- 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
There is NO such 'right'. Your mother must qualify for citizenship in her own right. There is no concept of dependence/dependent/dependency for naturalisation. She must only submit the limit documents asked for.Given my Mum's right to Naturalisation derives from being the family member of two qualified persons
Hi CR001, thanks for the friendly reply. You are though right - I still have the EEA PR mindset, which isn't relevant to Naturalisation.
Having refreshed my knowledge and re-read the AN Guidance, Guidance for Home Office Staff, and other Immigration blogs - I don't think you are correct is saying that there is no such right. My mother doesn't qualify for citizenship in her own right given she didn't have CSI while here as an EEA self-sufficient citizen, and therefore there IS concept of dependence/dependent/dependency in her case.CR001 wrote: ↑Fri Jun 26, 2020 1:16 pmThere is NO such 'right'. Your mother must qualify for citizenship in her own right. There is no concept of dependence/dependent/dependency for naturalisation. She must only submit the limit documents asked for.Given my Mum's right to Naturalisation derives from being the family member of two qualified persons
She has to meet the requirements for PR in her AN application - hence, she needs to demonstrate the dependency from two qualified persons, her offspring. Unless we can demonstrate that she was a qualified person by being self-sufficient with CSI (which she didn't have) or she was a qualified person by being the dependent parent of two qualified persons - her AN application will be refused.secret.simon wrote: ↑Fri May 22, 2020 2:25 pmSimply put, you will need to demonstrate that in the last five years, you met the requirements of the EEA Regulations while residing in the UK. So, you will likely need to demonstrate that your EEA citizen spouse was either working or seeking work or was a student or self-sufficient person with CSI.
Your work at that time is irrelevant (at least as far as I understand it now), because your right to reside in the UK was based on your EEA citizen spouse exercising treaty rights.So you do need to prove that your EEA citizen spouse was exercising treaty rights.
Effectively you have to meet the requirements of making a PR (as opposed to a Settled Status) application.
I think that what @CR001 is pointing out is that naturalisation in the UK is a grant and not a right. It is not like the EU PR, where if you have met specific requirements, you automatically acquire that status.
I see what you mean, Simon. Thanks for clarifying - I find CR001's replies are often so short that they're impossible to comprehend, and therefore can be misleading.secret.simon wrote: ↑Sat Jun 27, 2020 6:25 pmI think that what @CR001 is pointing out is that naturalisation in the UK is a grant and not a right. It is not like the EU PR, where if you have met specific requirements, you automatically acquire that status.
UK law approaches both immigration and naturalisation as being grants of the government, rather than being matters of right, which is the general EU approach.
Yes, I see what you mean. Frankly, the HO often looks silly and also quite often loses appeals in court. But given they have discretion, they can do pretty much whatever they like. Unless something changes in the law, they will continue to do so.dogcat wrote: ↑Sat Jun 27, 2020 5:29 pmIt is all because after a year or so HO chose to revert to its previous position re interpretation of the law with settled status not being 'enough' which, in all honesty, it isn't, not under the current legislation anyway.
Since settled status is not 'enough' all that PR palava will bleed into Naturalisation as one will have to demonstrate being a 'qualified person' within the meaning of Directive 2004/38/EC (same as if one were to apply for a PR card)
It's just ridiculous that some people were granted citizenship if they managed to apply before May/ Jun 2020 no questions asked (I'm exaggerating slightly lol ) and people who applied after will have to go through all that permanent residency/qualified person crap again.
It all looks a bit silly to be implementing these changes now NOW as opposed to making it clear form the get go when whole settlement scheme started.
I’m in general a bit confused about the appeal route for refusals of naturalisation.NikiGio wrote: ↑Sat Jun 27, 2020 7:12 pmYes, I see what you mean. Frankly, the HO often looks silly and also quite often loses appeals in court. But given they have discretion, they can do pretty much whatever they like. Unless something changes in the law, they will continue to do so.dogcat wrote: ↑Sat Jun 27, 2020 5:29 pmIt is all because after a year or so HO chose to revert to its previous position re interpretation of the law with settled status not being 'enough' which, in all honesty, it isn't, not under the current legislation anyway.
