- FAQ
- Login
- Register
- Call Workpermit.com for a paid service +44 (0)344-991-9222
ESC
Welcome to immigrationboards.com!
Moderators: Casa, Amber, archigabe, batleykhan, ca.funke, ChetanOjha, EUsmileWEallsmile, JAJ, John, Obie, push, geriatrix, vinny, CR001, zimba, meself2
The Home Office used to refuse citizenship for people with criminal offenses, but surprisingly did not do so for people with immigration offenses. When that fact was pointed out to them, the definition of good character was updated to reflect the fact that immigration offenses are also offenses against the law and hence should be refused.secret.simon wrote:The rules regarding the definition of good character were modified in December 2014 (I think, 11th December 2014, but I'm not certain).
As the changes only involve redefining what good character means (good character has been a requirement since 1983), from other comments in this forum, it is impacting even applications which were submitted earlier but were not decided by then.
With regards to the quoted text above, I am surprised that the partner got ILR at all due to the fact that there was no legal stay prior to ILR grant. But as you say, until we understand or know the immigration history of the partner (asylum, refugee or other), it is difficult to advise appropriately.secret.simon wrote:With respect, your partner broke the law, he broke it for a significant period of time, he does not appear to have mitigating circumstances and it appears that the Home Office made the correct decision. I am only very surprised that he has not been deprived of his ILR (which the Home Office can do) for such a flagrant breach of the law.
I am sorry for your grief. But Citizenship is a privilege not a right ( page 8 ) so they can take as much time as possible to satisfy themselves. ILR is what was his request hence he had a right to appeal. In Citizenship cases, you can only request for a reconsideration, nothing more.san2014 wrote:I understand that we give opinion on these matters.
But also we have to understand the feeling of other people too.
When he entered was a child.
His status is as a aslym seeker.
Before people was working and getting their insurance number because was different. Now if you don't have a visa forget it.
Also when you still in process with the HO to settle in this country you should work because how you going to survive?!!
In the moment that you get the answer from the HO or the court that is NO you don't have more rights to stay.
If you get an answer YES (in his case they gave the right and also the court said sorry for the delay on your process)
The HO can not deprive him to have the ILR because he won the papers with court decision (Human rights)
What am pointing is before the law changed (December 2014)
Everyone had the right to apply if they had such a long time after getting the ILR card
I am upset because they didn't give him the decision in 6 months with the previous law
For the what you have stated above, I would urge you as a matter of priority, to read the link I have included below (which was already provided to you in a previous post in this thread) and in particular the letter that Amber has posted for cases such as your partners being an asylum seeker.When he entered was a child.
His status is as a aslym seeker.
roanne15 wrote:Could anybody please clarify for me.. The 10 year ban is this effective from "When you came to the attention of home office" which mean's application of some sort, or does it relate to been banned for 10years until you were given "STATUS" and meaning in this time before you were granted "Status" you complied with reporting, even being granted to "Work" a year after application, because no decision had been made, whilst application was still being processed.
Thanks for your information, appreciate your helpCR001 wrote:For the what you have stated above, I would urge you as a matter of priority, to read the link I have included below (which was already provided to you in a previous post in this thread) and in particular the letter that Amber has posted for cases such as your partners being an asylum seeker.When he entered was a child.
His status is as a aslym seeker.
Does your partner have evidence or proof that he applied or was an asylum seeker or any correspondence from HO during that time?
http://www.immigrationboards.com/britis ... 84190.html
I hope that you can understand now why you need to provide as much information about the circumstances when requesting help here as if we don't know the situation, we can only advise you based on the limited information you provide and what the rules say.
This statement on its own is incorrect. While it's true that the application was made before the new rules were introduced, as stated in the rules they will still be applied to cases that were not decided at the time. We have seen a few such cases reported on this forum. Amber has created a useful sticky thread which would be worth reading.Mahm256 wrote:Also still, his naturalisation application was logged in May 2014 before the good character amendments came into force in December which means, the new rules don't apply to his application.
It may be a technicality, but it was not a change in the rules in December 2014 that created this issue.Mahm256 wrote:Also still, his naturalisation application was logged in May 2014 before the good character amendments came into force in December which means, the new rules don't apply to his application.
Thanks, I am trying and been asking for advice and as well seaking advice from the sicitors but they are asking for lots of money ;(Mahm256 wrote:All above were wrong.
You judged san2014 partner's case without establishing the full facts. From what I have read, I believe that her partner arrived in the UK and applied for asylum, his case was delayed for years (that does not constitute to illegal stay) and also you should remember, some asylum seekers back then were granted permission to take up work.
