British Passport Revoked

[noajthan]

Seems harsh as you were minors at the time and not responsible for a responsible adult's actions on your behalf.
You would have been incapable of consenting to such an act too.

Ref HO guidance on this serious matter ...

If a person was a minor on the date at which they applied for citizenship we will not deprive of citizenship;

If a person was a minor on the date at which they acquired indefinite leave to remain and the false representation, concealment of
material fact or fraud arose at that stage and the leave to remain led to the subsequent acquisition of citizenship we will not deprive of citizenship

See https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/s ... t_2015.pdf
- section 55.7.5

[Thisgirlcan]

Thank you, I've found all the information posted very helpful.

[Richard W]

The facts are coming out very slowly.

The first claim is that Thisgirlcan's father, when he successfully applied for naturalisation as British, included Thisgirlcan and her sister in his application. Were their names included on the naturalisation certificate? If their names were, then they are, or at least have been, British.

Which parents does Thisgirlcan share with the brother who was stopped in Spain? If they share a father, was he born before or after their father naturalised? If after, and is a full brother, he is not legitimate, but if he can establish his paternity (e.g. by a British birth certificate) and is of good character, he can buy British nationality. (If he were a convicted drug dealer, he'd be stuffed.)

Thisgirlcan, can you please give dates (years, at least) rather than saying x years ago. It is then much easier to work out which laws applied.

I'm guessing that your parents were Nigerian. However, I can't then work out why in 1991 your father thought your mother was British. Have you been told more about what was on your passport application? Was it claimed that she was born in the UK?

I'm scratching my head as to how your aunt brought you over to the UK when you were on your mother's passport.

[Thisgirlcan]

I'm really confused myself, but I arrived in the UK in 1984 with my dad's sister. My sister was born here in 1985, my brother was also born here in 1987. But we didn't get any form of stay till about 1992 I'm guessing this is because my parents were trying to sort themselves out first. When my dad applied for his naturalisation he included our names on his application and we were also given our stay. In regards to my mom, my parents had split up by that time. My sister was able to register herself as British and was given a new passport recently, I'm guessing this will also be the case with my brother also. Fortunately we have no convictions or anything like that. However my case is different as I was not born in the UK, I arrived here when I was 4 months old.

[Richard W]

I'm guessing that your parents were Nigerian. However, I can't then work out why in 1991 your father thought your mother was British. Have you been told more about what was on your passport application? Was it claimed that she was born in the UK?

I'm now wondering if your father thought your mother had also naturalised. That could make a big difference if you aren't already British. It means that the application for your first British passport was reckless (or better) rather than fraudulent, and may enable it to be interpreted as a request for registration as British. Then, as it hasn't yet been rejected, you too may be able to become British rather than merely having your stay regularised, though at discretion, rather than by right.

[Thisgirlcan]

Thanks Richard, I will suggest that to my solicitor.

[noajthan]

I'm really confused myself, but I arrived in the UK in 1984 with my dad's sister. My sister was born here in 1985, my brother was also born here in 1987. But we didn't get any form of stay till about 1992 I'm guessing this is because my parents were trying to sort themselves out first. When my dad applied for his naturalisation he included our names on his application and we were also given our stay. In regards to my mom, my parents had split up by that time. My sister was able to register herself as British and was given a new passport recently, I'm guessing this will also be the case with my brother also. Fortunately we have no convictions or anything like that. However my case is different as I was not born in the UK, I arrived here when I was 4 months old.

Have you actually ever seen the original passport you are included in?

It may be that either:
your aunt was passing you off as her child (possibly on her passport);
or
she used her sister (-in law)'s / your mother's passport (with you on it) to bring herself & you into UK;
- or some such thing?

Only mention it as a perchance as my previous neighbour's 'daughter' was actually her younger sister.

Fact remains it seems to violate natural justice if you were a minor when all this was happening, including getting your first passport.

[Thisgirlcan]

No, I have never seen the original passport that I was included in. My solicitor is also stressing on the fact that I was a minor when my first passport was given to me. And suggested that we apply Article 8 of the ECHR.

[vinny]

As Richard W commented, the facts are coming out very slowly. A full timeline, listing all the events, would be helpful. Your posts are contradictory and confusing at some points.

Were you included on your father's naturalisation certificate or did you get a registration certificate on your own? If he was naturalised under section 6(1), then it indicates that your mother's status was not relevant to his naturalisation.

