- FAQ
- Login
- Register
- Call Workpermit.com for a paid service +44 (0)344-991-9222
ESC
Welcome to immigrationboards.com!
Moderators: Casa, John, ChetanOjha, archigabe, CR001, push, JAJ, ca.funke, Amber, zimba, vinny, Obie, EUsmileWEallsmile, batleykhan, meself2, geriatrix
Yes I agree with you in this point, but he mentioned that his applcation was refused in 2003, and DLR was granted in 2004, this is why I am asking about his legal situation between 2003 and 2004. If he was appealing at that time, then he should be entitle for BC in 12 months. I have to say all these might change if a new goverment was elected.mrlookforward wrote:If he applied for ILR in 2007 before his discretionary leave expired, then his stay would be regarded as legal.
Ok, in this case he should apply for BC in march 2011. Good luck.Petana wrote:Hiya, thanks. Yes, he applied for ILR before his DL expired.mrlookforward wrote:If he applied for ILR in 2007 before his discretionary leave expired, then his stay would be regarded as legal.
When his application was rejected in 2003 he appealed and was granted DL in 2004.
It just doesnt matter what was his status in 2003/2004. What matters is the period of 5 years before the application of naturalisation. So if he is applying in march 2011, then we have to look back upto 2006. In 2006 he was legal because he had applied for ILR before his previous DL expired, and he would be regarded as legal, no matter how long it took home office to decide his application and grant him ILR.karwan1 wrote:Yes I agree with you in this point, but he mentioned that his applcation was refused in 2003, and DLR was granted in 2004, this is why I am asking about his legal situation between 2003 and 2004. If he was appealing at that time, then he should be entitle for BC in 12 months. I have to say all these might change if a new goverment was elected.mrlookforward wrote:If he applied for ILR in 2007 before his discretionary leave expired, then his stay would be regarded as legal.
Arrh but! He applied for ILR in 2007 and it was not granted until March 2010. That being the case he can apply any time from 15 months after applying for the ILR, once the ILR is actually granted.HOW!!!
he should be free from immigration limitations for 12 months
I personally think he has to wait 12 months as he was a legacy case. All legacy cases have taken years to be decided but the latest grant letters issued to people granted ILR specifically state citizenship in a year. Saw this on a lady who got ILR after 4 years. Otherwise every legacy case will be eligible for citizenship immediately after their grants as almost all of them have been waiting years for their grants.Petana wrote:Thanks John. Was hoping you would give an advise. Is there a difference if the ILR was granted within or outside the immigration rules? His one is outside of immigration rules and that's the only thing we worry about. Don't want to put forward the naturalization application and loose the money.. many thanks, Petana
mrlookforward wrote:It just doesnt matter what was his status in 2003/2004. What matters is the period of 5 years before the application of naturalisation. So if he is applying in march 2011, then we have to look back upto 2006. In 2006 he was legal because he had applied for ILR before his previous DL expired, and he would be regarded as legal, no matter how long it took home office to decide his application and grant him ILR.karwan1 wrote:Yes I agree with you in this point, but he mentioned that his applcation was refused in 2003, and DLR was granted in 2004, this is why I am asking about his legal situation between 2003 and 2004. If he was appealing at that time, then he should be entitle for BC in 12 months. I have to say all these might change if a new goverment was elected.mrlookforward wrote:If he applied for ILR in 2007 before his discretionary leave expired, then his stay would be regarded as legal.
You are still failing to take into account that it is the status .... "legal" or "illegal" ..... in the 5-year qualifying period that matters.I am afraid it does matter, though not in this case, and I will explain why it does matter, if he was in breach of immigration rules for even 1 day then he is on breach of immigration rules no matter what legal status he had prior to get ILR status
Again, please read the link to the UKBA document I provided.he has to wait at least till march 2011 otherwise if you apply now then you will loss your money for sure.
Been here in the UK legal/illigal here for 5 years or more alone is not enough to be entitle for BC, since he has been here in the UK he has never been free of immigration rules, he only got ILR march 2010, to be entitle for BC, in addition to legal 5 years residence (lets asume he has this one), he also need 12 months post-ILR free of immirgation rules (which he has not got yet), to make make it free simple:John wrote:You are still failing to take into account that it is the status .... "legal" or "illegal" ..... in the 5-year qualifying period that matters.I am afraid it does matter, though not in this case, and I will explain why it does matter, if he was in breach of immigration rules for even 1 day then he is on breach of immigration rules no matter what legal status he had prior to get ILR status
Please take into account that the OP has been "legal" since 2004.
Again, please read the link to the UKBA document I provided.he has to wait at least till march 2011 otherwise if you apply now then you will loss your money for sure.
John wrote:Which part of the UKBA document that I have provided a link to are you failing to understand?
Having read the link that John provided it is very clear that Citizenship can be granted now.karwan1 wrote:Been here in the UK legal/illigal here for 5 years or more alone is not enough to be entitle for BC, since he has been here in the UK he has never been free of immigration rules, he only got ILR march 2010, to be entitle for BC, in addition to legal 5 years residence (lets asume he has this one), he also need 12 months post-ILR free of immirgation rules (which he has not got yet), to make make it free simple:John wrote:You are still failing to take into account that it is the status .... "legal" or "illegal" ..... in the 5-year qualifying period that matters.I am afraid it does matter, though not in this case, and I will explain why it does matter, if he was in breach of immigration rules for even 1 day then he is on breach of immigration rules no matter what legal status he had prior to get ILR status
Please take into account that the OP has been "legal" since 2004.
Again, please read the link to the UKBA document I provided.he has to wait at least till march 2011 otherwise if you apply now then you will loss your money for sure.
March 2010+12 month post-ILR (free of immigration rules)= March 2011.
I hope this is clear enough, so if he apply know (without being free of immigration for 12 months), he will loss his money, and I am just trying to help him in this matter. hope this clarification helps.