Reapplying under New Criminality Rule

[soapdrop]

Hi,

I would really really appreciate help on this issue. Any input or advice is welcome so here is my story;


I applied to be naturalized as a British Citizen in September 2012 and my application was refused due to a fine I received for driving without insurance 4 years ago. In their own words "the conviction has not been spent under the ROA 1974". I decided to have the decision reconsidered in Novemeber 2012 as I believe this offense doesn't constitute as part of the act since there was no record of the offense onCRB checks nor a subject access record from the police. I have not received a decision yet regarding the reconsideration.

In the light of the new rules, I will like to know if I can put in a new application?. Also, will my new application be successful with the new rules?

A summary of my offenses below, some which were not stated on my initial application as they are already spent under the old rules.

1. Speeding, court fine, convicted 2008
2. Driving without insurance, fine, Feb 2009
3. Caution for false information to gain insurance, September, 2009.

Thanks everybody for taking time to read and welcome your comments.

[katiepop]

There is a sticky on the general uk immigration forum about the new rules which might have a bit more info. It isn't all good news from what I've been reading.

Sorry I cant answer your query better, but can I just ask you, was that the only reason they refused your application? Were there no other issues at all?

I'm just trying to find out whether it is worth taking a chance and sending an application with a conviction when everything else is in order.

[asim72]

Hi,

I would really really appreciate help on this issue. Any input or advice is welcome so here is my story;


I applied to be naturalized as a British Citizen in September 2012 and my application was refused due to a fine I received for driving without insurance 4 years ago. In their own words "the conviction has not been spent under the ROA 1974". I decided to have the decision reconsidered in Novemeber 2012 as I believe this offense doesn't constitute as part of the act since there was no record of the offense onCRB checks nor a subject access record from the police. I have not received a decision yet regarding the reconsideration.

In the light of the new rules, I will like to know if I can put in a new application?. Also, will my new application be successful with the new rules?

A summary of my offenses below, some which were not stated on my initial application as they are already spent under the old rules.

1. Speeding, court fine, convicted 2008
2. Driving without insurance, fine, Feb 2009
3. Caution for false information to gain insurance, September, 2009.

Thanks everybody for taking time to read and welcome your comments.

Your application was correctly refused as fines needed 5 years to be spent under ROA 1974. Who told you that your conviction for the offence was not part of the ROA 1974. Every conviction, and I mean every single conviction, no matter how trivial formed part of ROA 1974. Conviction not appearing on CRB, or not being recorded on police computers has nothing to do with ROA 1974. Only offences regarded as "recordable offences" are recorded on PNC. But having a "non recordable offence" does not mean that conviction did not take place. To cut the long stroy short, once again, your application was correctly refused, and there is nothing you can do about it.

ROA 1974 spent periods have now been changed. But for immigrants the story is different. The new law is, that for immigration purposes, no conviction will ever be regarded as spent. Home office is totally free to act outside the new act. Home office has published their new guidance on "clear periods" after the conviction.

Also keep in mind, that all other previous convictions must now be disclosed on immigration and nationality applications, including the ones that have been spent under old ROA 1974.

For you, the only headache will be your last conviction which you have mentioned. There is no clear quidelines from UKBA about how they would treat this kind of conviction ie how much clear period do they require after conviction.

[soapdrop]

There is a sticky on the general uk immigration forum about the new rules which might have a bit more info. It isn't all good news from what I've been reading.

Sorry I cant answer your query better, but can I just ask you, was that the only reason they refused your application? Were there no other issues at all?

I'm just trying to find out whether it is worth taking a chance and sending an application with a conviction when everything else is in order.

That was the only reason my application was refused. From what I read on that end of the forum, application will only be refused if the conviction is within 3 years of applying for non custodial offenses which I have in my case. I know you can answer but exactly did you read that made you think otherwise?

