Naturalization Refrees

Marco 72 · Post by **Marco 72** » Mon May 21, 2007 6:27 pm

Still, there is absolutely nothing in the form or in the guide even suggesting that the "professional standing" referee must have a British passport or even be a British citizen. It might have been an oversight on the Home Office's part, but I don't see how they could deny an application if someone used a non-British citizen as 'professional' referee.

maveli62 · Post by **maveli62** » Mon May 21, 2007 6:55 pm

accepted referees as per HO
Accountant

Articled clerk of a limited company

Assurance agent of recognised company

Bank/building society official

Barrister

British Computer Society (BCS) - Professional grades which are Associate (AMBCS), Member (MBCS), Fellow (FBCS) (PN 25/2003)

Broker

Chairman/director of limited company

Chemist

Chiropodist

Christian Science practitioner

Commissioner of oaths

Councillor: local or county

Civil servant (permanent)

Dentist

Designated Premises Supervisors

Director/Manager of a VAT registered Charity

Director/Manager/Personnel Officer of a VAT registered Company

Engineer (with professional qualifications)

Fire service official

Funeral director

Insurance agent (full time) of a recognised company

Journalist

Justice of the Peace

Legal secretary (members and fellows of the Institute of legal secretaries)

Local government officer

Manager/Personnel officer (of limited company)

Member of Parliament

Merchant Navy officer

Minister of a recognised religion

Nurse (SRN and SEN)

Officer of the armed services (active or retired)

Optician

Person with honours (e.g. OBE MBE etc.)

Personal Licensee Holders

Photographer (professional)

Police officer

Post Office official

President/Secretary of a recognised organisation

Salvation Army officer

Social worker

Solicitor

Surveyor

Teacher, lecturer

Trade union officer

Travel agency (qualified)

Valuers and auctioneers (fellow and associate members of the incorporated society)

Warrant officers and Chief Petty Officers

SYH · Post by **SYH** » Mon May 21, 2007 7:04 pm

Marco 72 wrote:Still, there is absolutely nothing in the form or in the guide even suggesting that the "professional standing" referee must have a British passport or even be a British citizen. It might have been an oversight on the Home Office's part, but I don't see how they could deny an application if someone used a non-British citizen as 'professional' referee.

Let's be careful here. It specifically says one referee must be a british citizen, of course it is possible to be a citizen without a passport. Also it is possible for the profeesional person not be a british citizen but that's probably why they want that person to be of profesional standing.

http://www.ind.homeoffice.gov.uk/6353/1 ... idean1.pdf

champion · Post by **champion** » Tue May 22, 2007 11:47 am

SYH wrote:
Marco 72 wrote:Still, there is absolutely nothing in the form or in the guide even suggesting that the "professional standing" referee must have a British passport or even be a British citizen. It might have been an oversight on the Home Office's part, but I don't see how they could deny an application if someone used a non-British citizen as 'professional' referee.
Let's be careful here. It specifically says one referee must be a british citizen, of course it is possible to be a citizen without a passport. Also it is possible for the profeesional person not be a british citizen but that's probably why they want that person to be of profesional standing.

http://www.ind.homeoffice.gov.uk/6353/1 ... idean1.pdf

I pointed this out to BIA long back and told them it says 1 person must be british doesn't mean that another person should be
they said there is a mistake both the people should be british if not then ur app might delayed / canceled
but as we know no one knows on this and I am sure even case worker dont know in details

SYH · Post by **SYH** » Tue May 22, 2007 11:53 am

champion wrote: I pointed this out to BIA long back and told them it says 1 person must be british doesn't mean that another person should be
they said there is a mistake both the people should be british if not then ur app might delayed / canceled
but as we know no one knows on this and I am sure even case worker dont know in details

Incredible! If you follow the directions you can be put upon. I generally check off every requirement on my application to show I completed their tasks and expectations. It shouldn't be held against you but why take a chance?

