UKM Denied - After getting Biometric Enrolment successfully done Mail from Home Office

gsjaitla · Post by **gsjaitla** » Sun Jan 20, 2019 6:29 pm

I am soo confused and I really dont understand what and how to approach this further now.

I applied for British Citizenship under the UKM law as my mother is a British Citizen who moved after her marriage to my father in India in 1976. Prior to that she was in UK. I was born on 2nd June 1979, and like most of us (i am sure) my mother was not aware that she can apply for my citizenship, she did not until last year in October 2018, when I came to know of it an applied under the UKM scheme.

I sent the application to the Home Office in October and got a response from them sometime later to get my Biometric metric enrolment done at the nearest centre in New Delhi, India, which I did successfully.

After a couple of days i received another email stating that I will receive my application soon as they received a decision, and when I did receive the hard copy, they said that I was denied British Citizenship as my mother was a CUKC at the time of my birth and had I been a CUKC then I would have the ROA and probably the right to get British citizenship. But i still fail to understand this as my younger brother who was also born in India, was granted British Citizenship when applied for in India, through the high commission without any issues.

Is there any advice somebody has to share in such a case, as both my mother and brother, have been residing in UK for the past 14 years now, and I am in India for now

What do you all think i ought to do in such a case, as in my application response they also said that if they want it to be reconsidered then I can do so as per the NR form which needs to be filled and sent to the Home Office in Liverpool.

Please, if anyone understand to ease of my confusion....a big thanks in advance....

CR001 · Post by **CR001** » Sun Jan 20, 2019 6:35 pm

What is the exact wording of the letter, including any references to acts and laws and taking out your personal details??

What year was your brother born and under what section of the BNA did he apply?

gsjaitla · Post by **gsjaitla** » Sun Jan 20, 2019 7:03 pm

I was born on 2nd June 1979 in New Delhi India
My mother was born on 26th October 1955, Kenya, Mombasa
My younger brother was born on 28th November 1989, in New Delhi, India

Letters states as follows"

"Para 3: had you been a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies, would have the right of abode i the United Kingdom and have become British Citizen on 1 January 1983.......

Your Mother was born outside the United Kingdom and colonies, her father was registered as a CUKC in Kenya in 1952. As your mothers father was a CUKC at the time of her birth then she would have been a CUKC herself under section 5(1) of the BNA 1948

You were born in Kenya Protectorate in 1979 so had women been able to pass on their Nationality you would have become a CUKC under section 5(1)(a) of the BNA '81

In order to qualify for registration as a British Citizen under section 4C the 3rd part of the requirement is that, had you been a CUKC, you would have had an entitlement to ROA.

Your mother held ROA under section 2(1)(c) of the IA'71 which is on the basis of 5 years residence in the UK. This section of ROA is not transmissible and had you been a CUKC you still would of not had an entitlement to ROA.

As such you do not meet the requirement at paragraph 3 above.

Thanks in advance

sunburn · Post by **sunburn** » Mon Jan 21, 2019 2:31 am

What are all of your mothers periods of residence in UK ? Your brothers circumstances and yours are different . Your mother was not born in the UK and as such gained right of abode on the basis of residence . Her right of abode is what gives her child the ability to register , and she needs to have lived in the UK for a certain amount of time before your birth for you to be eligible .

secret.simon · Post by **secret.simon** » Mon Jan 21, 2019 3:38 am

The refusal is correct.

Between 1971 and 1983, there were two facets to what we now call British citizenship; Citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies (CUKC) and Right of Abode. Of the former, children born abroad could only inherit CUKC status from their fathers.

Right of Abode (which was a part of immigration law, not nationality law) was an individual status, granted to CUKCs who met certain specified requirements, such as being born, registered or naturalised in the UK or having resided in the UK for five years.

Your mother was a CUKC with the Right of Abode under Section 2(1)(c) (five years residence) of the Immigration Act.

At the time of your birth in the UK, you could not have inherited CUKC through your mother. You also did not have Right of Abode (RoA) as your mother did not have RoA by birth, registration or naturalisation in the UK nor had you resided in the UK for five years before 1983.

