Any JCAP NCAS Issues or Advice for 15 Month exception under Chapter 18 Annex B paragraph 7.5(g) of the BNA 1981

[13atu]

Hi Folks,

I am planning to make an application soon using the Chapter 18 Annex B paragraph 7.5(g) of the BNA 1981.

I want to know about your experiences and get in touch with those who also used this clause. This is mainly the clause that says that the Secretary of State can use his discretion to grant citizenship to those whose ILR application took longer than expected, if they applied 15 months after their ILR application.

1. Do I need to provide letters from home office about the date of my ILR application and date of decision etc. I applied my ILR through a law firm and I never received some of the letters from Home office as they got lost when the law firm sent me those letters by post somehow. They still have a copy of the original letters though. I suspect they may have the originals as well. The letters I talk about are letters like "we received your application" or "your application is delayed for this or that reason".

2. Do I need to give any reasons as to why I want to become a citizen faster? I simply want to become citizen as soon as possible but do I need to build a case about it like it is good for my business, I can use more opportunities etc. How much should I elaborate on this in the explanations?

3. Briefly, What else should I mention in the explanations?

4. If anyone made an application through JCAP or NCAS or if anyone knows how it works, I just want to know if I can face problems when I go there to submit my documents because It has not been 12 months since I receive my ILR? I do not mind about the £50-60 appointment fee but I dont want to naturally lose a grand just because the officer for JCAP or NCAS did not know the law and about the Chapter 18 Annex B paragraph 7.5(g) of the BNA 1981.

Sorry for such a long message. Any help and suggestion is appreciated. I will keep here updated as I am determined to make this application under Chapter 18 Annex B paragraph 7.5(g) of the BNA 1981.

Thanks in advance to everyone

[CR001]

Some details on your immigration history would help

What date did you apply for ILR and what date was it granted??

[13atu]

I applied on first week of January 2017 and got the ILR on last week of September 2017. My application was Turkish Business Person ECAA. They sent a mail to my lawyer in the process saying my application is likely to be delayed as they are revising the policy. For a while they stopped processing all ECAA Ankara Agreement applications. This was the case for all applications at that time. Eventually they start processing the applications again and I got my ILR. They never asked from me to submit any further documents.

I know there are people in worse conditions and delays and I know it is irrelevant and is not a legal basis but I just cannot help complaining about this here. My first application for ECAA was delayed a whooping 11 months because of Olympics as they said. Then I waited 5 months for the extension. And then for ILR another 9 months. I waited for a visa without any passports for around 2 years in total out of 5 years qualifying period. If the first or last delay did not happen I would have become British already Ah! Feeling better

[CR001]

You don't qualify to apply under this provision. 9 months is not nearly as long as the 2 years or more some have waited and are still waiting.

HO informed you that there would likely be a delay so not like you were unaware of this either.

I would suggest wait till September 2017 or risk losing your money. But it is your choice.

Citizenship is not a right or an entitlement, it is a privilege and we all have to meet the requirements set in law.

Applying early because 'it is good for your business' is unfortunately not a solid, compassionate or exceptional reason.

[13atu]

You do realise that I did not at any stage ask if I can use this clause. I only asked about the experience of people who used this clause and how they filled the forms so that I can make a better application. I asked what they did and what problems they experienced with JCAP or NCAS.

I did not ask, do you think if I could get citizenship. I started this topic to engage people who made applications under this clause. I do not know why you are trying to block this.

Finally as a moderator, you should know better than giving unsolicited advise based on the little information I gave you. I thought you just honestly wanted to know how the delay etc happened. You need to know much more about my personal circumstances and reasons to judge whether I can use it or not. Yet just as this is not enough, you just go ahead and give a strong advise to me not to apply.

This discourages people to engage with conversation plus upsets me very much. So why is this negativity?

You don't qualify to apply under this provision. 9 months is not nearly as long as the 2 years or more some have waited and are still waiting.

Besides any 1st year law student can tell that just because there are people who waited longer, does not mean people who waited less should not be entitled to use this clause. If you do not want to take my word for it, I suggest you to search this good old forum as you will find many people who waited less becoming citizens under this clause.

Can we now steer the conversation from whether I could apply back to what those who applied successfully did as per my questions in my first post.

By the way as a moderator to keep the topic on track it may be a good idea to delete our posts leaving only my very first message...

[Hstepper07]

You do realise that I did not at any stage ask if I can use this clause. I only asked about the experience of people who used this clause and how they filled the forms so that I can make a better application. I asked what they did and what problems they experienced with JCAP or NCAS.

I did not ask, do you think if I could get citizenship. I started this topic to engage people who made applications under this clause. I do not know why you are trying to block this.

Finally as a moderator, you should know better than giving unsolicited advise based on the little information I gave you. I thought you just honestly wanted to know how the delay etc happened. You need to know much more about my personal circumstances and reasons to judge whether I can use it or not. Yet just as this is not enough, you just go ahead and give a strong advise to me not to apply.

This discourages people to engage with conversation plus upsets me very much. So why is this negativity?

You don't qualify to apply under this provision. 9 months is not nearly as long as the 2 years or more some have waited and are still waiting.

Besides any 1st year law student can tell that just because there are people who waited longer, does not mean people who waited less should not be entitled to use this clause. If you do not want to take my word for it, I suggest you to search this good old forum as you will find many people who waited less becoming citizens under this clause.

Can we now steer the conversation from whether I could apply back to what those who applied successfully did as per my questions in my first post.

By the way as a moderator to keep the topic on track it may be a good idea to delete our posts leaving only my very first message...

Hi 13atu,
I do not mean to be rude but CR001 actually made time and effort to respond to you. Remember that you are not paying for any service here. You can try and be civil whether you are happy with the advice you received or not.
Many people including myself have found support from this forum invaluable.

