Passport refused - uncancelled passport in maiden name

About the HM PO February 2015 Change of name guidance
Ref: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/s ... -_v1_0.pdf

Foreign nationals who apply to become British citizens may be registered or naturalised in their married name. However, if a new citizen wants a British passport in their married name they must change the name on their other passport(s), travel documents and national identity card(s) to reflect their married name before submitting their application. Exceptions to this approach are set out in paragraphs 18 to 28 below

Note

A Home Office document which is a record of an event, such as a birth certificate or a naturalisation certificate, cannot normally be amended unless there are exceptional circumstances

Recognised multiple names

26.
British citizens who hold warranted titles or are known more commonly by their stage or professional name may use both names. An observation may be included in their passport

So para 26 clearly states an exception if it can be proven that both names are in use.
It needs to be established if this can apply to one or other of a married & a maiden name being used in a professional context.

Adoption, Birth and Naturalisation certificates

28.
These documents are records of events and changes to these records are not covered by this policy

Para 28 seems to mean that a naturalisation certification captures someone's name at a point in time, (on the day of the oath-taking ceremony).
It doesn't mean a person's name can never be changed after naturalisation; for example by changing it by deed poll.
And if a name is changed at a later date the naturalisation certificate will then be different because it records an event &, as per the note (above), such a certificate can never normally be changed.

This seems to mean even this new policy would allow someone to apply for a passport in their maiden name even if they were naturalised in their married name.

It may be that a Deed Poll would (unusually) have to be obtained to revert to the maiden name, rather than the usual step of simply presenting a marriage certificate to show the link between the 2 names.

It may mean that an original passport application made in the married name would have to be sacrificed;
meaning more stress & hassle, further delay, more cost, more inconvenience (a new application form & another visit to the counter-signatory), etc.

However it seems it could be a way forwards for those married ladies recently naturalised as a UK citizen using their married name who are currently trapped by the new UK policy;
i.e. if their dual country does not or will not allow cancellation or change of an original passport held in the maiden name (or the country prohibits revoking of original citizenship or the dual citizen does not wish to give up their original citizenship).

Note, I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice, it just represents my researches and my attempt at logical reasoning to solve this catch-22 scenario.
So further advice should be taken before acting.

Just discovered this useful service...

How to write to your politicians, national or local, for free.

Maryam1985

Your story exactly the same as mine and the same information HMPO and HOW were given me. I wonder which passport office dealing with your application?
Unfortunately I haven't heard about any single case as ours was sorted successful yet. I am trying my best to sort out mine, but nothing changed so far. I sent oficial complaint to Newport office and Southport office (as both addresses appeared at HMPO website), but seems my complained end up in the exactly same Liverpool office which handle my application. So probably won't work.
Right after election I am going to visit my MP, next stage will be immigration solicitor. I am trying to negotiate with Passport Office for my application to be changed from my married name to my maiden name, like noah than has suggested, but HMPO don't want to do it either.
It's would be good if we are all will raise this issue with our MP's asking them to speak for us in Parlament. Then maybe the rules will be changed eventually, as they are ridiculous and discriminative. And yes, other people still receiving their British passport on their married name while their home passport on their maiden name, it's happen right now and of course they send their home passports.

Funny what I find about Passport Office who deal with my application

https://www.facebook.com/liverpassporto ... ts_to_page

I spoke to the lawyers but it wasn't particularly encouraging.

Apparently the passport people are as robotic and irrational and inconsistent in their dealings with them as they are with us. Furthermore, they have, say the lawyers, become even more so in the past year or so. They can theoretically be taken to task in various ways, but they often ignore this, not because it's officially allowed, but because they know they can get away with it.

They say that if contesting a passport refusal doesn't work, one can proceed to 'judicial review' which can cost from 500 to 2000 pounds or thereabouts, the idea being that the unsuccessful claimant will have to pay the passport robots' legal fees as well as their own!

After that, the claimant can proceed to a hearing stage, which however is prohibitively expensive because it involves a varied cast of barristers and whatnot, and their fees can spiral out of control; so hardly anyone goes that far.

The crux of the matter, in a sense, is what we've said many times: a passport is a concession rather than a right. So any argument about our having the *right* to name ourselves as we like is outside the realm of the discretion where the passport rules live. Our right to choose our names can be respected by the citizenship authorities without that having to translate into a right for that name, which we have and which is acknowledged, to then be written on a passport, a document to which we have no right.

Now, the lawyers told me that in a challenge to the passport people's new silly name rule, the challenger would have to prove to a judge that the rule itself was irrational or its application was inconsistent with its own rationale. The passport people could therefore claim all sorts of rationales for their new rule and then assert that their behaviour was compatible with those rationales. The lawyers understood, I hope, my point about 'security concerns', which appear to be the 'rationale' behind the asinine regulation, being undermined with staggering facility by means of a note in the British passport stating 'holder is named as [maiden name] on their passport from Nation X', but thought that such an observation might not be perceived by a judge as a reason to strike down the rule, though it might persuade the relevant arbiter to grant an exception.

