New Forms for naturalisation

[JAJ]

New information on the Home Office website as of 20 December 2006:
http://www.ind.homeoffice.gov.uk/applying/nationality/

Note in particular that children under 18 can no longer be included on form AN and a separate MN1 form will need to be completed.

New forms and guides have been introduced for applications for naturalisation and the registration of minors (children under the age of 18). The guides are intended to provide easy and more comprehensive advice on how to make successful applications. They also cover new regulations and development. These are

* The extension of the good character requirement from 4 December to all applicants over the age of 10. Exceptions are applications from
o Applications from stateless persons
o Persons who are solely British overseas citizens, British protected persons or British subjects.
* The requirement for all applicants to apply through separate applications including separate application forms for each applicant in a family application.
* New processes aimed at reducing waiting times. With effect from Monday 5 February applications for naturalisation which are not supported by fees or documentary evidence (eg passports) will be returned unprocessed. Applicants will be asked to resubmit them with sufficient documents to enable them to be considered.
* Identity checking will be enhanced to reduce fraudulent applications. This will include the use of passport style photographs and endorsement by referees. Checks will also be carried out to ensure that referees are qualified to act.
* Clear warnings on the consequences of fraud and unacceptable behaviour towards knowledge of life in the UK test centre personnel.
* The opportunity for those who are not of sound mind, who were previously debarred from applying for naturalisation, to apply at the discretion of the Home Secretary.

[AlexCh]

Interesting - they now say that one of the referees must be a "professional", but there is no way to mark on the form which one of the referees is a professional.

The form asks to put a name of the 1st referee twice and does not ask for the second referee name at all - obviously it is a typo, but it says a lot about quality control in the Home Office.

[Dawie]

They also say that they will verify the referees signature. I don't see how they could possibly do that without contacting the referee and getting a sample of their signature.

They might well be able to see the signature from the referees past passport applications, but I'm guessing if the referee has a passport older than a few years this too will be difficult.

[John]

Oh it gets a lot worse! Whilst the form MN1 has been updated, the Guide MN1 available from the IND website has not. And because the form MN1 has been revised very significantly, the still-available Guide MN1 is about as useful as a chocolate colander!

Not only that, who designed or signed off the new form MN1? The referees section! Known the applicant three years? What if the child has not been in the UK for three years? And what if the designated type of professional, say school teacher, refuse to sign? The new form MN1 needs to be promptly withdrawn, and redesigned.

I have emailed IND this morning ... no response yet. If no response by tomorrow I shall email Lin Homer, head of IND, personally ... I do know her from her days as Chief Executive of Birmingham City Council.

[Dawie]

Oh it gets a lot worse! Whilst the form MN1 has been updated, the Guide MN1 available from the IND website has not. And because the form MN1 has been revised very significantly, the still-available Guide MN1 is about as useful as a chocolate colander!

Not only that, who designed or signed off the new form MN1? The referees section! Known the applicant three years? What if the child has not been in the UK for three years? And what if the designated type of professional, say school teacher, refuse to sign? The new form MN1 needs to be promptly withdrawn, and redesigned.

I have emailed IND this morning ... no response yet. If no response by tomorrow I shall email Lin Homer, head of IND, personally ... I do know her from her days as Chief Executive of Birmingham City Council.

I've mentioned in other posts on this board the difficulty that a lot of foreigners face finding referees to sign their naturalisation applications. It's hard enough to find a British citizen who has known you for 3 years or longer, but now they've added the additional requirement of one of the referees being a professional. No doubt this is going to complicate the naturalisation process for quite a significant amount of people.

I personally don't see the purpose of the referees section. If you qualify for naturalisation why the need for referees to sign your application?

[John]

The form MN1 deals with Child Registration applications and for the first time (the previous version of the form MN1 had no such requirement) they want referees to sign in respect of the child! And no only that they expect people like school teacher or other professional person to sign, and appear to have given no thought at all to where such persons decline to do so.

But more importantly they want the referee to certify they have known the child for three years, whereas it is not even a requirement, in certain circumstances, for the child even to have been in the country for three years when the application is submitted.