[13atu]

I am sorry but I disagree with you. I would really prefer silence to a misinformed unsolicited advise.

Furthermore, I am not here to get legal advice. Neither should you. There is a lot of OISC accredited charities, including Citizens Advice centres if you want to get free advise.

I just hoped that I could find some people who are happy to share their experiences here.

[Casa]

I am sorry but I disagree with you. I would really prefer silence to a misinformed unsolicited advise.

Furthermore, I am not here to get legal advice. Neither should you. There is a lot of OISC accredited charities, including Citizens Advice centres if you want to get free advise.

I just hoped that I could find some people who are happy to share their experiences here.

With a request for advice in your topic title, any response in this thread is hardly 'unsolicited'. With a change of tone in your posts you may improve the likelihood of members sharing their experiences.

[secret.simon]

I would really prefer silence to a misinformed unsolicited advise.

And you should have it (silence,that is, not unsolicited advise).

Your expectations differ from most people who frequent these forums. CR001 was only giving you the same help that she and the other moderators provide on these forums; to guide the conversation to a specific advice or conclusion that the user(s) can follow/implement.

But, as you wish for a more widespread conversation with no specific conclusion in mind and want more first-hand experiences in a very specific and narrow field, I am confident that the moderators and Respected Gurus will leave your thread well-alone, assuming no inappropriate posts are posted, etc.

Furthermore, I am not here to get legal advice. Neither should you. There is a lot of OISC accredited charities, including Citizens Advice centres if you want to get free advise.

You are quite correct to point out that legal advice is best obtained through OISC-accredited solicitors. But it has been our observation on these forums that even some solicitors can get the details of immigration law wrong. None of the moderators are lawyers (to the best of my knowledge), but we have seen the multifarious changes in immigration laws over a period of time and an overview of what most people who have posted on these forums have gone through. Our advice is therefore a distillation of experiences posted on these forums.

[13atu]

I do apologise if my tone was a little strong in my message. I was pretty much provoked by the tone of the message I received and replied in a similar and probably stronger way. I did not mean to cause a stir up on the forum. I can also understand the bitterness as I snapped at one of the moderators. I am sorry.

However, when I look at the message of CR001. Starting from the first sentence, which is a statement as to outcome of my case, to the last sentence, which is again another statement as to why my case will be rejected, although he has no idea what business I do and how I contribute to our Economy. I do not even mention the rest of the unreasonable grounds provided in between. I am sure some of you can now see why this is so wrong.

It is easy to push me but no one can deny the wrongs made in that message. I can imagine that as moderators you go through a lot of topics and write a lot of messages everyday that occasionally something like that happens. However just as there is no excuse for me to snap at CR001, he also has no excuse for sending such a wrong message.

[secret.simon]

I am afraid that I will have to violate your request for people without direct experience not to intervene on this thread. I apologise for that in advance.

However, when I look at the message of CR001. Starting from the first sentence, which is a statement as to outcome of my case, to the last sentence, which is again another statement as to why my case will be rejected, although he has no idea what business I do and how I contribute to our Economy. I do not even mention the rest of the unreasonable grounds provided in between. I am sure some of you can now see why this is so wrong.

In a sense, CR001 and all other participants on these forums, not just the moderators, are behaving like Home Office staff. When evaluating your application, the Home Office staff could not care less "what business I do and how I contribute to our Economy". And nor should they. Their job is to impartially follow the laws, rules and guidance that appertain to your case, based on the evidence that you have presented. The more the evidence you present, the more accurate the final outcome will be (and that can be against you as well as in your favour).

There is a limited range of discretion, the exercise of which is also laid out in guidance. That is to say that the exercise of discretion is not free-style, with one caseworker granting discretion when other one would definitely not have. That is to prevent arbitrary outcomes and ensure uniformity. I will respond here to a specific part of your original post.

2. Do I need to give any reasons as to why I want to become a citizen faster? I simply want to become citizen as soon as possible but do I need to build a case about it like it is good for my business, I can use more opportunities etc. How much should I elaborate on this in the explanations?

3. Briefly, What else should I mention in the explanations?

What you do need to do is give good reasons as to why discretion should be exercised. You have to convince the SSHD/caseworker that the delay in grant of ILR was entirely or mostly with the Home Office and that that delay should be redressed by an earlier grant of citizenship. It is not a case of stating that the caseworker has the ability to grant discretion, therefore s/he should/must grant it. You need to put together a cogent argument as to why that discretion should be exercised in your specific case. You could mention in passing the benefits to your business by allowing you to travel more freely within the EU, but the core of the argument needs to rest on the Home Office redressing an earlier problem caused by the Home Office itself (by delaying an ILR grant through no fault of your own/your lawyers).

By asking you relevant questions, based on the laws, rules, guidance and past practice of outcomes listed on these forums, CR001, myself and other participants on these forums are trying to guide you on what would be relevant to the case (as in my response in the paragraph above), which would not include "what business I do and how I contribute to our Economy". For instance, a housewife who may have never worked in her life, but who has also not travelled much is more likely to get citizenship than a businessman who has lived extensively outside the UK, even if he has significant turnover.

As an aside, CR001 is a lady. But that is by the bye. On the Internet, nobody knows that I am a dog.

Again, apologies for intervening on your thread. And I hope that people who meet the very narrow criteria you laid out in your original post respond to you more fully.

[secret.simon]

Here I am not addressing just the OP, but all users, especially any people who plan to stick around to become Respected Gurus and moderators in the future.

As regards UK rules and laws (EU law is a whole different kettle of fish), if there is discretion, there will be a publically available guidance on how that discretion is to be exercised.

The guidance for the discretion that the OP is interested in is laid out on Page 24 of the Naturalisation by discretion guidance on the Gov.UK website.