Basically my stance is precisely one of 'rationale': I accept that in some cases there may need to be a rule which protects against covert name changes for criminal purposes, but what I am requesting is not that the name discrepancy rule be abolished in all forms and all circumstances, but merely that a discretionary mechanism be introduced whereby *overt* *non-criminal* name changes can be granted, maybe subject to, as I said, the proviso that the British passport explicitly state the name held on another passport, specifying the nationality of that passport. That would remove any secrecy. If I were to want to engage in criminal activity under my 'secret' identity - my maiden name, which incidentally is recorded on my birth certificate and other documents known to the citizenship and passport people - then I would have difficulties doing so if my British passport constantly brought the existence of this other identity to the attention of anyone who cared to look at it, especially if my foreign passport does openly declare my married name on the observation page! If the 'rationale' is one of security, then actions which completely declaw any security concerns remove the raison d'etre of the passport refusal, in my opinion, which I think is founded quite sturdily in reason.

Now, noajthan, you say that the passport people said that if your wife's country cannot change her name on her passport, you could still obtain her married name on her British passport by providing a statement from the relevant authorities of that nation stating that they will not add her married name to her passport. I would like to try and see if this route works, as well as the strategy of providing evidence that I've officially asked my non-British country to add my married name to my passport. The passport people are inconsistent in their claims, with different bots making different statements, as the lawyers have told me; so the bot I get might completely deny this option. Would there be any possibility of my obtaining evidence from you - if it comes to that - that you have been told this by the passport people, so that they can't deny me an option which was offered you? That might be a life-saver.

Antsmall wrote:I spoke to the lawyers but it wasn't particularly encouraging.

...

Now, noajthan, you say that the passport people said that if your wife's country cannot change her name on her passport, you could still obtain her married name on her British passport by providing a statement from the relevant authorities of that nation stating that they will not add her married name to her passport. I would like to try and see if this route works, as well as the strategy of providing evidence that I've officially asked my non-British country to add my married name to my passport. The passport people are inconsistent in their claims, with different bots making different statements, as the lawyers have told me; so the bot I get might completely deny this option. Would there be any possibility of my obtaining evidence from you - if it comes to that - that you have been told this by the passport people, so that they can't deny me an option which was offered you? That might be a life-saver.

Antsmall,
confirmation of the legal and bureaucratic nightmare we all find ourselves in, but a helpful summary nevertheless.

Just to clarify, in our dealings the HM PO didn't explicitly say:

... you could still obtain her married name on her British passport by providing a statement from the relevant authorities of that nation stating that they will not add her married name to her passport

From the (only) letter we have received from HM PO:

If the authorities are unable to amend your name so that it is the same as on your Naturalization certificate, or if the ... authorities state that you are no longer entitled to hold a <foreign> passport, we will require written confirmation of this from the <foreign> authorities.

>> Note it doesn't clearly state any next options in this scenario, just that they would need a declaration.

& this option was offered to us:

Use of maiden name

Alternatively you may choose to have your name on your British passport as <maiden name>. To do this we will require a new application form in the name of <maiden name>, evidence of the change of name to <maiden name>, and documents to confirm you are now using the name <maiden name> for all purposes, such as a current letter from your employer or government department.

The other possibilities I can see are based on the exceptions mentioned in the new Change of Name Guidance (PDF):

It is not intended to make it more difficult for the majority of people who change their names for obvious reasons, such as marriage.

11. Foreign nationals who apply to become British citizens may be registered or naturalised in their married name. However, if a new citizen wants a British passport in their married name they must change the name on their other passport(s), travel documents and national identity card(s) to reflect their married name before submitting their application. Exceptions to this approach are set out in paragraphs 18 to 28 below

- the relevant clauses seem to be 26 & 28:

26. British citizens who hold warranted titles or are known more commonly by their stage or professional name may use both names. An observation may be included in their passport.

>> As per this new policy, #26 is surely confirming a request can be made to have a British passport with an official observation added (if the certain conditions can be demonstrated).

For a woman, it doesn't state which name can be (or has to be) the 'professional' one (maiden or married);
it doesn't explicitly bar either of them being used either way round.

So - possibility 1: official observation
Maybe this is the exception that can be made (/should be made) if a declaration from the dual country can be obtained about the impossibility or impracticality of changing names/documents in that other country.

Maybe this is the way to have a British passport in married name (with appropriate observation about maiden name) even if a current foreign passport cannot be changed to match.

This is the kind of discretionary option you talked about Antsmall, and here is the HO policy that will permit the HM PO officials to do it.

Having imposed the policy on us all they just have to use it fully & fairly, including the exceptions, so that all decisions are proportionate & don't interfere with the silent majority of regular citizens.

Adoption, Birth and Naturalisation certificates
28. These documents are records of events and changes to these records are not covered by this policy

It seems clear a naturalisation certificate records a person's status at a point in time; it is not to be kept updated even if a name changes at a later date (same as for a birth certificate).

Possibility 2 - back to maiden name
Note #28 is why I believe even if naturalised in a married name (and caught out by this poorly-publicised new policy), it should, as per this policy, be possible to have a British passport issued in a maiden name, (if that matches the current foreign passport).

This also chimes with the offer suggested in the HM PO letter I quoted above.