Also still, his naturalisation application was logged in May 2014 before the good character amendments came into force in December which means, the new rules don't apply to his application. He still holds a strong case against HO. All he has to do is produce his evidence to show he applied for asylum on and was granted right to work. But this is not necessary because the new rules don't apply to him.
good luck
What visa was your client on? I wonder what kind of visa does not allow your client to work? Even student visa would allow 20 hours a week. Plus, what documents showed your client was working during that period? It sounds that your client provided the documents himself.san2014 wrote:Hi
Thanks for the early replay
We need some help as we don't know what to do, what action should we take please??
This is the reason for the Naturalisation Application refused.
Your client was here without valid leave in UK between 17/11/2005 until 05/03/2014 when he was granted ILR.
Also he was not permitted to work during this time but he was working.
So you have provided documents which clearly shows that your client was working here between August 2006 - April 2014 WITHOUT permission and your client can not therefore satisfy the Criteria of Chapter 18, Annex D, paragraph 9.7 & c of the Nationality Instructions.
So your client application is refused.
He has been working in this country and I can not deny But he has payed his tax and worked with papers always and never claimed benefits.
Thats so unfair
Sorry to hear that. Read again, it's written crystal clear that applicant was in UK without valid leave for long period of time. Any work carried during illegal stay would also be considered illegal. I strongly recommend to consult a solicitor.jasonyu1983 wrote:What visa was your client on? I wonder what kind of visa does not allow your client to work? Even student visa would allow 20 hours a week. Plus, what documents showed your client was working during that period? It sounds that your client provided the documents himself.san2014 wrote:Hi
Thanks for the early replay
We need some help as we don't know what to do, what action should we take please??
This is the reason for the Naturalisation Application refused.
Your client was here without valid leave in UK between 17/11/2005 until 05/03/2014 when he was granted ILR.
Also he was not permitted to work during this time but he was working.
So you have provided documents which clearly shows that your client was working here between August 2006 - April 2014 WITHOUT permission and your client can not therefore satisfy the Criteria of Chapter 18, Annex D, paragraph 9.7 & c of the Nationality Instructions.
So your client application is refused.
He has been working in this country and I can not deny But he has payed his tax and worked with papers always and never claimed benefits.
Thats so unfair
Yes, I can see that the applicant was in UK without valid leave. But "you have provided documents which clearly shows that your client was working here between August 2006 - April 2014 WITHOUT permission" sounds like the applicant provided some sorts of documents to show he was working, I am just wonder why the applicant would supply that document. Surely the applicant understands that he was not supposed to work.usman81 wrote:Sorry to hear that. Read again, it's written crystal clear that applicant was in UK without valid leave for long period of time. Any work carried during illegal stay would also be considered illegal. I strongly recommend to consult a solicitor.jasonyu1983 wrote:What visa was your client on? I wonder what kind of visa does not allow your client to work? Even student visa would allow 20 hours a week. Plus, what documents showed your client was working during that period? It sounds that your client provided the documents himself.san2014 wrote:Hi
Thanks for the early replay
We need some help as we don't know what to do, what action should we take please??
This is the reason for the Naturalisation Application refused.
Your client was here without valid leave in UK between 17/11/2005 until 05/03/2014 when he was granted ILR.
Also he was not permitted to work during this time but he was working.
So you have provided documents which clearly shows that your client was working here between August 2006 - April 2014 WITHOUT permission and your client can not therefore satisfy the Criteria of Chapter 18, Annex D, paragraph 9.7 & c of the Nationality Instructions.
So your client application is refused.
He has been working in this country and I can not deny But he has payed his tax and worked with papers always and never claimed benefits.
Thats so unfair
I think an applicant requires 10 years of clean history. This is the reason why UKBA asks for ten years of your employment history as they would like to be sure that during those ten years, you discharged your obligations with the HMRC and that you complied with immigration restrictions (i think).Simroz wrote:Hi can anyone help,
I am confuse for neutralization how much clean history is needed?? 5 years or 10 years ????
Thanks in advance!
Castration is not a requirement for citizenship.Simroz wrote:Hi can anyone help,
I am confuse for neutralization how much clean history is needed?? 5 years or 10 years ????
Thanks in advance!
ScopeD wrote:I think an applicant requires 10 years of clean history. This is the reason why UKBA asks for ten years of your employment history as they would like to be sure that during those ten years, you discharged your obligations with the HMRC and that you complied with immigration restrictions (i think).Simroz wrote:Hi can anyone help,
I am confuse for neutralization how much clean history is needed?? 5 years or 10 years ????
Thanks in advance!
It is not castration. Technically it means a chemical reaction where acid and a base form water.Wanderer wrote:Castration is not a requirement for citizenship.Simroz wrote:Hi can anyone help,
I am confuse for neutralization how much clean history is needed?? 5 years or 10 years ????
Thanks in advance!