In short, this is bizarre ... and heads should roll at IND! Not the graphic designer of the form MN1 but certainly the person who signed off and allowed such a defective, ill-thought-out form to be released to the public arena.

[JAJ]

This bears all the hallmarks of a rushed job. Also, requiring referees to have known a child for three years may be illegal if it compromises a registration entitlement to citizenship.

I can see letters arriving on the desks of Members of Parliament in the near future.

[JAJ]

There is an unlawful comment at the top of page 13 of form MN1:

"Consent of both parents is required for all applications under section 3(1) and 3(5) and is expected for all other applications."

- consent is normally required for most s3(1) applications however it cannot be unreasonably witheld and the Home Office must consider the full circumstances of the case

- consent is required under s3(5) in most cases but there are some statutory exceptions in section 3(6) of the Act

- consent of both parents is not required for most other registration applications which are an entitlement, notably s1(3), s1(4) and s3(2) and the Home Office have no right to "expect" anything in these situations.


I would also question the requirement on form AN page 12 which states that the second referee "should hold a British citizen passport". Have they forgotten that not all British citizens possess a passport?

[AlexCh]

There is an unlawful comment at the top of page 13 of form MN1 ...

Has anybody tried to send all these comments to the Home Office?

[John]

The Good Character requirement was introduced by section 58 of the Immigration Asylum & Nationality Act 2006. The explanatory notes regarding section 58 read :-

Section 58: Acquisition of British nationality, &c.

Section 58 would require most applicants for British nationality by registration to satisfy the Secretary of State that they were "of good character" before nationality could be granted. At present such a requirement applies only to those seeking to acquire British nationality by naturalisation.

Exceptions will continue to be made where the applicant has an entitlement to registration deriving from the 1961 UN Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness or is entitled to registration as a British citizen under section 4B of the British Nationality Act 1981 (certain British Overseas citizens, British subjects and British protected persons without other citizenship) or is aged below 10 on the date of the application.

Does the new form MN1 attempt to cope with all of this? No, no attempt is made to comply with applications under section 4B, and the other exceptions, apart from one. It simply mentions that the relevant section of the form need not be completed if the child is under 10.

Has anybody tried to send all these comments to the Home Office?

Yes, but absolutely no response yet.

[ppron747]

....I would also question the requirement on form AN page 12 which states that the second referee "should hold a British citizen passport". Have they forgotten that not all British citizens possess a passport?

I doubt it - I think they've probably taken a conscious decision that they only want referees who have been through the process of getting a passport, and who they can look up in their records without shifting from their desks. I can't see that this is unreasonable, to be honest - it means they can do a very basic check on the referee very quickly, if they want to, without holding up the application.

[JAJ]

I think they've probably taken a conscious decision that they only want referees who have been through the process of getting a passport, and who they can look up in their records without shifting from their desks.

Paul
You may well be right. All that said, unless I'm missing something I cannot find these specific rules on referees in the Nationality Instructions, which might cause an issue if someone was minded to challenge a refusal.

And I doubt they have any legal right to make overly-prescriptive rules on references for entitlement registration.

Interestingly, the form MN1 does not seem to insist that referees are British citizens (and many MN1s originate from outside the UK).

[ppron747]

Given the unseemly and desperately unproductive rush that has accompanied the new forms, I'd guess that the instructions are being redrafted at the moment - the person I spoke to earlier tonight in the enquiry bureau had that distinctive sound of someone quite sensible, pedalling as fast as he could. His boss obviously know something about it, but the poor operator didn't sound as though he'd been briefed at all.

I haven't checked the precise wording on the IND website, but isn't there a para saying something like "these are living documents, under constant review" or some-such, which would be the disclaimer they'd rely on...

I haven't checked that part of the MN1 - the famous MN1 with three questions numbered 6.1, and two 6.3s but only one 6.2, which is in part 7.... Not forgetting the guide that refers to ten parts of the form that don't exist at all...

Thank goodness that the internet means that print runs can be smaller, so they'll only need to pulp the equivalent of half a rain-forest, instead of the whole one that would have been involved a few years ago...

[John]

The updated Guide MN1 is now downloadable on the IND website. But clearly there are still problems here.

