. In this case, the individual suffering the greatest hardship was not Mr. Pearce, but his three-year-old daughter, an innocent child who had been separated from her father.

SJP therefore structured the petition around the humanitarian consequences of the continued entry ban rather than the immigration offences themselves. The submissions repeatedly emphasised that the application was not seeking forgiveness for the overstay, nor suggesting that Vietnam should overlook immigration violations. Instead, the petition argued that Mr. Pearce had already accepted responsibility for his actions, complied with every lawful direction issued by Immigration authorities and demonstrated genuine remorse. The remaining question for the Ministry was whether maintaining the entry ban continued to serve a meaningful public interest when balanced against the welfare of a young child.

Before preparing the formal petition, SJP undertook a comprehensive evidence-gathering process lasting several months. Every factual assertion contained within the submissions was supported by documentary evidence wherever possible.

One of the first priorities was establishing beyond doubt that Mr. Pearce was the child’s biological father. Although the child’s birth certificate identified him as the father, the consultancy considered independent scientific evidence to be particularly persuasive. Arrangements were therefore made for internationally recognised DNA testing, the results of which confirmed the biological relationship between Mr. Pearce and his daughter to an exceptionally high degree of certainty.

SJP also gathered certified copies of the child’s Vietnamese birth documentation, family photographs covering several years, evidence of the couple’s cohabitation, correspondence demonstrating the genuine nature of the relationship and records illustrating Mr. Pearce’s ongoing emotional and financial support following his deportation.

Financial records played an important role in the petition. Bank statements, business records and commercial documentation demonstrated that Mr. Pearce and Ms. Nguyen had established a legitimate online business exporting Vietnamese products to customers throughout Australia. The evidence showed that the business generated sufficient lawful income to support the family independently, reducing any concern that Mr. Pearce might become financially dependent upon Vietnamese public resources if permitted to return.

SJP also obtained Australian police documentation relating to Mr. Pearce’s historical theft conviction. Rather than attempting to conceal the conviction, the petition addressed it openly. The submissions explained that the offence had occurred approximately eighteen years earlier, that Mr. Pearce had completed all penalties imposed by the Australian courts and that there was no evidence of subsequent offending. SJP argued that his conduct over the intervening years demonstrated rehabilitation, maturity and a commitment to supporting his family.

Character references from friends, business associates and members of the local community were collected to provide further evidence of Mr. Pearce’s good character, work ethic and commitment as a father. Additional evidence documented the emotional and developmental impact that prolonged separation was having upon his young daughter, who had been deprived of regular day-to-day contact with her father during a formative stage of her life.

Once all supporting documentation had been assembled, SJP prepared a detailed humanitarian petition supported by translated exhibits and indexed evidence. Every document originating in English was professionally translated into Vietnamese to ensure that Ministry officials could review the evidence efficiently and without ambiguity. The completed petition was organised chronologically and supported by a comprehensive schedule of evidence, enabling decision-makers to verify each factual assertion with the corresponding documentary exhibit.

Throughout the submissions, SJP consistently argued that immigration laws must be respected and enforced. However, the consultancy invited the Ministry to exercise its administrative discretion by considering whether the humanitarian consequences of continued separation outweighed any remaining public benefit achieved by maintaining the entry ban after Mr. Pearce had already accepted responsibility for his immigration violations.

The petition ultimately submitted that:

• • • the child should have the opportunity to maintain a meaningful relationship with both parents;
    • the child’s welfare and best interests should be afforded significant humanitarian consideration;
    • continued separation served no further immigration purpose once Mr. Pearce had complied fully with the deportation order;
    • Mr. Pearce had accepted complete responsibility for every immigration violation committed;
    • his previous criminal conviction was isolated, historic and no longer reflected his present character;
    • his business generated lawful income capable of supporting his family independently;
    • he had demonstrated genuine remorse for his immigration breaches; and
    • the family represented a stable, genuine and financially self-sufficient family unit deserving of compassionate consideration.

Personal Representation Before the Ministry

On 1 July 2026, Simon J. Price travelled to the Ministry of Public Security in Hà Nội to personally present the completed humanitarian petition on behalf of Mr. Pearce.

Rather than relying solely upon the written submissions, SJP considered it essential that the Ministry have the opportunity to ask questions directly of the person responsible for preparing the petition. The consultancy believed that an in-person presentation would allow officials to examine the evidence in greater detail, clarify any issues arising from the documentation and better understand the humanitarian circumstances underpinning the application.

The meeting lasted for just over two hours and was conducted in a formal yet professional manner. Ministry officials had clearly reviewed the written petition before the hearing and worked systematically through both the written submissions and supporting documentary evidence.

