REVOKED CHILD'S BRITISH PASSPORT

Well to my understanding, it does not seem the that the provision in

But i think you raise an interesting point. If such a provision is made for Pre-July 2006 children, it seems odd that it remains in place for Post July 2006 children.

As I understand it, since 1.7.2006 if the mother is married then the father [for nationality purposes] is the man to whom she is married. In a situation such as this, if the biological father of the child is someone else, then the child may be considered for registration as a British citizen if the child would have been British had the biological father been married to the mother. See section 9.9.5 of the Nationality Instructions.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/s ... 150402.pdf

Accordingly- the Home Office should normally have granted the MN1 application. Unless there is clear evidence that the EEA citizen married to the mother had acquired Permanent Residence before the child was born in 2015.

Note that if a British passport is granted to the child it can be revoked later if found to have been issued in error. [A British nationality Certificate of Registration cannot so easily be annulled].

For my sanity sake at least, I am glad that the court has finally appreciated that Section 50(9A) was in breach of Article 8 of the ECHR.

I believe that OP can now rely on this case, without the ridiculous situation of having to pay for MN1 to register her child.

I did say this legislation will not stand the test of time.

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Adm ... /1834.html

vinny wrote: ↑

Fri Mar 03, 2017 1:41 am

I agree with you. But until 50(9A) is rewritten to give (c) more or same precedence as (a), I don't see the Passport Office backing down.

It seems like we have the victory now, a remedial order will have to be made and passport office will have to back down.

You were clearly right on the statutory construction. The court accepted your construction which was similar to the Home Office, but rejected mine, which was consistent with the claimant.

However, it was accepted that the statute was inconsistent with HRA.

This is crazy, Mohamed should never had been refused entry into the UK, as his biological father is indeed British, and the High Court has ruled section 50(9A)(b) or (ba) incompatible with Article 8.

It is all a game, just like burning those landing card of wind rush people was for the Home Office. They knew Mohamed's passport was revoked but them left him to go to Belgium, and now on his way back, they knew he was coming, and stopped him from boarding. They knew he would have qualified for registration if they had allowed him to know. However section 3(1) prevent registration when a person is overseas.

If Mohamed's granddad was not a former Ambassador to Belgium, or his uncle was not a former Premier league footballer, this pathetic episode would have been swept under the carpet, and this poor boy's fate would have been sealed by the Home Office. No other civilise country on this planet do things like this.

Mohamed is according to the strict reading of the nationality act not a British, but firstly the Home Office could not prove evidence of service of this revocation notification, and even though they are right to revoke the passport, refusing him the right to fly and enter the UK is a scandal, as to all intent and purposes this boy's father is a British citizen, but the stupid law considers Mohamed the child of the Guinean man who had abused Mohamed's mother, and then destroyed her life , even though his name is not on the Birth certificate, he is half way across the world and has never met Mohamed, a man Mohamed mother is working actively to rid herself from.

It is utterly crazy and discriminatory. They must put a remedial order before parliament immediately. What is wrong with this dysfunctional government obsessed with Brexit. Since October 2016 when the Supreme court ruled in Johnson, the Home Office has yet to approve a single application that meets the Johnson criteria, i have 2 applications that has been put on hold, and Home Office are saying i am welcome to pursue JR if i cannot wait for the remedial order to come through. This is just simply wrong.

Poor Mohammed is now stranded in Belgium, unable to resume school, for no action of his, simply because his mother was unable to get a divorce from an abuser.

It just seem so wrong. If anyone is under the delusion that minors are exempted from the Hostile environment policy, they most think again.

I think it is best for Mohammed to stay in Belgium. It may have been worst, they may well have chucked him in a detention centre like the windrush people.

Pathetic.

They are now trying to smear Mohamed's mother by giving the impression that his biological father was not settled, and that deception was used to obtained the passport.

If they have any decency in them, they ought to have made clear to the public the absurdity of the law, which does not consider a biological father the father in circumstance where the mother of the child was married to another person.

Thanks to the support of the independent newspaper, Mohammed is finally coming to the country he thought was home. a country which sought to reject him and make his stranded.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/h ... 26101.html

Good news!

Their previous deplorable actions against an innocent child reminded me of an apt quote:

16. wrote:This is a classic example of a thoroughly unreasonable and disproportionate, inflexible, application of a policy, without the slightest regard for the facts of the case, or indeed elementary common sense and humanity. Such an approach diminishes, rather than encourages, respect for the policy in question....

Confirmed: children with foreign stepfathers are being unlawfully denied citizenship.

Government drops appeal in citizenship case where girl’s mother married to someone else > K (A Child) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2018] EWHC 1834 (Admin)

It seems like this OP may well be the subject of the case in question.

There is clearly no remedy for the child yet. The child is still not a British CItizen and may have to apply for registration.

However, her claim for leave under the rule is much stronger now, but nothing has changed for the child, unless a remedial order is issued or the parent decide to register under section 3(1).

It is disgraceful.

4E(a) restriction removed.

Positive development. I hope those born after July 2006 will not have to pay any fees aswell.