Since settled status is not 'enough' all that PR palava will bleed into Naturalisation as one will have to demonstrate being a 'qualified person' within the meaning of Directive 2004/38/EC (same as if one were to apply for a PR card)
It's just ridiculous that some people were granted citizenship if they managed to apply before May/ Jun 2020 no questions asked (I'm exaggerating slightly lol ) and people who applied after will have to go through all that permanent residency/qualified person crap again.
It all looks a bit silly to be implementing these changes now NOW as opposed to making it clear form the get go when whole settlement scheme started.
Having said that, although laborious - the PR and Settled Status applications have all been successful for my family, with no major issues.
We'll see what happens with the AN side of things.
That doesn't really answer my question, and I'm hoping to do things right so we don't get a refusal unless we don't meet the criteriaFrou01 wrote: ↑Sat Jun 27, 2020 7:43 pmI’m in general a bit confused about the appeal route for refusals of naturalisation.NikiGio wrote: ↑Sat Jun 27, 2020 7:12 pmYes, I see what you mean. Frankly, the HO often looks silly and also quite often loses appeals in court. But given they have discretion, they can do pretty much whatever they like. Unless something changes in the law, they will continue to do so.dogcat wrote: ↑Sat Jun 27, 2020 5:29 pmIt is all because after a year or so HO chose to revert to its previous position re interpretation of the law with settled status not being 'enough' which, in all honesty, it isn't, not under the current legislation anyway.
Since settled status is not 'enough' all that PR palava will bleed into Naturalisation as one will have to demonstrate being a 'qualified person' within the meaning of Directive 2004/38/EC (same as if one were to apply for a PR card)
It's just ridiculous that some people were granted citizenship if they managed to apply before May/ Jun 2020 no questions asked (I'm exaggerating slightly lol ) and people who applied after will have to go through all that permanent residency/qualified person crap again.
It all looks a bit silly to be implementing these changes now NOW as opposed to making it clear form the get go when whole settlement scheme started.
Having said that, although laborious - the PR and Settled Status applications have all been successful for my family, with no major issues.
We'll see what happens with the AN side of things.
Some say you can only go the route of reconsideration and then I’ve seen people claiming they took a refusal to court.
So do refusals can be taken to court or is there only the option of reconsideration?
I think we discussed it before. My personal feeling is that having one sponsor looks more straightforward.NikiGio wrote: ↑Fri Jun 26, 2020 1:02 pmI was a qualified person during Jan 2010-Feb 2018, but stopped working in Mar 2018-Sep 2019 due to illness - so I can't demonstrate being a qualified person in that period. I have had EEA PR since 2018, for the period 2010-2015.
My sibling has been in continuous employment during Jan 2013-present - so has been a qualified person during 2013-2020.
Yes, we did discuss it a couple of years ago - I remember well and have looked back through the posts.obormot wrote: ↑Sun Jun 28, 2020 10:52 amI think we discussed it before. My personal feeling is that having one sponsor looks more straightforward.NikiGio wrote: ↑Fri Jun 26, 2020 1:02 pmI was a qualified person during Jan 2010-Feb 2018, but stopped working in Mar 2018-Sep 2019 due to illness - so I can't demonstrate being a qualified person in that period. I have had EEA PR since 2018, for the period 2010-2015.
My sibling has been in continuous employment during Jan 2013-present - so has been a qualified person during 2013-2020.
Now, you say you have PR granted for period 2010-15, i.e. on your PR letter the date you acquired it must be in 2015, right? In that case you are qualified person after 2015, no matter whether you worked on not and whether you had CSI or not.
So it seems to me that you can simply state that your mother was dependent on you, qualified person in 2012-15 because of work, and after 2015 because of PR.
(So I guess you will need to submit your birth certificate, and your PR - I am even not sure that you need to submit info on your work before 2015, since it is accepted by HO that if you have PR then you were qualified person for 5 years before that)
?