Failed naturalisation case. PLEASE help

[yulita11]

Thanks, John

But you did not know that for certain, so at least should have taken advice before applying.

Yes, I did take advice before applying. As my solicitor was unaware of the 2001 refusal, we filed the naturalisation application without even suspecting that smt might go wrong.

Sorry, I forgot to answer your question.
Yes, my son has British passport.
I cannot travel because I haven't got the passport. My passport has expired, and that was ex-Soviet Union passport. When I went to the Ukrainian embassy to renew it, they said that I have no connections to Ukraine, which is true. My parents were there on the military service, they didn't have Ukrainian citizenship either.

ppron747, thanks for the link. Very interesting information... 20 working days... I will definitely send this request. At least I would know what went wrong and when exactly.

Thanks very much for useful information. I am wondering if my solicitor is going to give me that much info as you all did

[John]

As my solicitor was unaware of the 2001 refusal, we filed the naturalisation application without even suspecting that smt might go wrong.

If I were in your shoes I would be seeking legal advice about that legal advice!

It is the difference between "if I knew I am not eligible, I surely wouldn't apply for naturalisation" and what I think is better "Unless I knew I am eligible, I surely wouldn't apply for naturalisation".

If you can't get a Ukrainian passport, for the reasons you explain, can you get, what, a Russian one?

Or if you really are stateless then why not apply for a Travel Document from the UK Government. The links on this webpage will assist.

[mhunjn]

The whole thing seems a bit unclear here... not all the information seems to have been disclosed... I can understand that possibly for privacy reasons. But if you want proper advice, it's a good idea to let people know the full details.

You should be able to get the passport from the country you or your parents were born in?...

Also, when you got ILR, you must have been given a file number or something... did you go for an interview?... was it done by post?...

Didn't your lawyer know that you came in this country as an asylum seeker when he applied for you naturalisation?...

[yulita11]

Also, when you got ILR, you must have been given a file number
or something... did you go for an interview?... was it done by post?...
...
Didn't your lawyer know that you came in this country as an asylum seeker when he applied for you naturalisation?...

Of course I was given the ref number. It stayed the same from the very beginning of the whole asylum case(since 1999). And even now it is the same.
My solicitor knew about asylum seeker situation. He is the same solicitor who filed it all from the very beginning.

ILR was done by post. They just sent me a questionneer saying I might qualify, we've filled it and sent back and 4 months later I've received the ILR letter. And what's the difference between postal and interviewing? How is this relevant to my current situation?

You should be able to get the passport from the country you or your parents were born in?...

As to my parents countries: my father is Polish, my mother is Russian. At that time they lived in Ukraine, USSR and had USSR passports. Then they've failed to get Ukrainian passports and eventually moved to Russia (1998/1999) (bad choice, they should have chosen Poland, at least they are in EC now). But this is all irrelevant to the case, so that's why I ommitted all the information. I am 35, not 18, and not dependent on my parents any more.

The point I am arguing about is the reason why I 'happened' to be here 'illegally' during 2001-2004. If I knew at that time(2001) that I was refused, I would definitely appeal and so on, and the whole situation would be different now.

Wouldn't you be shocked when you'd received a letter saying 'you were in breach of immigration law for 3.5 years' without even knowing it? I wan't given a chance to defend my position at that time, that's the point I'm trying to make.

[yulita11]

If I were in your shoes I would be seeking legal advice about that legal advice!

But my solicitor is trying to help, he is innocent, he really never knew about refusal in 2001. As I said, he was checking the progress of my case regularly, and never had a negative reply from the HO.

Or if you really are stateless then why not apply for a Travel Document from the UK Government

I guess I will have to now.

It is the difference between "if I knew I am not eligible, I surely wouldn't apply for naturalisation" and what I think is better "Unless I knew I am eligible, I surely wouldn't apply for naturalisation".

I said 'thank you', didn't I? I didn't ignore your comment, I just didn't put it in quotes. I am still learning, making mistakes. So thank you again.

I seriosly do appriciate all your comments (I mean not just John's). The more I know, the more clear picture I am getting.

