Question on residence requirements

[LondonApplicant]

The AN booklet mentions on page 5:

The residence requirements:
1. You must have been physically present in England, Wales, Scotland,
Northern Ireland, the Isle of Man or the Channel Islands on the day 5
years before the application is received by the Home Office.

Is this a new requirement? I naturalised about 3 years ago and do not remember this being in place.

What exactly does 'received' mean in this context? Received as certified by a Royal Mail proof of delivery? Or received as in someone actually started looking at it, which could theoretically be months after an applicant sends her documents?

I ask because my wife is considering naturalisation. She has spent time out of the country, but not more than the allowable limit. The point is, if 'received' means 'someone started looking at it', there is always the risk she may have been abroad 5 years ago on that very day!

Also, what on Earth is the rationale here? I honestly fail to understand it!

[noajthan]

The rationale is the legislation: BNA 1981.

5 (/ 3) years before date of application for section 6(1) / 6(2) applications respectively.

[secret.simon]

The requirement has been a part of the law since 1981. And it is also the one part of the law that the Home Office has no discretion to ignore. Not meeting this requirement means certain refusal. And there is no JR for it as it is spelt out in the Act of Parliament itself, not a later statutory instrument.

See Schedule 1, Section 1(2)(a) of the British Nationality Act 1981.

What exactly does 'received' mean in this context?

The date the application was received by the Home Office means either
a) the date it was submitted at the NCS, or
b) the date it was received by mail at the relevant Home Office location, if sent by post.

[LondonApplicant]

Practical point: let's say I am ready to submit my application on 1-Feb-2017, but I happened to be abroad from 3-Feb-2012 to 20-Feb-2012. In this case, I should wait till Feb 21st to send my application, otherwise I risk it will be received on a day for which, 5 years ago, I was abroad. Right?

If it's the law, well, it's certainly not going to change because of my opinion, but was there a reason behind it I am missing? I mean, if I submit my application on 1-Feb-2017, what on Earth changes if I was abroad on 1-Feb-2012 or on 30-Jan-2012 ?

[CR001]

Practical point: let's say I am ready to submit my application on 1-Feb-2017, but I happened to be abroad from 3-Feb-2012 to 20-Feb-2012. In this case, I should wait till Feb 21st to send my application, otherwise I risk it will be received on a day for which, 5 years ago, I was abroad. Right? If you submit at NCS, then that is considered your application date and if you were away after this date, it will not be relevant. If you decide to apply by post, then yes, it would be wise to wait.

As an aside, if you are BC already, your spouse will likely be a Section 6(2) applicant based on 3 years residence.

[noajthan]

It's a line in the sand. Comply or risk refusal, what else matters.

Google white papers and/or Hansard for any more insight.

[secret.simon]

Try not to overtax yourself. The law is an animal of the equine species not renowned for sagacity (if this post must be bowdlerised, I'd rather do it myself than let the forum software do it for me). If you want to live productively, follow it. If you don't like the law, campaign to get it changed. But try not to look at understanding every detail of it. Great minds learned in the law disagree with each other on the meaning of the law, never mind mere mortals like us.

If you are so passionate about the logic of it, read the Hansard of the two Houses when the law was being debated. But even then, I doubt that any light will be shed because every iota was not debated.

As an aside, if you are BC already, your spouse will likely be a Section 6(2) applicant based on 3 years residence.

The spouse will still need to be physically in the UK at the start of the three year period for a Section 6(2) spouse application.

[LondonApplicant]

A European citizen who wishes to naturalise must first obtain a document certifying permanent residence, whereas, until a while ago, he could apply directly.
Let’s say that on 1-Feb-2017 I apply for the document certifying permanent residence since 1-Jan-2010, and I get it on 1-May-2017.
When I apply for naturalisation I’ll submit this certificate. Will I also have to re-submit documents (P60s, pay slips, letters of employment, etc.) to prove my residence since Jan-2010 ? Or is the period Jan-2010 to 1-Feb-2017 covered by the residence certificate, so submitting that certificate will be enough?

How about the period from 1-Feb-2017 to the moment I apply for naturalisation? I suppose I will have to provide the same documents (pay slips, letters of employment, etc)? Or is this not necessary if I apply within a certain timeframe since getting the certificate?

Thanks.

[LondonApplicant]

Of course I want to comply. That's why i asked what 'received' means precisely.

I dare deem this an idiotic rule which serves no purpose, but of course my opinion is utterly irrelevant and I need to comply - that goes without saying.

[secret.simon]

For naturalisation, you need to prove two separate requirements.

a) That you have settled status in the UK - A DCPR should be sufficient for that.
b) the relevant absence requirement - For non-EEA citizens, that is evidenced by their passport stamps. For EEA citizens, they need to submit proof in the form of bank statements, pay slips, etc.

The proof for the latter has nothing to do with the application for DCPR. This is a new application, under different rules and different laws and needs to be proved differently. Because they require some evidence which is overlapping does not mean that you do not need to resubmit the proof.

[noajthan]

Posts merged.
No need for multiple posts.

[LondonApplicant]

I had posted a separate question because, well, they are two totally separate and unrelated questions, but whatever...

Just so I am sure I have understood clearly: a European citizen wishing to naturalise must first obtain a certificate of permanent residence, then submit it along with the very same documentation that he had used it to obtain the permanent residence certificate?