Marco 72 · Post by **Marco 72** » Tue May 22, 2007 12:13 pm

champion wrote:I pointed this out to BIA long back

How did you do that? Or do you mean you spoke to one of their call centre workers? They don't really know anything apart from what is written on the form and the guide.

transpondia · Post by **transpondia** » Tue May 22, 2007 12:21 pm

champion wrote:
SYH wrote:
Marco 72 wrote:I pointed this out to BIA long back and told them it says 1 person must be british doesn't mean that another person should be they said there is a mistake both the people should be british if not then ur app might delayed / canceled
but as we know no one knows on this and I am sure even case worker dont know in details

When the new forms were first printed, we went over them with the Parliamentary liason and made several corrections. The 1st Refereee full name was asked for twice for example. Some corrections made it to the revised form and some didn't.

For those following the thread...

[1] Both referees must be British citizens and there should be no confusion on that point. To change this rule to anything else would require legislation.

[2] At least one referee must hold a CURRENT British passport.

Marco 72 · Post by **Marco 72** » Tue May 22, 2007 12:28 pm

Transpondia, the passage you are quoting was not written by me...

SYH · Post by **SYH** » Tue May 22, 2007 12:55 pm

transpondia wrote: [For those following the thread...

[1] Both referees must be British citizens and there should be no confusion on that point. To change this rule to anything else would require legislation.

[2] At least one referee must hold a CURRENT British passport.

That's silly. One referee must hold a current British Passport.
Why is that if they are both British?
That doesn't prove anything.
Can anyone justify the necesity of the referee needing a British Passport if he is of British Nationality

transpondia · Post by **transpondia** » Tue May 22, 2007 2:22 pm

SYH wrote:That's silly. One referee must hold a current British Passport.
Why is that if they are both British?
That doesn't prove anything.
Can anyone justify the necesity of the referee needing a British Passport if he is of British Nationality

In the bigger picture, it means they will have the biometric details of one referee plus whatever other data records those are linked to. So at least one referee will be subject to heavy scrutiny with current technology.

Not that I endorse this strategy, or disclaim it either. It's just to explain what their strategy is...

SYH · Post by **SYH** » Tue May 22, 2007 2:32 pm

Not true, that depends if they got the Passport recently.= fir biometric details so I squash that theory.

transpondia · Post by **transpondia** » Tue May 22, 2007 2:36 pm

SYH wrote:Not true, that depends if they got the Passport recently.= fir biometric details so I squash that theory.

The bigger picture doesn't happen overnight. It will take some evolution to bring about 100% of the applicants, but it is in scope. So don't squash the rationale.

SYH · Post by **SYH** » Tue May 22, 2007 2:38 pm

transpondia wrote: The bigger picture doesn't happen overnight. It will take some evolution to bring about 100% of the applicants, but it is in scope. So don't squash the rationale.

Fair enough but I still personally think it is silly

transpondia · Post by **transpondia** » Tue May 22, 2007 2:45 pm

SYH wrote: Fair enough but I still personally think it is silly

If you enjoy irony, consider that unmarried partners can act as referees for their partner, but civil partners and spouses cannot vouch for their partner.

Post by **John** » Tue May 22, 2007 2:53 pm

The guide AN states :-

We will not accept a referee who is or appears to be your relative.

-: so Transpondia whilst you may be right, I think that if a referee has the same address as the applicant then there is a possibility that the position may be queried.

Accordingly I see using an unmarried partner as an unnecessary risk. If at all possible an unmarried partner should not be used.

Dawie · Post by **Dawie** » Tue May 22, 2007 3:00 pm

If your unmarried partner is a relative then you are committing incest. If the Home Office denies your application because they say your unmarried partner is a "relative" then they are basically accusing you of incest.

That's gross.

Post by **John** » Tue May 22, 2007 3:08 pm

If your unmarried partner is a relative then you are committing incest.

That would surely depend upon what relative the person is! For example, in the UK first cousins are allowed to marry and undoubtedly would not be committing incest in an unmarried situation.

Nevertheless cousins are relatives.

Dawie · Post by **Dawie** » Tue May 22, 2007 3:11 pm

John wrote:
If your unmarried partner is a relative then you are committing incest.
That would surely depend upon what relative the person is! For example, in the UK first cousins are allowed to marry and undoubtedly would not be committing incest in an unmarried situation.

Nevertheless cousins are relatives.

Yeah I know, just playing devil's advocate! But it's a fine line between what's a relative and what's not.

Where do step-parents, step-brothers, adoptive parents, etc all fit into the definition of what's a relative?

And of course, ultimately, we are all related to each other!

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

Naturalization Refrees