Good character requirement - Current home office stance

Please can anyone provide the current stance of the home office when it comes to the application of the good character requirements for Refugee who entered illegally but claimed asylum thesame day and have never been illegal since entry - this relates to naturalization application.

You can not justify illegal entry no matter what you have done after entering illegally. You must come through proper procedure to enter UK. It may put question mark on your character and can be a ground of refusal.

fbutt50 wrote:You can not justify illegal entry no matter.

Not Really. For asylum seekers this is different.

OP, Please wait for some other answers from senior members.

UKBALoveStory wrote:

fbutt50 wrote:You can not justify illegal entry no matter.

Not Really. For asylum seekers this is different.

OP, Please wait for some other answers from senior members.

Will be good to get some clarity on this as of March 2016 as all the posts I find on this topic are old.

Please Amber, perhaps, could advise on this?

An illegal entry but claimed asylum thesame day and never breached the law or immigration law

See Q14A in the link below

http://www.immigrationboards.com/britis ... 05532.html

And the link below regarding people in your circumstances.

http://www.immigrationboards.com/britis ... 84190.html

Nothing has changed as far as I am aware in regards to the comprehensive outline Amber has provided.

imnewhere wrote:An illegal entry but claimed asylum thesame day and never breached the law or immigration law

I know we've kind of covered this ground in another thread but here is a relevant excerpt from one of the links provided:

Amber wrote: There are no clear exemptions for Refugees who apply for British nationality. However, Article 31 of the Refugee Convention states that Contracting States (such as the UK) should not impose penalties on account of your illegal entry or presence in the UK. Moreover, under Article 34 of the Refugee Convention the UK is obliged to facilitate the naturalisation of refugees, this includes expedition of proceedings. A 10 year ban appears to be contrary to both Articles of the Refugee Convention. This may give you grounds to ask for a reconsideration of a refused application (based on your previous illegal entry or presence in the UK). Moreover, it may also show that the Secretary of State has acted ultra vires in refusing your application, which are grounds for Judicial Review.

I will just repeat my opinion from earlier. The Refugee Convention is not binding. While the Refugee Convention does ask that some accommodations be made how refugees enter a country and how their stay be considered while they seek status (i.e. they shouldn't be punished), it does not require a state to forgive everything. This is why an asylum seeker is generally given a short duration after entry to claim asylum or face not having that previous stay included as 'legal' (which is really a domestic definition) no matter what the outcome of their application is. Any country may deal with these matters as they see fit. Further, the convention does not in any way impose upon any state any restrictions on how that country may decide to grant citizenship. That matter is strictly the sovereign province of the nation in question and is completely unrelated to this convention.

About illegal entry, while you may never actually face any punitive action for doing so as your asylum claim was successful, citizenship of the United Kingdom is a privilege, not a right. There are valid reasons why you (or your parents) may have felt the need to illegally enter the country using false documentation. Perhaps it was the only hope you had of getting away from the persecution. But the United Kingdom, and indeed any country, may apply whatever restrictions it likes to citizenship. And that includes, but is in no way limited to, restrictions based on violating its immigration laws. That's not 'punishment' any more than the country deciding to employ jus soli as opposed to jus sanguinis is 'punishment' of those born in the country versus those born to citizens/permanent residents. That's simply a nation deciding how it wishes to vet the members of its society who have the privilege of citizenship.

All that said, I just don't think a case like yours has come across anybody's desk yet, and is perhaps a first for this forum. You may just have to try it and see.

Thanks for the detail explanation, i entered the uk illegally as a minor (unaccompanied). perhaps the secretary of state can exercise a discretion to grant citizenship. However, i was wondering if it is worth the gamble? what would you do if you were in this situation?

All that said, I just don't think a case like yours has come across anybody's desk yet, and is perhaps a first for this forum. You may just have to try it and see.[/quote]

When you say a case like mine, what is different with my case and other ones you have heard of? thanks

@Outflak1 - there have been similar cases of minors coming in, but only a few, and these seem to have been refused. I can look for the threads later this evening.

CR001 wrote:@Outflak1 - there have been similar cases of minors coming in, but only a few, and these seem to have been refused. I can look for the threads later this evening.

Thanks, I have seen a case but the minor did not claim asylum straight away or exhausted appeal rights and then later on granted asylum.

My case is: i claimed straight away and lodged every application within the deadlines.

It will be similar for any other refugee who claimed straight away and and never breached an immigration law, however all the threads seem to refer to scenarios where the individual absconded then later on granted Indefinite leave

imnewhere wrote:What would you do if you were in this situation?

I'm assuming that this is a general question for anybody reading. My own particular circumstances (along with my own particular culture, upbringing, and life experiences) are so different that what I would do is probably not relevant. Plus, it might not be the right thing to do. You mention the Secretary of State exercising 'discretion', but it might not even come to that. Upon seeing your case the HO might make an across-the-board policy decision that illegal entry is not to be held against a successful asylum seeker applying for citizenship, or the specific equivalent if the entry was as a minor. Or they might just look at your illegal entry and rubber stamp refuse the application without even a moment's more consideration. Heck it might just depend on what caseworker you get, and what their mood is that day.

CR001 wrote:@Outflak1 - there have been similar cases of minors coming in, but only a few, and these seem to have been refused. I can look for the threads later this evening.

It will be interesting to see what CR001 finds and how closely they do indeed match your scenario. I thought I'd seen a situation where the minor had been in the country for some time before claiming asylum (and their entry was legal iirc). The results of that search may answer your questions right there. If they are refusals, then obviously you'd be better off waiting.

I will lock this thread now and request that the OP please continue in their other thread where responses and advice are already being given.

http://www.immigrationboards.com/britis ... l#p1324065