Thank you

[John]

So based upon your family history, are you able to get any passport? Polish? Russian? Have you investigated those possibilities?

Your father has a Polish passport? Can't he easily visit you in the UK?

Wouldn't you be shocked when you'd received a letter saying 'you were in breach of immigration law for 3.5 years' without even knowing it?

Yes, of course, but how is that helping you now? As an asylum seeker ... undecided or refused ... you were not legally in the UK, in the sense of starting your clock for naturalisation purposes. Simply your clock did not start until September 2004 ... and nothing you have posted gives any reason for you to think otherwise. That is the main point I am trying to get over .... and clearly failing miserably!

My solicitor knew about asylum seeker situation. He is the same solicitor who filed it all from the very beginning.

Which is not quite what you posted yesterday ... and even more confirms in my mind you were ill-advised to apply for naturalisation when you did.

I think you need to look forward? Can you get a passport? If so from which country? If you can't get a passport then you need to apply for a Travel Document, so that with your ILR you can travel and easily regain entrance back into the UK.

[ppron747]

I wonder if it might be worth your at least enquiring into the possibility of a Polish or Ukrainian passport, if not a Russian one? As your father was born in Poland, you might have a claim to Polish citizenship by descent, despite the choices that he has made, and the fact that you are no longer a dependant.

You are, of course, secure in the UK with ILR, but it seems to me that a national passport is a better option than an HO Travel Document. The IND website is very slow today, so I haven't checked the link that John provided, but you may in any case need to demonstrate that you can't get a national passport before an HO Document can be issued...

[mhunjn]

Thanks for the added info... makes it easier to understand the case in it's entierty. But I still think that it would be better to go with Paul's advice of compalining to the IND department, rather than suing the HO... you'll get nothing out of suing them... just more stress, money and time waste. Worse case scenario could be that your ILR could be in danger... if it turns out that the whole thing is shady!...

The point I am arguing about is the reason why I 'happened' to be here 'illegally' during 2001-2004. If I knew at that time(2001) that I was refused, I would definitely appeal and so on, and the whole situation would be different now.
.

This could have been that you 'could' have been refused asylum and made to go back... or not given ILR at all till now.... so all's not that bad, is it?...

Your feelings/anguish of not having seen your family are understandable, but then again, that's part and parcel of living as an asylum seeker. It's a bit late to lament on that now. You chose to come here, IND did not invite you... so you have to bear up with the responsibility of good and bad that comes out of your decision.

I know some people who have been away from home for 14 yrs... not seen family since... but they don't start blaming the HO/IND for that. You should count yourself as lucky, atleast you have got ILR!...

[yulita11]

My father hasn't got the British passport, I am not able to get one either. I do not even speak Polish. As to Russian passport: I have never even been to Russia in my life.

Quote:
My solicitor knew about asylum seeker situation. He is the same solicitor who filed it all from the very beginning.

Which is not quite what you posted yesterday ...

Maybe, my English is not that clear, but I will repeat again:
My solicitor was NOT aware of any refusal on my asylum case, but obviously he knew about asylum case being submitted as he did it himself.

As an asylum seeker ... undecided or refused ...

There IS a difference between undecided and refused.
Basically, what they are saying is: you were here legally from 1999-2001, then illegally 2001-2004, then again legally 2004-now. But WHY I was here illegally at 2001? As I said, refusal does not make you automatically illigal. What DOES make you illegal, is failing to challenge that refusal. But how could I challenge it without knowing about it???

You are right about Travel Documents. I should get one now, at least I will be able to travel. Is this true that Schengen countries do not accept them?

[Wanderer]

Perhaps not the place to ask but I wonder what on what grounds is it possible to sucessfully claim asylum from the Former Soviet Union?

Apart from Chechyna has the FSU ever been on the list of dodgy countries?

Steve

[yulita11]

Thanks, mhunjn
I agree with your points and speak to my solicitor about compaining to IND first.
I will let you all know what he thinks and you can all post your comments again if you have some more spare time.

Thanks again

[ppron747]

My father hasn't got the British passport, I am not able to get one either. I do not even speak Polish. As to Russian passport: I have never even been to Russia in my life.

