Immigration & Blacklist Resolution Services
Professional Blacklist Services
With more than 25 years of experience working with expatriates in Vietnam and across Asia, SJP provides professional assistance to individuals facing complex immigration issues.
Over the years, we have developed close and trusted working relationships with senior decision-makers within the Police, Immigration Department, and the Ministry of Public Security, allowing us to properly assess and manage sensitive immigration matters through the appropriate official channels.
OVERSTAYED VISA
Detailed assessment of your visa overstay >
WORKING ILLEGALLY
Confidential Review and Help >
EXIT ERRORS
Review of all Exit Records and Issues >
DEPORTATION
Consistently high success rate assisting clients who have been deported >
SPONSOR ISSUES
Assisting clients with sponsor-related issuess >
confidence.
FALSE INFORMATION
Innacurate or Missleadling Information is Recorded >
officials within Immigration and the Ministry of Public Security (MPS), we identify errors, compile verified evidence, and present structured submissions to correct the record. Clients are supported through a clear, lawful process that restores credibility and enables them to move forward in Vietnam with confidence.
UNPAID FINES
Outstanding fines can create unexpected barriers >
ADMIN BAN
Administrative bans can arise from a range of immigration or compliance issues >
CASE REVIEW
A clear understanding of your situation is the foundation of a successful outcome >
🇻🇳 British National Reunited with Family After Vietnam Entry Ban Overturned
Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam – May 3, 2026

A Second Chance for Tom
Immigration systems are built on rules, not exceptions. Yet the recent return of British national Tom Chambers to Vietnam shows that even strict enforcement can leave room for discretion when human circumstances demand it.
Chambers arrived back at Tan Son Nhat International Airport earlier this month after a 34-day effort to overturn an entry ban that had separated him from his young daughter. His case stemmed from a serious violation: a 16-month visa overstay that led to fines, deportation, and a formal ban on re-entry.
But the breach did not occur in isolation. Following the birth of his child, Chambers faced a breakdown in support from his partner and chose to remain in Vietnam to stay close to his newborn—an निर्णय that, while unlawful, reflects a dilemma many legal systems struggle to address: when personal crisis collides with immigration law.
After his removal, Chambers turned to SJP Consultancy. Rather than disputing the overstay, the firm built a case on humanitarian grounds, engaging directly with the Ministry of Public Security and immigration authorities. The argument was not that the law was wrong, but that the circumstances warranted reconsideration within it.
The result: the ban was lifted, allowing Chambers to return under strict conditions, including visa limitations and mandatory reporting. This was not a free pass—it was controlled, conditional re-entry.
That distinction is important. Vietnam has tightened immigration enforcement in recent years, and overstays are typically met with firm penalties. Chambers’ case does not signal a policy shift, but it does show that structured discretion exists when cases are properly presented and supported.
For expatriates, the lesson is clear: compliance remains essential, but outcomes are not always fixed. Between rejection and approval lies a narrow path shaped by legal strategy, credible evidence, and engagement with the right authorities.
More broadly, the case highlights a tension at the heart of modern immigration systems. Laws must be enforced consistently, yet they also intersect with deeply human realities—none more so than family separation.
Chambers’ return does not erase his violation. But it does suggest that even within rigid systems, there is space—however limited—for proportion, judgment, and, occasionally, a second chance.