During the representations, Simon J. Price (Managing Partnr at SJP Consultancy) guided the Ministry through the chronology of events, beginning with Mr. Pearce’s arrival in Vietnam, the circumstances leading to the visa overstay, the subsequent Immigration investigation, his deportation, and finally the extensive humanitarian evidence assembled following his return to Australia.

A significant portion of the meeting focused upon explaining why SJP had deliberately chosen not to challenge the Immigration Department’s original decision. It was emphasised that the petition accepted the legality of the deportation and acknowledged that Vietnamese authorities had acted appropriately in enforcing the country’s immigration laws. Instead, the purpose of the application was to respectfully request that the Ministry consider whether exceptional humanitarian circumstances now justified lifting the entry ban in the interests of family unity and the welfare of an innocent child.

Ministry officials examined the supporting evidence in considerable detail before asking numerous questions concerning:

• • • Mr. Pearce’s immigration history and previous compliance with visa conditions;
    • the circumstances surrounding the twenty-two-month overstay;
    • his historic criminal conviction in Australia;
    • the stability of his relationship with Ms. Nguyen;
    • the DNA evidence confirming paternity;
    • the family’s current financial circumstances;
    • the operation and profitability of the online business;
    • the proposed residential arrangements upon his return to Vietnam;
    • how the family intended to support themselves financially;
    • whether the couple intended to marry in the future; and
    • Mr. Pearce’s commitment to complying fully with Vietnamese Immigration law if granted permission to return.

Throughout the hearing, Mr. Price answered each question by referring to the documentary evidence contained within the petition and providing additional clarification where requested. Particular emphasis was placed upon demonstrating that Mr. Pearce presented no ongoing immigration or public safety risk, that he fully understood the seriousness of his previous immigration breaches and that he was committed to complying with all Vietnamese laws in the future.

SJP’s representations repeatedly emphasised that the application was not an attempt to excuse or diminish the seriousness of the immigration offences. Instead, it was presented as a respectful request for compassionate consideration based upon exceptional humanitarian circumstances involving a young Vietnamese child whose welfare had been significantly affected by the continued separation from her father.

By the conclusion of the meeting, the Ministry had been provided with a comprehensive explanation of both the factual background and the humanitarian rationale supporting the petition, together with extensive documentary evidence addressing every significant aspect of Mr. Pearce’s personal, financial and family circumstances.

Humanitarian Outcome

Following the conclusion of the meeting, representatives of the Ministry of Public Security advised Mr. Price that, having considered both the written petition and the oral representations presented during the hearing, the Ministry had reached a favourable decision in principle.

While the formal administrative processes would continue through the relevant Immigration authorities, the Ministry verbally informed SJP that the humanitarian petition had been accepted and that Mr. Pearce’s request for compassionate consideration had been approved.

The Ministry indicated that, after reviewing the totality of the evidence, particular weight had been given to the humanitarian consequences of the continued separation of a young Vietnamese child from her biological father. Officials acknowledged that Mr. Pearce had accepted responsibility for his immigration violations, complied fully with the deportation order issued in September 2025 and had not sought to dispute the lawfulness of the administrative action taken against him.

The Ministry further recognised that the petition had been supported by extensive documentary evidence, including independent DNA testing confirming paternity, financial records demonstrating Mr. Pearce’s ongoing support of his family, evidence of a genuine long-term relationship with Ms. Nguyen and documentation establishing the legitimacy of the family’s business interests.

At the conclusion of the hearing, SJP was verbally advised that:

• • • Mr. Pearce’s immigration entry ban would be lifted on humanitarian grounds.
    • He would be eligible to seek permission to re-enter Vietnam from 4 July 2026.
    • Subject to satisfying the normal immigration requirements applicable to Australian citizens, he would be eligible to apply for a new 90-day tourist visa.
    • Following his return, should Mr. Pearce and Ms. Nguyen legally marry in accordance with Vietnamese law, Immigration authorities indicated that he could subsequently become eligible to apply for a TT Temporary Residence Card (TRC) as the spouse of a Vietnamese citizen, with a validity period of up to two years, subject to satisfying all statutory requirements, documentary requirements and immigration conditions in force at the time of application.

Officials also emphasised that the lifting of the entry ban should not be interpreted as cancelling or overturning the original deportation decision. Rather, it represented a subsequent exercise of administrative discretion based upon humanitarian considerations arising after Mr. Pearce had complied with the deportation order and accepted responsibility for his previous conduct.

