The end of the ppron method?

[Decus et Tutamen]

I happened to be browsing the nationality policy instructions on the BIA website, and I notice that the chapter which relates to the residency requirement has been updated.

It now states that although an individual who applies for naturalisation abroad is free of immigration time restrictions, if the application has been so made simply to avoid this requirement, then the application will be refused.

Nationality instructions > Volume 1: The British Nationality Act 1981 - caseworking instructions > Chapter 18: Naturalisation at discretion - Annex B - section 7.3

However, it would be contrary to the spirit of the Act to allow an application to succeed when the sole or main purpose in applying from abroad was to circumvent the requirement about freedom from immigration time restrictions - in other words where, had s/he remained in the United Kingdom at the relevant date, the applicant would have failed to qualify because s/he would then have had only a limited leave or conditional right to be in the UK. Any such cases should be referred initially to a SCW to consider whether refusal would be appropriate. When refusing an application on this basis, the following explanation may be offered: “The Secretary of State is not obliged to naturalise a person who meets the requirements in Schedule 1 to the 1981 Act, and will not normally be prepared to do so if it appears to her that the sole or main purpose in applying from outside the United Kingdom was to circumvent the requirement for the applicant to be free, on the date of application, from any restriction."

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/s ... dments.pdf

[John]

Decus et Tutamen, well spotted! I think it means exactly that. The loophole has been closed!

JAJ, if you are reading this, do you concur?

[SYH]

And how would they know if it is done to avoid the requirment?

[JAJ]

Decus et Tutamen, well spotted! I think it means exactly that. The loophole has been closed!

JAJ, if you are reading this, do you concur?

I do concur. Looks like it is closed.

The history that caused this to come to light in the first place was a case of a South African on an ancestry visa in the U.K. who took advantage of the 2003 concession for pre-83 children of U.K. mothers and then found his wife in an awkward visa situation.

It leads to the following conclusions:

1. Anyone in the U.K. on another visa (eg ancestry) should consider putting off any section 4C British citizenship application until ILR has been granted (which would include the spouse). Otherwise spouse may have to switch to a 2 year spouse visa and wait even longer for naturalisation.

2. Those from EEA/Switzerland who are partners to British citizens may wish to consider applying for entry clearance under the U.K. immigration rules rather than coming just as EEA citizens, if they want British citizenship more quickly. Same goes for non-EEA family members of British citizens who have a choice between the U.K. and European immigration rules.

[JAJ]

And how would they know if it is done to avoid the requirment?

That will be the working assumption if the applicant does not have ILR.

[sakura]

Wow...BIA must be reading this board! Actually, is there anyone on this board who has succeeded in using this method, and how long did it take for your naturalisation to come through? I'd like to know, as I have not heard anything from anyone who has used this method about how it went.

Also - when is this change coming into force?

[yankeegirl]

Sakura, I'm not sure about this board, but there was a poster on another board whose wife obtained citizenship using the ppron method.
http://www.ukresident.com/forums/index. ... 37084&st=0

[vinny]

Unfortunately, the case referred to was posted on Feb 28 2007, 05:35 AM. It was prior to the latest British Nationality Act 1981 - caseworking instructions:

Last Updated: 17 December 2007

[John]

A sad year, on 7th January we lose Ppron747 ... he died on 7th January .... and then we lose the Naturalisation method "invented" by him ..... on 17th December.

[SYH]

Sakura, I'm not sure about this board, but there was a poster on another board whose wife obtained citizenship using the ppron method.
http://www.ukresident.com/forums/index. ... 37084&st=0

|Can you cut and paste the thread info because you have to join the board to see the link properly?

[vinny]

Can you cut and paste the thread info because you have to join the board to see the link properly?

See also Ppron Naturalisation Method

[VictoriaS]

Sad, but inevetable.

I expect they will now want evidence of residency before accepting the application.



