Citizenship loop-hole after new ILR regulations

[RobinLondon]

Just as a curiosity, it used to be that a person married to a UK citizen could apply for citizenship overseas provided that s/he met the residence requirement of three years without significant absences, passed the Life in the UK test and had only recently left the UK. The citizenship applicant did not technically have to possess ILR at the time.

With the changes to ILR being implemented in April, particularly noting that ILE is no longer going to be issued to long-married spouses of UK citizens moving the UK, is this naturalisation loop-hole likewise going to be closed? Or perhaps it already has been...

[ppron747]

I don't think so, Rob - it seems to me that it would take a change in primary legislation to achieve it.

The new requirements for ILR are explicitly for ILR and, as you know, ILR is only one of the ways in which IND consider that a person can meet the requirement "that on the date of the application he was not subject under the immigration laws to any restriction on the period for which he might remain in the United Kingdom..." as the 1981 Act requires.

[tvt]

I don't understand the operation of the loophole - how can anyone naturalise overseas without being resident in the UK for at least three years (for a UK citizen spouse)?

[JAJ]

I don't understand the operation of the loophole - how can anyone naturalise overseas without being resident in the UK for at least three years (for a UK citizen spouse)?

You still have to be resident for 3 years but the "loophole" allows someone to avoid the need to have ILR on the date of application.

It suits people who have come to the UK in another capacity and then married a British citizen (or spouse has become a British citizen meanwhile).

[tvt]

This is not a loophole it is an established and legitimate way to naturalise.

[JAJ]

This is not a loophole it is an established and legitimate way to naturalise.

I didn't suggest anything otherwise. Perhaps your definition of "loophole" is different to mine.

[tvt]

In my view "loophole" means illegitimately (though not illegally) exploiting a fault in the law to achieve a favourable legal treatment in a manner not intended by the legislator.

[JAJ]

In my view "loophole" means illegitimately (though not illegally) exploiting a fault in the law to achieve a favourable legal treatment in a manner not intended by the legislator.

Well I don't see how something like this could originally have been intended by the legislators, other than for those in Crown Service (or their spouses).

At the time it was enacted, spouses of British citizens obtained immediate ILR so the question was much less likely to arise.

However I don't see anything "illegitimate" in taking advantage of it. It's the law of the land until Parliament decides otherwise.

[RobinLondon]

Ah, the joy of semantics!

What I meant by "loophole" is the fact that one of the normal requirements of naturalisation is that the applicant be free of immigration control either on the day of application (if married to a UK citizen) or otherwise for a year. With what I've been describing, the applicant can skirt around the "free from immigration control" requirement simply by lodging the application overseas. Given, of course, that s/he is married to a Brit. And passed the other residency/exam/affable chap requirements as well!

Perhaps this is more of a "skirting" than a "looping". In any case, I do appreciate your replies. Thanks.

[gamma911]

Can someone explain to me how this would work?

Currently I am on a Workpermit of 3yrs and will be moving to a CP visa as soon as possible.

Would I be able to utilise this loophole and not have to be on the CP visa for a full 2 years before I can apply for ILR