This was my point . This is the reason why it slipped my view that you were born before 1 Jan 1983.
My colleagues that wrote before are correct in law in saying your children don't qualify under 3 (5), but that point was not taken against you . Only 3 (5)(c) was invoked which I thought was wrong, as a result of 3 (6).
@ Casa : Well
FI is authority that the rules is not hard and fast, exceptionally registration can be granted if the terms of the guidance is not met.
In the case of FI, both parents were not settled, in fact his father who was settled was living in New Zealand with his new family, the mother had only a residence card, and there was no guarantee that the mother will be granted ILR under the regulations.
In this case there are more compelling factors.
1. The mother is a single parent and is a British Citizen.
2. Had it not been for the historical injustice, and the discrimination on grounds of gender , which the 1981 act dealt with, she would have been a citizen at time of birth.
3. Children have lived in the UK for over 10 years and their future lies here, they cannot be removed legally at present or required to do so, and neither can the action of the parent in seeking to regularise their status count against them, when they had nothing to do about it. Neither can it be said, that it is contrary to their best interest to register them or their future is not firmly embedded in the UK.
4. Their grandmother was a British otherwise than by descent, and therefore there is ancestral links to the UK.
In all those circumstance, I see how failure to have ILR will be a determinative factors, when other factors considered individually or cumulatively carries more significant weight.
At present only 3 (5) (c) has been invoked on OP. I believe a strong argument can be made on 3 (1) point also.