[soapdrop]

Hi,

I would really really appreciate help on this issue. Any input or advice is welcome so here is my story;


I applied to be naturalized as a British Citizen in September 2012 and my application was refused due to a fine I received for driving without insurance 4 years ago. In their own words "the conviction has not been spent under the ROA 1974". I decided to have the decision reconsidered in Novemeber 2012 as I believe this offense doesn't constitute as part of the act since there was no record of the offense onCRB checks nor a subject access record from the police. I have not received a decision yet regarding the reconsideration.

In the light of the new rules, I will like to know if I can put in a new application?. Also, will my new application be successful with the new rules?

A summary of my offenses below, some which were not stated on my initial application as they are already spent under the old rules.

1. Speeding, court fine, convicted 2008
2. Driving without insurance, fine, Feb 2009
3. Caution for false information to gain insurance, September, 2009.

Thanks everybody for taking time to read and welcome your comments.

Your application was correctly refused as fines needed 5 years to be spent under ROA 1974. Who told you that your conviction for the offence was not part of the ROA 1974. Every conviction, and I mean every single conviction, no matter how trivial formed part of ROA 1974. Conviction not appearing on CRB, or not being recorded on police computers has nothing to do with ROA 1974. Only offences regarded as "recordable offences" are recorded on PNC. But having a "non recordable offence" does not mean that conviction did not take place. To cut the long stroy short, once again, your application was correctly refused, and there is nothing you can do about it.

ROA 1974 spent periods have now been changed. But for immigrants the story is different. The new law is, that for immigration purposes, no conviction will ever be regarded as spent. Home office is totally free to act outside the new act. Home office has published their new guidance on "clear periods" after the conviction.

Also keep in mind, that all other previous convictions must now be disclosed on immigration and nationality applications, including the ones that have been spent under old ROA 1974.

For you, the only headache will be your last conviction which you have mentioned. There is no clear quidelines from UKBA about how they would treat this kind of conviction ie how much clear period do they require after conviction.

Hi, thanks so much for your input.
I believe all my offenses are non-custodial offenses and according to this, that is only refused if it occurred within the last 3 years?

[asim72]

NO Sir,

You do not seem to have capability to understand and make sense of what you are reading.

I will copy what it says in the current guidelines specifically about driving without insurance.

3.3.2 Caseworkers should not normally disregard any conviction that falls into the following
categories irrespective of the severity of the sentence imposed:
a. Offences involving dishonesty (for example, theft, fraud)
b. Offences involving violence
c. Offences involving unlawful sexual activity
d. Offences involving drugs
e. Offences which would constitute “recklessness” – for example, drink-driving,
excessive speeding, driving without tax/insurance or whilst using a mobile phone.
(NB Caseworkers should remember that fixed penalty notices do not constitute
offences – see paragraph 3.5.2).5
f. Offences involving a serious deliberate criminal act that do not fit into points a) to d)
above for example, arson.


I am not saying that you will be automatically refused. All I am trying to explain is that, driving without insurance is a non custodial sentence, but it is still regarded as a serious offence. On top of that, you do not have one conviction, you have two convictions for dishonesty.

[soapdrop]

NO Sir,

You do not seem to have capability to understand and make sense of what you are reading.

I will copy what it says in the current guidelines specifically about driving without insurance.

3.3.2 Caseworkers should not normally disregard any conviction that falls into the following
categories irrespective of the severity of the sentence imposed:
a. Offences involving dishonesty (for example, theft, fraud)
b. Offences involving violence
c. Offences involving unlawful sexual activity
d. Offences involving drugs
e. Offences which would constitute “recklessness” – for example, drink-driving,
excessive speeding, driving without tax/insurance or whilst using a mobile phone.
(NB Caseworkers should remember that fixed penalty notices do not constitute
offences – see paragraph 3.5.2).5
f. Offences involving a serious deliberate criminal act that do not fit into points a) to d)
above for example, arson.


I am not saying that you will be automatically refused. All I am trying to explain is that, driving without insurance is a non custodial sentence, but it is still regarded as a serious offence. On top of that, you do not have one conviction, you have two convictions for dishonesty.

In the light of this, it seem wise to seek professional help.
Do you know of a competent immigration solicitor with specialty in nationality and a good track record? If not do you know how best to find a solicitor apart from just google?

Thanks