Of course if these are the rules I'll comply, it goes without saying. But it seems very idiotic to me. It seems like a waste of time for the applicant and for the case workers processing the application, who could rely on the permanent residence certificate instead of going through the same documents again.

Thanks for clarifying.

[noajthan]

I had posted a separate question because, well, they are two totally separate and unrelated questions, but whatever...

Just so I am sure I have understood clearly: a European citizen wishing to naturalise must first obtain a certificate of permanent residence, then submit it along with the very same documentation that he had used it to obtain the permanent residence certificate?

Of course if these are the rules I'll comply, it goes without saying. But it seems very idiotic to me. It seems like a waste of time for the applicant and for the case workers processing the application, who could rely on the permanent residence certificate instead of going through the same documents again.

Thanks for clarifying.

The link explains why posts were merged.
There may be 100 questions in an application, that is still one person's case and does not justify 100 topics.

No you have misunderstood.
Two applications, two legislative frameworks: both different.

EU documentation is not designed to support UK domestic citizenship.
And other applicants come via UK domestic immigration route with ILR.

There is no EU flavour of naturalisation, there is just naturalisation.
And why should there be - UK won't even be in EU in a few years and yet naturalisation will still be an option for law-abiding, settled folk.

A PR document (only) proves someone was settled at a point in time.
It doesn't prove they are still settled.
The need to submit DCPR/PRC for naturalisation only came in in 2015 as a further aberration and example of lack of joined-up thinking in HO.

And the naturalisation process sets its own requirements for the privilege of citizenship, many of which are not remotely addressed or fulfilled by someone with a PRC or DCPR.
And which cover different timelines.

PR could have been acquired as long as 10 years ago.
Naturalisation focuses on the past 3/5/10 years for various elements of its requirements.
The period spent acquiring PR may or may not overlap with the required period of residence in UK for naturalisation.
And the absence requirements are completely different.

One can be absent for 50% of time (or even go off for military service for years) and still acquire PR.
Yes - free movement is that free and easy.

But that approach won't fly when it comes to naturalising.
Commitment and future intent/future life based (largely) on past behaviour is required to be demonstrated when naturalising; together with a much lower absenteeism rate.

[LondonApplicant]

Thanks for the clarification - very useful.

I don't understand why they introduced the requirement of getting the European permanent residence first, requirement which was not in place a few years ago,but of course it doesn't change the fact that these are the rules now.

[noajthan]

Thanks for the clarification - very useful.

I don't understand why they introduced the requirement of getting the European permanent residence first, requirement which was not in place a few years ago,but of course it doesn't change the fact that these are the rules now.

Geo politics.
Prevailing climate vis a vis immigrants and migration.
Rationalisation.
Maybe someone had a performance bonus target to hit.
Who can say.

The 'policy' was, as it turned out accidentally, reversed by the release of a new version AN application form early last year.
Rapidly withdrawn a few days later.

No doubt some benighted civil servant is now living out his days on mashed potato rather than cashing in on his index-linked gold-plated pension.

[secret.simon]

I think I have come up with a plausible logic for the "physical presence in the UK five years to the day" rule. This is a hypothesis based on not much other than history, but a plausible one.

Remember that that rule was created in 1981, a world in immigration terms that was very different. At that time, it was Commonwealth citizens who had freer movement to the UK than citizens of other countries. The rules for ILR were considerably more liberal. For instance, ILR was available on demand and on arrival to an EU citizen between 1992 and 2000. So, an EU citizen entering the UK could be stamped in with ILR on arrival if they asked for it. PR did not exist till 2004.

In such an environment, it is perfectly possible that some people would have wanted to hasten their naturalisation by applying for naturalisation after a residence in the UK of only 3.5 years and claiming the other 1.5 years (before arrival in the UK) as absence outside the UK. The intent of the legislation, it seems to me, is to ensure that a person could be naturalised only after a residence of five years, with the absences being taken during such five years, rather than being front-loaded to a period before arrival into the UK.

Naturalisation law is much more statute-based, as compared to immigration law and hence it has not kept up with the current state of the immigration laws, when ILR and/or PR takes five years anyway. But you can see the intent of Parliament in making sure that the five years requirement for naturalisation was being adhered to.

That is also likely why the Home Office has no discretion to ignore this requirement.

I don't understand why they introduced the requirement of getting the European permanent residence first, requirement which was not in place a few years ago,but of course it doesn't change the fact that these are the rules now.

The requirement for having either ILR or PR has also been there since 1981. The difference was that PR did not have to be evidenced separately by a DCPR/PR Card, but the evidence for PR could be submitted directly with the naturalisation application.

That move makes sense for logistical reasons. EU law and naturalisation law have practically nothing in common and for the caseworker working on naturalisation to master two disparate and unrelated laws (and legal systems) made no sense. The requirement to have PR evidenced by a DCPR/PR card means that matters concerning PR are dealt with by a relatively specialist team dealing purely with the EU law/PR side of things and the naturalisation team can focus purely on the British law/naturalisation side of things.

No doubt some benighted civil servant is now living out his days on mashed potato rather than cashing in on his index-linked gold-plated pension.

That benighted civil servant won't be knighted.