Note that registration of children at the discretion of the Home Secretrary under section 3(1) may have been simpler at that time, compared to now. Your father may have given the caseworker all the facts that were necessary and sufficient at that time.

If they are accusing your father of deception, then they must produce the evidence to back that up.

Given all the circumstances, i.e. length of time, I doubt that the Courts would support the revocation of your citizenship, especially if it's contrary to the Home Office's own caseworkers' instructions.

[Thisgirlcan]

I have never been naturalised on my own. I know it all seems quite contradictory, the immigration officer that interviewed me said he has never come across a case like this and its totally bizzare. But to my knowledge this is the truth as I know it. I was never registered on my own.

[vinny]

You didn't need to be registered/naturalised on your own if your father had included you in his naturalisation application.

[Thisgirlcan]

Yes he did and applied for our passports. Which we had for over 20 years but now the home office said they were obtained on our behalf fraudulently. So we're trying to register ourselves now as adults.

[Richard W]

Given all the circumstances, i.e. length of time, I doubt that the Courts would support the revocation of your citizenship, especially if it's contrary to the Home Office's own caseworkers' instructions.

What has actually been revoked? The passports or the British citizenships? My understanding from the posts was that the passports had been revoked, and I had assumed it was being asserted that none of the three were actually British when they received their British passports. It also also crossed my mind that the passports might have been revoked because the chain of evidence leading to their being granted was invalid, regardless of whether the recipients were actually British.

I'm also surprised by the immigration history of Thisgirlcan's mother. Where was she living in 1991? If she was in Britain then, how did she not get ILR until 2010? I am wondering if she had ILR well before 2010, and then lost the evidence of having had it.

[Richard W]

Yes he did and applied for our passports. Which we had for over 20 years but now the home office said they were obtained on our behalf fraudulently. So we're trying to register ourselves now as adults.

Does your family still possess your father's naturalisation certificate? Have you looked at it since the trouble started with your sister's passport being revoked?

[Thisgirlcan]

In the letter that was received by my solicitor, the home office states that " It is our understanding that she has never been a British citizen or held valid leave to remain in the UK".

They are not acknowledging the previous stay I had because they say it was obtained on my behalf fraudulently.

In regards to my mother, I have no idea why she waited so long before regulating her stay. My parents don't talk to each other so it's extremely difficult to get information from them. I'm basically going of the information I've been given from them.

[Thisgirlcan]

My dad has been looking for the certificate for a while now.

[vinny]

If he has lost it, then it may be worth trying to get a replacement.

[Thisgirlcan]

Yes, my dad will need to get a replacement. But I'm extremely concerned because my solicitor doesn't want to base his argument on the previous stay I had. He suggested that he bases his argument on me being a minor at the time and not being aware that I was not entitled.

[vinny]

Does your father remember including you in his naturalisation application? This is different from a passport application.

If they had granted your citizenship with your father's application under 3(1), then it was by discretion. It's not even clear if it was granted by mistake because of fraud. Discretion then may be much simpler than discretion now.

His naturalisation certificate will be very important to you, if it included your name.

[Obie]

From commencement it seems to me, that OP only means of obtaining Citizenship was via section 3 (1) .

Parents can apply as a unit with children under 18, but it seem to me that the only path in law, would have been under 3 (1) .

The Secretary of state has to prove 2 things as the evidential burden is upon her.

She needs to show that the discretion under section 3 (1) was exercised on the basis of misrepresentation, and that this misrepresentation was material to the exercise of her discretion under 3(1).

[Richard W]

The Secretary of state has to prove 2 things as the evidential burden is upon her.

She needs to show that the discretion under section 3 (1) was exercised on the basis of misrepresentation, and that this misrepresentation was material to the exercise of her discretion under 3(1).

At the moment, she (SSHD) is claiming that he (SSHD) did not exercise any discretion. The problem is that at the moment we have only the OP's father's claim to suggest that the children ever had British citizenship. If their stay wasn't regularised until they received British passports, I fully understand the OP's solicitor working on the Article 8 defence. I trust that can be good enough to challenge a refusal to admit - the OP does not have leave to be in the UK; she is here through temporary admission. At one level, it was humane of the Home Office to allow her to fly home - or do we still not have the ability to exclude people flying in on stolen British passports?