The law on nationality and citizenship changed on 1st January 1983. All CUKCs with Right of Abode became British citizens. Because your mother had both CUKC and Right of Abode (by residence in the UK for five years), she automatically became a British citizen on 1st January 1983. Also, children born abroad to British citizens otherwise than by descent (like your mother) after 1st January 1983 were automatically British citizens. Therefore, your brother, born after 1983, was a British citizen by descent at his birth automatically.

Being born before 1983, you can be registered under Form UKM only if you meet two separate and different conditions (also see Page 5 of Guide UKM which goes into more details);
a) you could have inherited CUKC status from your mother at the time of your birth if the law allowed for citizenship to descend through mothers.
AND
b) you (not your mother but you) had RoA before 1983.

But you do not meet the latter requirement, as you had not resided in the UK for five years before 1983, nor were you, your mother or any of her parents born, registered or naturalised in the UK.

Therefore the refusal is correct. There is currently no path to British citizenship by descent for you if you have ever held an Indian passport or other official documentation. You will have to go through the whole immigration process yourself.

gsjaitla · Post by **gsjaitla** » Mon Jan 21, 2019 4:04 am

sunburn wrote: ↑
Mon Jan 21, 2019 2:31 am
What are all of your mothers periods of residence in UK ? Your brothers circumstances and yours are different . Your mother was not born in the UK and as such gained right of abode on the basis of residence . Her right of abode is what gives her child the ability to register , and she needs to have lived in the UK for a certain amount of time before your birth for you to be eligible .

Thanks for sharing your inputs on the same. My mother was in the UK before her marriage with her parents from 1969 until mid 1975. When she got married to my father, she never changed her citizenship and she was always on on a visa during her stay in India since she was a british citizen and all her passports say the same thing till now. Secondly, she has currently been living in the UK since 2005 till date with my younger brother.

So how come I am not eligible and when we applied for my younger brother in India he got it without any issues.

gsjaitla · Post by **gsjaitla** » Mon Jan 21, 2019 4:07 am

secret.simon wrote: ↑
Mon Jan 21, 2019 3:38 am
The refusal is correct.

Between 1971 and 1983, there were two facets to what we now call British citizenship; Citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies (CUKC) and Right of Abode. Of the former, children born abroad could only inherit CUKC status from their fathers.

Right of Abode (which was a part of immigration law, not nationality law) was an individual status, granted to CUKCs who met certain specified requirements, such as being born, registered or naturalised in the UK or having resided in the UK for five years.

Your mother was a CUKC with the Right of Abode under Section 2(1)(c) (five years residence) of the Immigration Act.

At the time of your birth in the UK, you could not have inherited CUKC through your mother. You also did not have Right of Abode (RoA) as your mother did not have RoA by birth, registration or naturalisation in the UK nor had you resided in the UK for five years before 1983.

The law on nationality and citizenship changed on 1st January 1983. All CUKCs with Right of Abode became British citizens. Because your mother had both CUKC and Right of Abode (by residence in the UK for five years), she automatically became a British citizen on 1st January 1983. Also, children born abroad to British citizens otherwise than by descent (like your mother) after 1st January 1983 were automatically British citizens. Therefore, your brother, born after 1983, was a British citizen by descent at his birth automatically.

Being born before 1983, you can be registered under Form UKM only if you meet two separate and different conditions (also see Page 5 of Guide UKM which goes into more details);
a) you could have inherited CUKC status from your mother at the time of your birth if the law allowed for citizenship to descend through mothers.
AND
b) you (not your mother but you) had RoA before 1983.

But you do not meet the latter requirement, as you had not resided in the UK for five years before 1983, nor were you, your mother or any of her parents born, registered or naturalised in the UK.

Therefore the refusal is correct. There is currently no path to British citizenship by descent for you if you have ever held an Indian passport or other official documentation. You will have to go through the whole immigration process yourself.