The decision effectively brought an end to almost ten months of separation between Mr. Pearce and his family, allowing him to begin making arrangements to return to Vietnam and resume his role as a father and partner.

For Mr. Pearce, the outcome represented the culmination of almost nine months of preparation, evidence gathering and legal submissions. For his daughter, it offered the prospect of once again growing up with both parents actively involved in her daily life.

Respect for Vietnamese Law

Following the successful outcome, SJP was careful to emphasise that the decision should not be interpreted as suggesting that Vietnam’s immigration laws can be avoided or that humanitarian considerations automatically override immigration enforcement.

SJP acknowledged that Vietnam’s immigration system operates upon clear legislative requirements designed to protect the integrity of the country’s borders and that Immigration authorities are both entitled and expected to investigate visa breaches, impose administrative sanctions and deport foreign nationals who fail to comply with the law.

According to SJP, one of the most important aspects of Mr. Pearce’s case was that the humanitarian petition never sought to criticise the actions of the Immigration Department or argue that the deportation decision had been unlawful. On the contrary, the submissions expressly acknowledged that the authorities had acted entirely within their statutory powers and that Mr. Pearce alone bore responsibility for the circumstances that led to his removal from Vietnam.

SJP noted that the favourable outcome appeared to reflect several significant factors considered collectively rather than any single piece of evidence. These included:

• • • Mr. Pearce’s complete acceptance of responsibility for the immigration violations.
    • His cooperation throughout the Police and Immigration investigations.
    • His payment of all administrative penalties imposed by Vietnamese authorities.
    • His full compliance with the deportation order.
    • His willingness to disclose, rather than conceal, his historic criminal conviction.
    • Independent DNA evidence confirming his biological relationship with his daughter.
    • Extensive documentary evidence establishing a genuine and ongoing family relationship.
    • Evidence of financial stability through a lawful business jointly operated with Ms. Nguyen.
    • Demonstrated rehabilitation and the absence of further criminal offending for approximately eighteen years.
    • The significant humanitarian impact that continued separation would have upon an innocent young child.

SJP further stated that every humanitarian petition is assessed individually on its own facts and evidence. The granting of relief in one matter should never be interpreted as creating a legal precedent or guaranteeing a similar outcome in another case. Decisions involving administrative discretion necessarily depend upon the quality of the evidence presented, the credibility of the applicant, the applicable law and the particular humanitarian circumstances existing at the time the petition is considered.

SJP encouraged foreign nationals living in Vietnam to maintain lawful immigration status at all times and to seek professional advice immediately if they encounter immigration difficulties, rather than allowing administrative breaches to continue.

A Second Chance

For Tim Pearce, the Ministry’s decision represented far more than the removal of an immigration entry ban.

It represented the opportunity to rebuild a family life that had been interrupted by his own poor decisions and to resume his responsibilities as a father to his young daughter.

Throughout the humanitarian petition, Mr. Pearce never attempted to deny or minimise his immigration violations. Instead, he accepted that his actions had consequences, complied with every lawful direction issued by Vietnamese authorities and devoted the months following his deportation to demonstrating that he had learned from those mistakes.

The successful petition now allows him to return to Vietnam lawfully, reunite with Ms. Nguyen and their daughter, continue operating the successful online business they established together and, subject to future compliance with Vietnamese law, begin planning for a more permanent and stable future with his family.

For SJP, the matter reinforced the importance of meticulous preparation, careful legal analysis and respectful advocacy when presenting complex humanitarian matters before senior government authorities. Rather than relying upon emotion alone, SJP adopted an evidence-based approach in which every significant assertion was supported by documentary material capable of independent verification.

The case also demonstrated the value of recognising the distinction between challenging an administrative decision and requesting the lawful exercise of administrative discretion after that decision has been implemented. By acknowledging the legitimacy of the original deportation while focusing upon subsequent humanitarian developments, the petition presented the Ministry with a carefully reasoned basis upon which compassionate consideration could be given without undermining the integrity of Vietnam’s immigration system.

Although every immigration matter is unique and outcomes can never be guaranteed, Mr. Pearce’s case illustrates that genuine accountability, complete transparency, compelling documentary evidence and respectful engagement with the relevant authorities may, in appropriate circumstances, provide a foundation upon which humanitarian discretion can lawfully be exercised.

Above all, the case serves as a reminder that effective advocacy is not simply about challenging decisions, it is about identifying the strongest lawful basis upon which a decision-maker may fairly exercise discretion. In this instance, that basis was not the immigration breach itself, but the best interests of a young child, the genuine rehabilitation of her father and the opportunity to reunite a family while maintaining full respect for the laws of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam.