Immigrationboards.com

btrx81 wrote:Thank you so much for your detailed reply
I have got my appeal letter written up, I sending it off including all sort of docs such as p60s, letters etc
The same pack that I had along with the application
I hope it will be approved at this time

Hi btrx81,

Have you got approved in the end? I was in the same situation, rejected in September 2015 and sent in my reconsideration application a few days later. I was recently approved and booked ceremony.
It was very stressful and I called and complained to the HO and the local MP many times. One thing might help, but I'm not sure, is requesting your documents back WITHOUT cancelling your application. I did that and later filed a complaint because it took 2 months to get my docs back.

Anyone knows if the little blue book (document certifying permanent residence) will still be valid after I become a citizen or becomes invalid like ILRs do?

Good luck everyone
Mia

To avoid confusion & jumbled responses, I have moved your question to its own thread (this one).

mia30 wrote:Anyone knows if the little blue book (document certifying permanent residence) will still be valid after I become a citizen or becomes invalid like ILRs do?

There are only two circumstances where the question would be relevant.

The first one is if you lost British citizenship. So far as I am aware, there is no case law on the matter. A decision may hinge on the other circumstance.

The second is that if someone had a documented right of residence in the UK by 2012 (or had applied for it with ultimate success) on the basis of being part of your family, they might still have that status. This would be under the McCarthy transitional arrangements; Noajthan thinks that in this case, unlike the EEA Regulations in general, Schedule 3 to the Immigration (European Economic Area) (Amendment) Regulations 2012 means what it says, and that for such people the sponsor's becoming British does stop them continuing to derive rights from the sponsor under the EEA regulations. The problem is that the schedule was not meant to cover such cases, which is why I distrust a literal reading of the schedule. Before the amendment, the British nationality of a possible sponsor would be ignored, and the schedule is clearly intended to avoid a retrospective loss of rights, whence its popular designation as the 'McCarthy transitional arrangements'. We are not aware of any case law on the matter.

I should add one important qualification, though it may seem obvious. Your DCPR remains valid as evidence of having had permanent residence.

This is going off-topic already.

And that "we" is evidently the "Royal we".

OP at present there is no clear answer to your question.

Even the High Court in England and Wales could not answer it.

Also see Lounes.

noajthan wrote:And that "we" is evidently the "Royal we".

Then kindly reveal the case law you have been hiding! It is not relevant to Lounes, though the ECJ ruling, when it comes, may make it largely irrelevant.

Richard W wrote:

noajthan wrote:And that "we" is evidently the "Royal we".

Then kindly reveal the case law you have been hiding! It is not relevant to Lounes, though the ECJ ruling, when it comes, may make it largely irrelevant.

How many times? This is not a "let's chat about everything under the sun" topic.

You have managed to hijack someone's topic and then try to insist on arguing the toss over the hijack.

If you cannot remain on topic to a single OP's question and insist, repeatedly, on bringing in random, unrelated topics in confused musings, then sanction will be taken.

I thought the question was, "To what extent does Mia30 still have permanent residence in the EEA sense".

Under the EEA Regulations (i.e. the British regulations whose chief function is to transpose Directive 2004/38/EC) as I read them, she effectively currently no longer has permanent residence, for she no longer has rights under them as an EEA national, and no-one can now derive rights from her by the regulations as at the current date. However, I thought a challenge to my reading was relevant to the question, in that the McCarthy transition arrangements might apply to her. If they do, then she effectively does have permanent residence in so far as it may affect a few, specific people. Is that a random topic? I don't know why Mia 30 is asking whether she still has permanent residence; others may have been told more of her life history.

By definition a transitional provision cannot apply to prospective event. It applies to a state of affair in place before new rules were put in place.

Richard W wrote:I thought the question was, "To what extent does Mia30 still have permanent residence in the EEA sense".

Under the EEA Regulations (i.e. the British regulations whose chief function is to transpose Directive 2004/38/EC) as I read them, she effectively currently no longer has permanent residence, for she no longer has rights under them as an EEA national, and no-one can now derive rights from her by the regulations as at the current date. However, I thought a challenge to my reading was relevant to the question, in that the McCarthy transition arrangements might apply to her. If they do, then she effectively does have permanent residence in so far as it may affect a few, specific people. Is that a random topic? I don't know why Mia 30 is asking whether she still has permanent residence; others may have been told more of her life history.

It is but you were veering off that question.
And noone has the right to write on behalf of another member so I clarified your use of "Royal we".

The OP is a Union citizen.
The McCarthy transitional arrangement was a limited codification of a ruling made for the benefit of Union dependents (not Union citizens who only benefited vicariously).
It was not about creating some sort of indestructible EEA nationals with everlasting rights.

As PR status cannot be revoked except in extremis or by 2 year absence, PR status does not need McCarthy; introducing anything to do with McCarthy is just a distraction.

noajthan wrote:The OP is a Union citizen.
The McCarthy transitional arrangement was a limited codification of a ruling made for the benefit of Union dependents (not Union citizens who only benefited vicariously).
It was not about creating some sort of indestructible EEA nationals with everlasting rights.

As PR status cannot be revoked except in extremis or by 2 year absence, PR status does not need McCarthy; introducing anything to do with McCarthy is just a distraction.

Except in relation to family members and extended family members, what benefits would accrue to a British citizen from having PR status?

The more useful part of retaining PR status in a dormant form would be if it would revive if British citizenship were renounced or removed.

Richard W wrote: I don't know why Mia 30 is asking whether she still has permanent residence; others may have been told more of her life history.

Hi All,

I didn't realise that my comment would create so much confusion, in hindsight, my question wasn't very clear. Thanks for all the replies, I have only just seen them. Also, thanks noajthan for moving my comment to a new topic.

My concern was whether it is still legal to keep this document and present it at checkpoints in the absence of a British passport.

I posted the question, because I'm becoming a British citizen officially next week by attending the ceremony, but I won't be able to apply for a British passport for a while due to multiple planned travels in and outside the EU. I cannot risk not having a passport until I'm back.
My residence card is normally kept with my passport. I wasn't sure if it was still okay to carry it around and present it if needed. I know I can enter on my EU passport, but I don't want problems using a document that I shouldn't have anymore. I'm probably worrying too much, but that's just me.

Thanks for the answers, it looks like the HO either don't really care for this detail or haven't worked out the rules yet.
If I do get a definite answer from an official source, I will follow up on this thread.

Thanks

Why would you even need the DCPR? It says in the letter that comes with it something along the lines of "even without this document, you would normally be readmitted to the UK by virtue of EU free movement..."

What am I missing here?

ohara wrote:Why would you even need the DCPR? It says in the letter that comes with it something along the lines of "even without this document, you would normally be readmitted to the UK by virtue of EU free movement..."

What am I missing here?

If you're an EEA citizen then yes, although I would think it would be harder for a non-EEA family member to convince a border official to readmit them?

Yes but non-EEA family members don't get issued with DCPRs, they get Biometric PR cards which would probably be invalidated once one becomes a citizen..

Noetic wrote:

ohara wrote:Why would you even need the DCPR? It says in the letter that comes with it something along the lines of "even without this document, you would normally be readmitted to the UK by virtue of EU free movement..."

What am I missing here?

If you're an EEA citizen then yes, although I would think it would be harder for a non-EEA family member to convince a border official to readmit them?

Non-EEA citizens do not get DCPR's though

ohara wrote:

Noetic wrote:

ohara wrote:Why would you even need the DCPR? It says in the letter that comes with it something along the lines of "even without this document, you would normally be readmitted to the UK by virtue of EU free movement..."

What am I missing here?

If you're an EEA citizen then yes, although I would think it would be harder for a non-EEA family member to convince a border official to readmit them?

Non-EEA citizens do not get DCPR's though

I have an EU passport, but I cannot be a British Citizen and a person subject to immigration control at the same time.

So my concern was about keeping the DCPR with me. It's in my passport holder and I'll continue to keep it there, unless it is required to return it to the HO. I am aware that I can enter the country without it though.

I still don't understand this.

I know I can enter on my EU passport, but I don't want problems using a document that I shouldn't have anymore. I'm probably worrying too much, but that's just me.

You don't need PR to enter the UK with an EU/EEA passport. The passport alone gives you the right to enter.

The DCPR isn't even a mandatory document, it's optional and somewhat pointless other than for naturalisation applications for which it is obviously now a requirement.

I've never had any trouble entering the UK with my EU passport alone. I intend to frame my DCPR and put it on the wall alongside naturalisation certificate and other immigration docs

ohara wrote:I still don't understand this.

I know I can enter on my EU passport, but I don't want problems using a document that I shouldn't have anymore. I'm probably worrying too much, but that's just me.

You don't need PR to enter the UK with an EU/EEA passport. The passport alone gives you the right to enter.

The DCPR isn't even a mandatory document, it's optional and somewhat pointless other than for naturalisation applications for which it is obviously now a requirement.

I've never had any trouble entering the UK with my EU passport alone. I intend to frame my DCPR and put it on the wall alongside naturalisation certificate and other immigration docs

Meh, never mind, sometimes I don't get myself either, pahhaha.

That's a nice idea to frame it