So are you saying if my mother goes through the registration or naturalization process now, she applies for it I may be eligible for it then..... because it really does not make sense of the kind of discrimination they have between children of British parents.

secret.simon · Post by **secret.simon** » Mon Jan 21, 2019 4:13 am

There is no discrimination. The law changed between your birth and the birth of your brother. Therefore you did not become a British citizen, but he did.

gsjaitla wrote: ↑
Mon Jan 21, 2019 4:07 am
So are you saying if my mother goes through the registration or naturalization process now, she applies for it I may be eligible for it then..... because it really does not make sense of the kind of discrimination they have between children of British parents.

No. Your mother is already a British citizen and therefore cannot register or naturalise as a British citizen now.

If she (or one of her parents), being born outside the UK & Colonies, had registered as a CUKC in the UK before you were born, then you would have been a British citizen. As she was born in a colony, she was a CUKC automatically and could not have registered as a CUKC in the UK anyway.

Of course, if you were born in the UK, you would also have been a British citizen.

You are not a British citizen (and do not have a claim to British citizenship) because of a peculiar conjunction of when and where you were born (outside the UK and your mother had RoA because of her own residence in the UK) & the law as it stood then.

gsjaitla · Post by **gsjaitla** » Mon Jan 21, 2019 6:23 am

secret.simon wrote: ↑
Mon Jan 21, 2019 4:13 am
There is no discrimination. The law changed between your birth and the birth of your brother. Therefore you did not become a British citizen, but he did.

gsjaitla wrote: ↑
Mon Jan 21, 2019 4:07 am
So are you saying if my mother goes through the registration or naturalization process now, she applies for it I may be eligible for it then..... because it really does not make sense of the kind of discrimination they have between children of British parents.
No. Your mother is already a British citizen and therefore cannot register or naturalise as a British citizen now.

If she (or one of her parents), being born outside the UK & Colonies, had registered as a CUKC in the UK before you were born, then you would have been a British citizen. As she was born in a colony, she was a CUKC automatically and could not have registered as a CUKC in the UK anyway.

Of course, if you were born in the UK, you would also have been a British citizen.

You are not a British citizen (and do not have a claim to British citizenship) because of a peculiar conjunction of when and where you were born (outside the UK and your mother had RoA because of her own residence in the UK) & the law as it stood then.

With regards to this application i requested to know the approach from the case worker who was wotking on my case and got the following reply via mail

"Dear xxxxxx

Thank you for your enquiry.

If your application is unsuccessful, we will write to tell you why. There is no right of appeal against our decision to refuse an application but if you believe it is incorrect, you can apply for it to be reconsidered by completing form NR. You must send the £372 fee with your completed application form to the address below.

UK Visas & Immigration.

The Capital Building

Department 1

New Hall Place

Liverpool

L3 9PP

You will need to show that our decision was not soundly based on nationality law or the current policy or procedure. These are described in the relevant guides to applicants and in any other communication you have received from us.

If you write to ask us to review our decision, you must explain why you think we have not correctly applied the law and policy in your case.

www.gov.uk/government/publications/appl ... ed-form-nr"

sunburn · Post by **sunburn** » Mon Jan 21, 2019 6:41 am

The original refusal letter provides all the information relevant to why you were denied . Essentially you cannot demonstrate that you had right of abode, as secret.simon states . Please refer to The Requirements section of Guide UKM . All three conditions need to be met . You meet the first two but not the third (right of abode). You would have met it if your mother was UK born (not a CUKC born abroad), or you had resided in UK for 5 years before 1983, which is impossible given your birth year .

Your brothers circumstances are different - your mother had right of abode in UK since she lived there for 5 years before 1983 , and thus became a British Citizen then . Your brother was born after this date and this was British by descent at birth .