I assume you meant "Polish" rather than British....
There are probably millions of British, Irish, Portuguese, Indians - you name it - around the word who haven't been to those countries, don't speak the language, whose fathers or mothers don't have the passport, but who nonetheless are eligible for the citizenship of one of those countries.

The point I was struggling to make above was that if you apply for an HO Travel Document, you are almost certainly going to have to demonstrate that you are unable to get a national passport from any other country. If they do the job properly, IMHO, they're going to look at
- where you were born
- where your father was born, and
- where your mother was born
because all three of these factors can, in many cases, affect an individual's eligibility for a passport.

[John]

There IS a difference between undecided and refused.

In terms of applying for naturalisation as British ... there is no difference! Neither "undecided" nor "refused" makes you "legal" in the UK. I am obviously still failing in getting that point across!

As regards Paul's comment, I totally agree. You really do need to check out those nationality possibilities, if only, as I also suspect, you will need to prove you really are stateless in order to get a HO Travel Document.

But you had a USSR passport. The various Governments that made up the USSR must have passed nationality laws following the break-up. But I think you should try to establish any entitlement to Polish Citizenship first, if only because Poland is in the EU, and such a passport would give you visa-free travel to the rest of the EU/EEA. However, this webpage seems to indicate you are not Polish by decent.

[smalldog]

However, this webpage seems to indicate you are not Polish by decent.

My interpretation of that page is that the OP is in fact a Polish citizen, unless it was officially renounced by her parents within 3 months of her birth. The English isn't terribly clear though.

Child, one of whose parents is a citizen of a foreign country acquires Polish citizenship by birth. However the parents by affidavit executed before proper Polish authorities within three months after the birth of the child can choose foreign citizenship for the child if the laws of the foreign country grant the child citizenship based on descent from the foreign parent. Polish citizenship can be granted to that child if he/she after turning 16, but before 6 months to the legal age executes an affidavit expressing the will of becoming the citizen before proper Polish authorities.

[yulita11]

Quote:
There IS a difference between undecided and refused.

In terms of applying for naturalisation as British ... there is no difference! Neither "undecided" nor "refused" makes you "legal" in the UK. I am obviously still failing in getting that point across!

1999 - 2001 - They admit I was here legally but undecided. LEGALLY. That is the difference between undecided and refused.
2001 - 2004 - decided but refused(allegedly) therefore illegally
2004 - now - legally with ILR

My father had surrended his Polish citizenship and moved to USSR, and when I was born, he didn't have it. So no luck with Poland here. I cannot claim it by birth, descent or naturalisation either.
Ukraine - no connections there.

Anyway, the solicitor said that he is sending the 'Letter before Claim'.

[confused1]

Thanks, Paul
I think you are right about the naturalisation point. But the thing is, if I knew that I was refused at that time (2001), I would have appealed against that refusal decision. Being refused does not make you illegal immediately, it gives you some time to launch the appeal etc and keep fighting for your case.
You always have right to appeal against the decision, but how could I appeal without even knowing that the refusal decision was made?

And yes, if I knew I am not eligible, I surely wouldn't apply for naturalisation.

The other strange thing I've realised is when my university requested the confirmation of my immigration status from the Home Office, they said that my case is still pending and awaiting the decision (and that was July 2003) and confirmed my status as being of 'asylum seeker'.
Could the whole situation be a computer/data input mistake?

Just curious, if the HO had confirmed that you were an asylum seeker the, how could the university let you to proceed through the course?
I mean it's okie if you pay your own tution fees, but, unless you have ILR or DL or granted asylum, you aren't eligible to receive any grants towards your tution fees on Higher education.

Soeey, don't get me wrong, I understand it can be a very stressful moment for you. Sometimes, the Secratery of the State can use their discration to allow you to Naturalise even tough you do not meet all the requirements. But you must specify why they should allow the discretion?
In your case you have a very good reason, i.e. you need your British citizenship to secure your job offer from the Inland Revenue. Also speak to your MP and ler him/her know that you need the BC for your job. Their intervention could really help.

[confused1]

Thanks, John

But you did not know that for certain, so at least should have taken advice before applying.

