- 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
thanks CR001CR001 wrote:If he was not born in India, unlikely that he will be able to change it as he would not have any documentary evidence/proof of his birth there.
Sorry I was away, Thanks for your replies.CR001 wrote:Well that would be deception then wouldn't it and yes, he could lose his citizenship as it will be a concealment of a material fact.
Did he apply for citizenship using an Afghan passport? If so, was it real or not?
Don't know what you mean by 14 years as I have scanned the link you provided and can't seem to find what you are talking about.
They need to update this document. That 14 year exclusion was on the basis on the now deprecated possibility of obtaining ILR on the basis of 14 consecutive years of presence in the UK. That is no longer a route to residency of any kind and therefore is not an exclusion. However, I do wonder if the fact that he got family residence via the EEA might be in his favor. Even though this route is somewhat dependent on the original citizenship in that he himself could not be an EEA national, that wouldn't be relevant anyway since he's only claimed to be from non-EEA countries (unless you've got another bombshell of critical information to tell us about).johnty wrote: .
.
.
• Although you used a false identity to claim asylum, you were granted
indefinite leave to remain on the basis of the Family ILR Concession, for
which there was no nationality requirement. As such the fact that you claimed
to be X instead of Y would not have had a bearing on the outcome of your
case.
• Although you obtained citizenship as a result of deception, you have lived
in the United Kingdom for more than 14 years and so your case falls outside
the scope of our policy.
.
.
.
I am fairly certain the 14 year exclusion is defunct along with the former policy it was associated with. You may need to contact the HO about that. However the EEA family route to PR might leave the door open to resolve this. The risks are obvious. He could be stripped of his citizenship and deported. The current environment is somewhat hostile and Theresa May seems to be on the tail end of a power trip. He might want to consider waiting until the magic 20 year mark passes, when he would almost certainly have qualified for residency anyway. Or perhaps the 30 year mark when he would likely have been able to get citizenship anyway. If he's held to his story for this long, and benefited so well from it, it's hard to imagine 6 - 16 more years making all that much of a difference for him personally.johnty wrote:How feasiable it is and what are the risks? Will he be deprived of his Citizenship or Nulify or will he be spared under the 14 years rule as stated in Chapter 55, ANNEX D, as spouse of EEA member with PR and exercised treaty rights.
ThanksHowever the EEA family route to PR might leave the door open to resolve this
Careful here!. I'm fairly certain that 14 year exception no longer applies. In his case, it's 20 years at the soonest. A milestone he has not reached yet. If I were him, I'd seriously consider waiting until atleast that 20 year mark has passed. I do think the EEA route is plausible, and likely to be well-considered. But there is always a risk here. The less risk he takes on this matter, the better.johnty wrote:...
.
.
On the basis as Outflak mentioned that he was spouse of EEA national (and the fact if still matters he is already here for over 14 years already) put him in safe bracket if he sends his old Naturalisation certificate with evidence of correct place of birth to be amended with correct details.
.
.
It may be useful to get the relevant year copy of guidance to see what was in section 8.4 then.This guidance applies to all decisions taken on or after 11 December 2014
The information on 20 years long residence can be found here. Do a search on 276ADE(1)(iii).johnty wrote:Thanks CASA really something to think about..
however from your linkIt may be useful to get the relevant year copy of guidance to see what was in section 8.4 then.This guidance applies to all decisions taken on or after 11 December 2014
@outflak yes I know what you mean. the question is how plausible it is..
Could you please explain this 20 years milestone bit how it works and if you have any link to any guidance.
Best regards
Thanks for the linkouflak1 wrote:Why does he want to do this? It seems like his current position is stable. I'm wondering if it wouldn't be best to just leave well enough alone....
Ok, so that was obviously a somewhat different scenario, and from a different time when all of the systems perhaps weren't quite as tied together as they've become recently, especially this year. You were wise to advise him as you did. This still doesn't quite answer why he wants to do this, but perhaps it's just personal and he hasn't really bothered to tell you. In any case, I don't know if there is much more information that can be shared on this subject.johnty wrote:Thanks for the linkouflak1 wrote:Why does he want to do this? It seems like his current position is stable. I'm wondering if it wouldn't be best to just leave well enough alone....
I remember asking him the same question and said because he knew someone in London with nearly similar circumstances i.e married to EEA citizens exercising treaty right who renewed his passport with correct country of birth (from SriLanka to India ) and there was no problem so he thought it would be OK for him too but I told him he may need to change the Naturalisation Certificate instead as Passport Office data may not be same as UKBA and he may have problem on the Airport with immigration officers if that is the case.. Was I right?