[Thisgirlcan]

Hi, the home office definitely know our passports are not stolen. Their argument is that we are not entitled. That was my 3rd passport and was due for renewal in June. The immigration officer that interviewed me at Heathrow even advised that I make sure my siblings sort themselves out also. Which my younger sister has already done. My brother hasn't yet as he hasn't received any documents from the home office yet. He was stopped in Spain and questioned but was okay once he arrived in London and was allowed to go with his passport.

[Obie]

The Secretary of state has to prove 2 things as the evidential burden is upon her.

She needs to show that the discretion under section 3 (1) was exercised on the basis of misrepresentation, and that this misrepresentation was material to the exercise of her discretion under 3(1).

At the moment, she (SSHD) is claiming that he (SSHD) did not exercise any discretion. The problem is that at the moment we have only the OP's father's claim to suggest that the children ever had British citizenship. If their stay wasn't regularised until they received British passports, I fully understand the OP's solicitor working on the Article 8 defence. I trust that can be good enough to challenge a refusal to admit - the OP does not have leave to be in the UK; she is here through temporary admission. At one level, it was humane of the Home Office to allow her to fly home - or do we still not have the ability to exclude people flying in on stolen British passports?

Who mentioned stolen passport. There is no allegation that passport was stolen otherwise op would be in jail.

The immigration authorities appear to suggest that the certificate on the basis of which the passport was granted was obtained by fraudulent mean.

In law he who asserts must prove. The evidential burden is on the Home office to prove this.

Unless the OP is untruthful, which I have no reason to believe is the case, the Home office appear not to have provided a basis for their assertion.

It appears to me, that you are the only one that appears to be asserting that OP was travelling on a stolen passport.

[Richard W]

It appears to me, that you are the only one that appears to be asserting that OP was travelling on a stolen passport.

Your observational powers appear to be overtaxed. Too many posts to read?

No-one has suggested that the OP was travelling on a stolen passport! However, Border Force receives lists of passengers and, I thought, passport details, of incoming passengers. If the system is good enough to prevent certain people reaching the country, then one would have hoped that it could, in particular, highlight stolen passports and prevent people carrying them from flying. However, if the system is good enough to do that, it would have been competent enough to stop the OP flying to the UK. I therefore believe that a deliberate decision was made to allow Thisgirlcan to reach a British airport.

The immigration authorities appear to suggest that the certificate on the basis of which the passport was granted was obtained by fraudulent mean.

Which post is this based on? I have seen no claim that Thisgirlcan's first British passport was obtained by means of a fraudulently obtained certificate of naturalisation - or indeed any fraud involving a certificate. All we have been told is that her mother was declared on the passport application to have been British. Now, unless something very unusual has been kept back from us, her mother, if she is now British, became British in 2010 or later, and when the OP's first passport was obtained had presumably had never been British, or had not been British since Nigeria (or wherever - we still haven't been told) became independent in 1960. The statement of the mother being British is the explicit fraud that is alleged.

The Home Office's claim is that Thisgirlcan has never had leave to enter or leave to remain, and has never been British.

Now, as far as I can tell, but I don't think has been clearly asserted, the three children's passports were applied for together. Someone please correct me if I have the following wrong. The application forms stated that their mother was British, and that the youngest two were born in Britain. Now, what may have happened is that the applications of the youngest two were not examined any more closely for evidence of British nationality. (Around this time, evidence of nationality does not seem to have been checked well for people born in Britain.) It may then have been assumed Thisgirlcan was likewise British, despite being born overseas.

At this point, I am wondering what the precise wording of the application form was. If I am right about the family originating in Nigeria, in 1959, if they had already been born, the parents would have been British, or more precisely, citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies, just like my UK-born parents. Could the nationalities of the parents at the times of their own births have been entered through a misunderstanding?

Now, if the father's naturalisation certificate was included in the passport application, it may simply have been ignored as superfluous. Therefore, the Passport Office might conceivably have no record of such a document affecting the decision to issue passports to three illegitimate and therefore legally fatherless children.

[vinny]

Without thisgirlcan's father's naturalisation certificate nor her own registration certificate, it's not certain that thisgirlcan's father included his children in his

1. naturalisation application; or
2. passport application, without first including them in his naturalisation application.

If she remembers correctly, then 1 is true. But the Home Office appears to be suggesting 2.