Whilst the guidance notes issued to IND staff continue to mention that for children 13 or over that they should have been in the UK for at least 2 years, and not even that for children less than 13, the form MN1 mentions the need for referees to have known the child for at least 3 years! Clearly a lot of muddled thinking went into the construction of the new form!

I have a friend whose step-son came to the UK just over 2 years ago on a Child Settlement visa (issued as ILE). The child's mother originates from Thailand and is now a British Citizen. Anyway ... serious problem ... the child is 18 years old later this month! Clearly no British Citizen is able to certify they have known the child for at least 3 years .... the child has not been in the UK that long.

Thoughts please! What about the new form MN1 going in with the referee section not completed, but a covering letter referring to relevant section of their own guidance notes saying about the 2-year requirement. Would this simply be a waste of the £200 application fee? Thoughts on how IND would react to the non-completion of the referee section?

[JAJ]

Thoughts please! What about the new form MN1 going in with the referee section not completed, but a covering letter referring to relevant section of their own guidance notes saying about the 2-year requirement. Would this simply be a waste of the £200 application fee? Thoughts on how IND would react to the non-completion of the referee section?

Apply anyway and if they refuse, then Member of Parliament intervention would be called for.

And it might be worth writing to one's MP simultaneously with the application, unless IND confirm very quickly in writing that things are ok despite the form.

[ppron747]

I don't think that's a good idea at all, as a first step...

It isn't as if IND are uncontactable. There are bricks & mortar and email addresses on their website, and they have a nationality enquiry telephone number. Why not just ask them and see what they say?

[John]

Thanks Paul, I shall pass that on to my friend and indeed suggest a phone call on Monday morning.

But in the absence of getting them to appreciate the illogical nature of this situation, do you think it would be an idea for the MN1 form to be posted to arrive before the 18th birthday of the child, or simply let the opportunity for Registration as British disappear?

[ppron747]

I've just had a (depressing) word with the helpline...

After consulting with his line manager the adviser said that he suspected that the lack of a three-year referee - for whatever reason - might result in the caseworker refusing the application. He made the point (which had occurred to me) that the NIs (which say two years residence) may be in the process of being amended so it isn't necessarily safe to rely on them now that the character requirement has been strengthened. And there is a disclaimer paragraph at the foot of page 12 of the Guide...

I don't know what to suggest. It's plainly too late to get an MP to intervene and get some clarity before the lad's 18th birthday. I think if it were me, I'd be inclined to send off the application, with an explanatory note, and the best referees they can find, and kick up a fuss if it is refused. But it must come down to whether they can afford to punt a couple of hundred pounds - I wouldn't like to speculate on the odds...

As an aside, am I right in thinking that the PDF has been formatted as an image, rather than as text? I wanted to paste in the disclaimer paragraph, but couldn't....

[John]

am I right in thinking that the PDF has been formatted as an image, rather than as text?

Paul, I think that must be right, it is an image. I say that because with my copy of Adobe Acrobat Professional the Touch-Up Text Tool does not work.

However assuming you have the same program you can still use .... Tools/Advanced Editing/Text Field Tool ..... to define yourself a Text Field, and then put some text into that field.

Where do you intend to put that text? On page 12 of the PDF? And refer to 9.15.20 of the instructions to staff, which reads :-

We should normally expect a minor child aged 13 or more to have completed 2 years residence in the United Kingdom before agreeing to registration.

By the way Paul, those Chapter 9 instructions have been updated. See the new 2nd bullet point in 9.1.1 :-

(if aged 10 or over on the date of application, this being a date on or after 4 December 2006) the Secretary of State is satisfied that they are of good character (see Annex B);

-: which clearly was not a point in play earlier, so must be new.

[ppron747]

Cheers John - I've only got Acrobat Reader, I'm afraid. But that's OK - I don't want to do anything elaborate - I just find it handy occasionally to be able to copy odd bits of text from the guidance notes, to use as quotes when answering queries. (I'm the world's worst typist, so copy & paste is much easier for me)

[JAJ]

After consulting with his line manager the adviser said that he suspected that the lack of a three-year referee - for whatever reason - might result in the caseworker refusing the application.