Yes, I did take advice before applying. As my solicitor was unaware of the 2001 refusal, we filed the naturalisation application without even suspecting that smt might go wrong.

Sorry, I forgot to answer your question.
Yes, my son has British passport.
I cannot travel because I haven't got the passport. My passport has expired, and that was ex-Soviet Union passport. When I went to the Ukrainian embassy to renew it, they said that I have no connections to Ukraine, which is true. My parents were there on the military service, they didn't have Ukrainian citizenship either.

ppron747, thanks for the link. Very interesting information... 20 working days... I will definitely send this request. At least I would know what went wrong and when exactly.

Thanks very much for useful information. I am wondering if my solicitor is going to give me that much info as you all did

Could you not apply for Home Office Certificate of Identity, the Brown Travel Document, that would allow you to travel abroad. But, some countries doesn't recognises it, such as France, further more it's ridiculously priced, £190 or something
It's nice to see your baby Prince has got his own "shiny red book".

[Rogerio]

Is my understanding correct that even if the applicant DOES meet the criteria for naturalisation, this is a concession, NOT a right?

And sueing the HO is the fastest way to being blacklisted?

Rogerio

[tt]

I know that many countries across the ol Eastern Bloc have passed laws in the last 15 or so years that allow those citizens who "fled" or forcibly renounced or lost their citizenship during the "Communist" period for whatever reason (almost), to be able to regain it again now.

Hungary has such laws, as does the Czech Rep, and I am sure Poland has too. So, your parent/s would be able to reclaim Polish citizenship, and thus, you too.

Didn't/Doesn't Ukraine have laws relating to those born in the Ukraine, and who then live there a substantial time, who don't lose their chance to Ukrainian citizenship simply on the basie of lack of subsequent residency time there?

Just a couple of thoughts.

[John]

Is my understanding correct that even if the applicant DOES meet the criteria for naturalisation, this is a concession, NOT a right?

And sueing the HO is the fastest way to being blacklisted?

As the saying goes ..... "There are none so deaf as those who don't want to hear!".

[ppron747]

...And sueing the HO is the fastest way to being blacklisted?

No - there may be a "blacklist" in the sense of a list of people who are unsuitable for naturalisation on character grounds but, given that adverse naturalisation decisions are subject to judicial review, it would be very foolish to blacklist someone who is simply exercising their right to seek a remedy in the courts - however silly and/or misguided the court action might appear to be.

As the saying goes ..... "There are none so deaf as those who don't want to hear!".

Not forgetting the possibility of leading a horse to a source of aqueous fluid, and the occasional impossibility of persuading said horse to imbibe!!

[yulita11]

Just curious, if the HO had confirmed that you were an asylum seeker the, how could the university let you to proceed through the course?
I mean it's okie if you pay your own tution fees, but, unless you have ILR or DL or granted asylum, you aren't eligible to receive any grants towards your tution fees on Higher education.

Yes, I did pay my international student fees. But the university had the policy of reducing it by £1500 in case of asylum seekers. So they made sure I am the one (by contacting the HO), and only then I was allowed to pay my reduced fees. That was in 2003.

John wrote:
As the saying goes ..... "There are none so deaf as those who don't want to hear!".

This is so true...

[yulita11]

Just in case anyone is curious:

I have won my case and have been granted British nationality.
Apparently there was a mistake on the files and I have never been refused leave to enter. It took a year to resolve the case and it was settled before the Judicial Review. Got my full solicitor's costs refund from them too. So in the end of the day it was worth going through all the legal procedures etc etc.

[John]

That is great .... many congratulations!

You have already attended your Citizenship Ceremony? Or have you still got that to do?

[Dawie]

Congratulations! That's excellent news.

I am still confused about your Ukranian status though. I can't understand how they could have refused you a passport because you didn't "have enough connections". You are either a citizen of a country, or you are not. Surely at that stage (when you were trying to get a Ukraine passport) you were a Ukranian citizen by birth? One cannot lose one's citizenship because you have stayed outside your country of birth for too long. Sounds very strange to me, but congratulations anyway!