Does this seem unfair ? Well, you wouldn’t be the first to complain than British nationality law is an enormous pile of historically accumulated rules. I too am a UKM registrant but with a UK born mother making it straightforward . However, had I been born a little later I would not need to register at all.

gsjaitla · Post by **gsjaitla** » Mon Jan 21, 2019 4:17 pm

gsjaitla wrote: ↑
Mon Jan 21, 2019 6:23 am

secret.simon wrote: ↑
Mon Jan 21, 2019 4:13 am
There is no discrimination. The law changed between your birth and the birth of your brother. Therefore you did not become a British citizen, but he did.

gsjaitla wrote: ↑
Mon Jan 21, 2019 4:07 am
So are you saying if my mother goes through the registration or naturalization process now, she applies for it I may be eligible for it then..... because it really does not make sense of the kind of discrimination they have between children of British parents.
No. Your mother is already a British citizen and therefore cannot register or naturalise as a British citizen now.

If she (or one of her parents), being born outside the UK & Colonies, had registered as a CUKC in the UK before you were born, then you would have been a British citizen. As she was born in a colony, she was a CUKC automatically and could not have registered as a CUKC in the UK anyway.

Of course, if you were born in the UK, you would also have been a British citizen.

You are not a British citizen (and do not have a claim to British citizenship) because of a peculiar conjunction of when and where you were born (outside the UK and your mother had RoA because of her own residence in the UK) & the law as it stood then.
With regards to this application i requested to know the approach from the case worker who was wotking on my case and got the following reply via mail

"Dear xxxxxx

Thank you for your enquiry.

If your application is unsuccessful, we will write to tell you why. There is no right of appeal against our decision to refuse an application but if you believe it is incorrect, you can apply for it to be reconsidered by completing form NR. You must send the £372 fee with your completed application form to the address below.

UK Visas & Immigration.

The Capital Building

Department 1

New Hall Place

Liverpool

L3 9PP

You will need to show that our decision was not soundly based on nationality law or the current policy or procedure. These are described in the relevant guides to applicants and in any other communication you have received from us.

If you write to ask us to review our decision, you must explain why you think we have not correctly applied the law and policy in your case.

www.gov.uk/government/publications/appl ... ed-form-nr"

Can someone explain the meaning of the email above mentioned as when i asked them to apply again they said I need to do as follows:

"If your application is unsuccessful, we will write to tell you why. There is no right of appeal against our decision to refuse an application but if you believe it is incorrect, you can apply for it to be reconsidered by completing form NR. You must send the £372 fee with your completed application form......"

So why deny my citizenship. Does ti mean they themselves are not sure about it or are not quite accurate of their rules around British nationality

CR001 · Post by **CR001** » Mon Jan 21, 2019 4:21 pm

So why deny my citizenship. Does ti mean they themselves are not sure about it or are not quite accurate of their rules around British nationality

Because you don't qualify for it or UKM route.

The email is GENERIC and does not mean HO is 'unsure' or 'doesn't know the Nationality laws'.

You simply don't qualify for the reasons that have been very nicely explained by user 'secret.simon'.

secret.simon · Post by **secret.simon** » Mon Jan 21, 2019 8:54 pm

gsjaitla wrote: ↑
Mon Jan 21, 2019 4:17 pm
So why deny my citizenship.

Because you are not eligible/do not meet the requirements of the law.

For your reference, in case you want to look into the law yourself, the relevant sections are
Section 4C of the British Nationality Act 1981 (which specifies the requirements for registration on Form UKM). In particular, see sub-section (4) of that Section.

The third condition is that immediately before 1st January 1983 the applicant would have had the right of abode in the United Kingdom by virtue of section 2 of the Immigration Act 1971 (c. 77) had he become a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies as described in subsection (3) above.

Section 2 of the Immigration Act 1971 as enacted (which defines who had Right of Abode before 1983, when you were born).

gsjaitla · Post by **gsjaitla** » Tue Jan 22, 2019 4:13 am

secret.simon wrote: ↑
Mon Jan 21, 2019 8:54 pm

gsjaitla wrote: ↑
Mon Jan 21, 2019 4:17 pm
So why deny my citizenship.
Because you are not eligible/do not meet the requirements of the law.