Victoria

[John]

Victoria, welcome back. I think it is simpler than that. Yes the overseas mission will continue to accept the application, but if the applicant does not have "settled status" such as ILR, then the application will end up being refused. But it will not get rejected, as least on this point, if the applicant is indeed settled in the UK.

In other words the guidance now given to BIA cuts out any reason for people to make a special journey overseas in order to submit their naturalisation application.

[vinny]

I suspect that the real reason behind the change is not because it is "contrary to the spirit of the Act", but more to do with revenue lost from ILR fees.

[SYH]

Can you cut and paste the thread info because you have to join the board to see the link properly?

See also Ppron Naturalisation Method

Vinny could you lighten up with the SEE also all the time and just let the person help out

[vinny]

Can you cut and paste the thread info because you have to join the board to see the link properly?

See also Ppron Naturalisation Method

Vinny could you lighten up with the SEE also all the time and just let the person help out

mon had already kindly cut and pasted the info that you had requested, in response to stedman's similar request.

[JAJ]

I suspect that the real reason behind the change is not because it is "contrary to the spirit of the Act", but more to do with revenue lost from ILR fees.

I would think it is more because it allowed people to bypass the spouse settlement criteria completely, including checks to prevent bogus marriages.

EG someone on a student visa for 3 years in the U.K. marries a British citizen.

[Christophe]

I suspect that the real reason behind the change is not because it is "contrary to the spirit of the Act", but more to do with revenue lost from ILR fees.

I think that's not very likely, because I shouldn't have thought that the numbers of people involved would be very big?

[sakura]

I suspect that the real reason behind the change is not because it is "contrary to the spirit of the Act", but more to do with revenue lost from ILR fees.

I would think it is more because it allowed people to bypass the spouse settlement criteria completely, including checks to prevent bogus marriages.

EG someone on a student visa for 3 years in the U.K. marries a British citizen.

That's very true. I know it's a 'loophole' (or was...), but I always found it odd that, if you were here in another capacity, you can apply for naturalisation almost as soon as you married a British citizen, bypassing the spouse visa and ILR. I actually read the naturalisation requirement as being three years married to a Bc (and living in the UK), rather than simply meaning three years' residency in the UK.

[JAJ]

That's very true. I know it's a 'loophole' (or was...), but I always found it odd that, if you were here in another capacity, you can apply for naturalisation almost as soon as you married a British citizen, bypassing the spouse visa and ILR. I actually read the naturalisation requirement as being three years married to a Bc (and living in the UK), rather than simply meaning three years' residency in the UK.

There never has been, and there still isn't, any requirement for the marriage to have lasted 3 years.

[Christophe]

That's very true. I know it's a 'loophole' (or was...), but I always found it odd that, if you were here in another capacity, you can apply for naturalisation almost as soon as you married a British citizen, bypassing the spouse visa and ILR. I actually read the naturalisation requirement as being three years married to a Bc (and living in the UK), rather than simply meaning three years' residency in the UK.

It's three years' residency for someone who is married to a British citizen at the time of the application: the wedding could have happened the day before, in fact.

[sakura]

That's very true. I know it's a 'loophole' (or was...), but I always found it odd that, if you were here in another capacity, you can apply for naturalisation almost as soon as you married a British citizen, bypassing the spouse visa and ILR. I actually read the naturalisation requirement as being three years married to a Bc (and living in the UK), rather than simply meaning three years' residency in the UK.

There never has been, and there still isn't, any requirement for the marriage to have lasted 3 years.

I meant I read (past-tense) it like that before. Isn't it like that for most other countries?

[JAJ]

There never has been, and there still isn't, any requirement for the marriage to have lasted 3 years.

...

I meant I read (past-tense) it like that before. Isn't it like that for most other countries?

For Ireland and the United States, there is a 3 year marriage requirement if one wants to naturalize under the 3 year rule as opposed to the 5 year rule.

Canada, Australia and New Zealand don't have a concessional residence period for spouses (although Australia is more flexible with time spent outside the country).