Which would almost certainly be illegal if registration was an entitlement. And while it might be theoretically possible to have different reference requirements for entitlement vs discretionary applications, I'm not sure if this would be legal as the "character test" is exactly the same.

I don't know what to suggest. It's plainly too late to get an MP to intervene and get some clarity before the lad's 18th birthday. I think if it were me, I'd be inclined to send off the application, with an explanatory note, and the best referees they can find, and kick up a fuss if it is refused. But it must come down to whether they can afford to punt a couple of hundred pounds - I wouldn't like to speculate on the odds...

It is very clear that if the child's 18th birthday passes and an application is not made, then the opportunity is definitively closed. On the other hand if he applies and is then refused, there would still be scope to challenge the refusal.

[ppron747]

After consulting with his line manager the adviser said that he suspected that the lack of a three-year referee - for whatever reason - might result in the caseworker refusing the application.

Which would almost certainly be illegal if registration was an entitlement. And while it might be theoretically possible to have different reference requirements for entitlement vs discretionary applications, I'm not sure if this would be legal as the "character test" is exactly the same.

But the specific case we're talking about isn't an entitlement, so I'm not sure where you're going with this. Are there any minor registration entitlements (with a good character requirement) requiring less than three years in UK? Section 3(5) requires dead on three years, but I wonder if IND would be overly-fussy about a referee who confessed that he had only known the child for 2 yrs and 49 weeks, provided that the statutory requirements are met? On the other hand, it might never arise - how many parents make 3(5) applications on the very day they become entitled to, I wonder? I suspect not many...

As a postscript to my previous post, it occurs to me that, if the parents decide to go ahead, it may well be worth including some extra "testimonials" from schoolteachers, Saturday job employer, etc etc, over and above the two referees required by the form, to make it more difficult for IND to be "unsatisfied" that he's of good character... Might do the trick...

[JAJ]

But the specific case we're talking about isn't an entitlement, so I'm not sure where you're going with this. Are there any minor registration entitlements (with a good character requirement) requiring less than three years in UK?

A few section 1(3) cases where the applicant was born in the UK, left and subsequently returned, come to mind.

As a postscript to my previous post, it occurs to me that, if the parents decide to go ahead, it may well be worth including some extra "testimonials" from schoolteachers, Saturday job employer, etc etc, over and above the two referees required by the form, to make it more difficult for IND to be "unsatisfied" that he's of good character... Might do the trick...

Agree entirely.

[JAJ]

The updated Guide MN1 is now downloadable on the IND website. But clearly there are still problems here.

Whilst the guidance notes issued to IND staff continue to mention that for children 13 or over that they should have been in the UK for at least 2 years, and not even that for children less than 13, the form MN1 mentions the need for referees to have known the child for at least 3 years! Clearly a lot of muddled thinking went into the construction of the new form!

Bear in mind that many MN1 applications from children aged 10+ are sourced from outside the UK where people clearly cannot be expected to provide British citizen referees. Notably those born to unmarried British fathers and children adopted overseas.

There's further evidence the whole process was rushed:

- on pages 3 and 7, the registration process for "illegitimate" children of British father is wrongly described as under section 1(3) when in fact it's section 3(1). Also someone has forgotten to include the point that a UK-born child of a "settled" unmarried father can now also be registered.

- a serious error on page 6 where it describes as an exception (ie, parents not "settled") a set of circumstances describing EEA/Swiss nationals. Whereas in fact the persons mentioned are qualifying

- no effort to mention the effects of the Common Travel Area provisions on whether a UK-born child is automatically British


Why on earth were these forms released on 20 December anyway? - was someone trying to "bury bad news" or something?

[Marco 72]

Interesting - they now say that one of the referees must be a "professional", but there is no way to mark on the form which one of the referees is a professional.

The form asks to put a name of the 1st referee twice and does not ask for the second referee name at all - obviously it is a typo, but it says a lot about quality control in the Home Office.

Also, the new referee declaration doesn't seem to make any sense. It includes the following sentence

"I declare that I am qualified to act as referee and believe that the applicant, of whom the photgraph above is a true likeness."

It seems like there's a bit missing. Do you think it's ok to use this form even though the "declaration" doesn't make sense and it asks for the name of the first referee twice?