For your reference, in case you want to look into the law yourself, the relevant sections are
Section 4C of the British Nationality Act 1981 (which specifies the requirements for registration on Form UKM). In particular, see sub-section (4) of that Section.
The third condition is that immediately before 1st January 1983 the applicant would have had the right of abode in the United Kingdom by virtue of section 2 of the Immigration Act 1971 (c. 77) had he become a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies as described in subsection (3) above.
Section 2 of the Immigration Act 1971 as enacted (which defines who had Right of Abode before 1983, when you were born).

I would like to mention secret.simon that the law itself is mixed up for now... coz as you say that :

The third condition is that immediately before 1st January 1983 the applicant would have had the right of abode in the United Kingdom by virtue of section 2 of the Immigration Act 1971 (c. 77) had he become a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies as described in subsection (3) above.

it means that the law of UKM does not apply in a direct way to all children who were born before 1983 to a British mother. The reason the mother did not apply for my CUCK was because they were not aware of such things. Secondly, the law should then clearly state that UKM is being introduced only if your mother is born a british citizen and not otherwise. Its a very contradicting law and if required i guess we can argue over some points to rightfully get the British Citizenship.

I will try and hope for the best....in the meantime if anyone can share a good advice on how to approach this matter it really would be helpful......and thankful......

sunburn · Post by **sunburn** » Tue Jan 22, 2019 4:30 am

That’s correct - UKM doesn’t apply to all children of British mothers, only a subgroup - the title of Guide UKM says ‘certain persons’.

Specifically, it applies to those who also have right of abode in UK achieved either directly or through their mother.

UKM also works under certain circumstances besides the simple case of mother being born in UK . However they don’t appear to apply to you.

secret.simon · Post by **secret.simon** » Tue Jan 22, 2019 4:36 am

gsjaitla wrote: ↑
Tue Jan 22, 2019 4:13 am
it means that the law of UKM does not apply in a direct way to all children who were born before 1983 to a British mother.

No, it doesn't. It states very specific conditions to be met.

Specifically, it resolves the ability of British mothers being able to pass *CUKC* status to their children born abroad before 1983. It does not deal with or look at acquisition of RoA through the mother (because RoA can in most cases be inherited through a British born mother anyway).

gsjaitla wrote: ↑
Tue Jan 22, 2019 4:13 am
The reason the mother did not apply for my CUCK was because they were not aware of such things.

Your mother could not have applied for your CUKC because CUKC status descended only through CUKC fathers to children born overseas. CUKC mothers could not pass on CUKC citizenship to their children.

Even if they could, because you lack RoA, in 1983, you would have become a British Overseas Citizen, without the right to reside in the UK.

gsjaitla wrote: ↑
Tue Jan 22, 2019 4:13 am
Secondly, the law should then clearly state that UKM is being introduced only if your mother is born a british citizen and not otherwise.

It does. There is the direct link to Section 4C of the British Nationality Act 1981 above. Page 5 of Guide UKM summarises the requirements for Form UKM very clearly.

You may disagree with the requirements, but you can't say that they are not publicised or clear enough.

gsjaitla wrote: ↑
Tue Jan 22, 2019 4:13 am
Its a very contradicting law and if required i guess we can argue over some points to rightfully get the British Citizenship.

The law as it stands is clear. Reconsideration will have no advantage and will not result in a different result.

You will need to get your mother and brother to write to the MP to get the law changed before you can apply. Given that Brexit is taking up all parliamentary time currently, best of luck with that in the short-to-medium term.

sunburn wrote: ↑
Tue Jan 22, 2019 4:30 am
UKM also works under certain circumstances besides the simple case of mother being born in UK . However they don’t appear to apply to you.

The way I interpret it, Form UKM (and almost all methods of acquiring British citizenship) requires either an ancestral or a residential connection to the UK (as currently constituted).

sunburn · Post by **sunburn** » Tue Jan 22, 2019 4:49 am

secret.simon, yes that’s how I understand it . The options as I understand them are:
- mother born in UK (specifically the UK and not colonies)
- grandmother born in UK, mother born outside (non-Commonwealth country ?) - Romein route
- person both outside UK to CUKC (non UK born) mother and person resided in UK 5 years before 1983 .

Would you mind correcting me where I’m inaccurate or incomplete here ?

secret.simon · Post by **secret.simon** » Tue Jan 22, 2019 5:32 am

sunburn wrote: ↑
Tue Jan 22, 2019 4:49 am
The options as I understand them are:
- mother born in UK (specifically the UK and not colonies)
- grandmother born in UK, mother born outside (non-Commonwealth country ?) - Romein route
- person both outside UK to CUKC (non UK born) mother and person resided in UK 5 years before 1983 .

I concur with your summary, though given that it is late in the day (actually night) for me, I will respond more fully to the summary later.

Anyway, I am out of this thread. I think I could not have been clearer in my advice. I will leave the field for others to advise the OP further.

Two further suggestions to the OP.
a) Feel free to consult a British lawyer on this. Indeed, please show him this thread and ask him for feedback. I would learn something new if I was wrong.
b) Another way to get the law changed would be to take a court case on your application all the way to the UK Supreme Court. That is what Ms Romein did (as referenced by sunburn above with the reference to the Romein case). The English (or Scottish, depending on where your mother & brother are located) legal system is very expensive though. So you will need deep pockets.

luthersnowak · Post by **luthersnowak** » Tue Jan 22, 2019 8:25 pm

sunburn wrote: ↑
Tue Jan 22, 2019 4:49 am
secret.simon, yes that’s how I understand it . The options as I understand them are:
- mother born in UK (specifically the UK and not colonies)
- grandmother born in UK, mother born outside (non-Commonwealth country ?) - Romein route
- person both outside UK to CUKC (non UK born) mother and person resided in UK 5 years before 1983 .

Would you mind correcting me where I’m inaccurate or incomplete here ?

Dead on. The Romein decision applies to grandfather or grandmother born in the UK, but otherwise spot on.

kommissar · Post by **kommissar** » Tue Feb 05, 2019 7:50 am

Hey,

I was of the impression the Romein decision was only available to an applicant with a maternal British born grandfather and not a maternal British born grandmother. Perhaps I’m wrong.

Immigrationboards.com: Immigration, work visa and work permit discussion board

UKM Denied - After getting Biometric Enrolment successfully done Mail from Home Office

UKM Denied - After getting Biometric Enrolment successfully done Mail from Home Office

Re: UKM Denied - After getting Biometric Enrolment successfully done Mail from Home Office

Re: UKM Denied - After getting Biometric Enrolment successfully done Mail from Home Office

Re: UKM Denied - After getting Biometric Enrolment successfully done Mail from Home Office

Re: UKM Denied - After getting Biometric Enrolment successfully done Mail from Home Office

Re: UKM Denied - After getting Biometric Enrolment successfully done Mail from Home Office

Re: UKM Denied - After getting Biometric Enrolment successfully done Mail from Home Office

Re: UKM Denied - After getting Biometric Enrolment successfully done Mail from Home Office

Re: UKM Denied - After getting Biometric Enrolment successfully done Mail from Home Office

Re: UKM Denied - After getting Biometric Enrolment successfully done Mail from Home Office

Re: UKM Denied - After getting Biometric Enrolment successfully done Mail from Home Office

Re: UKM Denied - After getting Biometric Enrolment successfully done Mail from Home Office

Re: UKM Denied - After getting Biometric Enrolment successfully done Mail from Home Office

Re: UKM Denied - After getting Biometric Enrolment successfully done Mail from Home Office

Re: UKM Denied - After getting Biometric Enrolment successfully done Mail from Home Office

Re: UKM Denied - After getting Biometric Enrolment successfully done Mail from Home Office

Re: UKM Denied - After getting Biometric Enrolment successfully done Mail from Home Office

Re: UKM Denied - After getting Biometric Enrolment successfully done Mail from Home Office

Re: UKM Denied - After getting Biometric Enrolment successfully done Mail from Home Office

Re: UKM Denied - After getting Biometric Enrolment successfully done Mail from Home Office