Hope it helps.

Various posters wrote:A passport is a priviledge, not a right

Universal Declaration of Human Rights wrote:Article 13, Section 2 - Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.

I just don't agree that a passport is a 'priviledge' in this case, and not a right. The UK is now implementing passport exit checks at all major ports. How can anyone travel outside of the UK without a valid passport of some kind? What country will allow someone to enter their country without a valid passport or equivalent travel documentation? The United Kingdom is a signatory to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. If they chose not to honor that agreement, so be it. But I don't see how the Passport Office will win a case and have the person bringing the case pay for their legal fees when the UK has specifically signed an international agreement saying that they will not do exactly the sort of thing they are doing! Sure I can see the women losing the case if the UK decides to abbrogate or flat out leave the treaty, effectively denying an entire class of women the right ever travel outside of the country again. But paying for the UK's legal fees as well? Maybe a legal expert can chime in and explain how that is possible? The women caught up in this crazy scenario cannot qualify for stateless travel documentation, cannot get valid documentation from their countries of birth, and cannot even get valid travel from their own home country (the United Kingdom). This is in direct violation of this treaty unless someone can explain to me how it is not.

Noajthan: I personally extremely strongly don't want to go by only my maiden name. As a child of a broken home, I've always dreamt of creating my own family, having been denied a family all my life. Now that I finally found a husband (well, nine years ago actually) I am being told that I have to be 'Miss' and the odd one out, with a different name from the rest of my family (even if I were to produce offspring they would have his name and I would be singled out) and that would be deeply painful. One of my main reasons for wanting my father's British nationality, after marriage that is, was to gain my husband's name and finally be part of something; instead for the past nine years of otherwise happy marriage I've been forced by my other country, the only one of which I currently hold citizenship, to have only my maiden name on my passport because of that country's misguided policy of 'emancipating' people by denying them the right to choose their own identity (because my choice is viewed as 'patriarchal', they should choose instead of me: I don't see how this is 'empowering' other than in the way of making all women cut off their hair and wear trousers because long hair and skirts were the norm in the dark days of gender apartheid and are therefore automatically 'patriarchal'). So no, that's not an option for me, personally. I fought all these years to change the British nationality law to include me, and now that I've managed, what, am I supposed to change the naming laws of another country before I'm simply allowed to be part of a family?

This is, incidentally, even more painful because in my husband's country, husband and wife are legally required to have the same name. Therefore every time we travel there, which obviously we do frequently, I am declaring to every official who sees my passport that I am not this man's wife, and I'm sure they're thinking 'of course he didn't marry that ugly gaijin'. It is deeply humiliating. I am being forced to broadcast an identity which I don't feel is mine while abjuring the one that I've always chosen.

Anyway. A bit off-topic, but this is the unnecessary result of bureaucrats' procrustean impositions on innocent crime-free people - treating them as criminals *in case* they want to commit crimes. It is my contention that this goes against the presumption of innocence, but I'm not a lawyer. The lawyer I spoke to pronounced this angle 'interesting', but added that vast monetary resources would be necessary to explore it fully.

ouflak1: it is my understanding that the UDHR is not legally binding. I'm sure there are better sources than this (I did have to dig them up for my PhD thesis so I'm reasonably sure they exist), but for now:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_ ... man_Rights
"Even though it is not legally binding, the Declaration has been adopted in or has influenced most national constitutions since 1948. It has also served as the foundation for a growing number of national laws, international laws, and treaties, as well as for a growing number of regional,sub national, and national institutions protecting and promoting human rights."
Its derivatives, the ICESCR and the ICCPR, are legally binding and we might find something there that fits. The stuff which MariaD (if I remember rightly - having trouble scrolling down past pages while writing) found a few posts ago might be useful:
http://www.humanrights.is/en/human-righ ... and-gender
"The Committee is of the view that a person’s surname constitutes an important component of one’s identity and that the protection against arbitrary or unlawful interference with one’s privacy includes the protection against arbitrary or unlawful interference with the right to choose and change one’s own name".
This has been cited a lot, e.g. on p. 534 of The international covenant on civil and political rights: cases, materials and commentary, third edition, Sarah Joseph and Melissa Castan, OUP, 2013.

I of course find it quite monstrous that a passport should be a privilege and not a right. I find it unjust and quite frankly verging on the totalitarian.
"United Kingdom passports are issued in the UK at the discretion of the Home Secretary and in overseas posts at the discretion of the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. They are issued in exercise of the Royal Prerogative, which is an executive power that doesn’t require legislation. There is however, no entitlement to a passport".
"Because passport facilities are granted at the discretion of the Secretary of State exercising the Royal Prerogative, there is no contractual relationship between the IPS and a passport applicant."
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/s ... gative.pdf
Despite the fact that it is archaically draconian, that appears to be their stance, though some weak ways of challenging individual passport decisions have developed over the years.

Of course, the pdf I just posted cites reasons for refusing passports as being really serious ones. However, the new name discrepancy document issued in February 2015 (which was given in an earlier post, but let's have it again because why not:
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/crac ... -detection
And more specifically https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... e-guidance)
makes it quite clear that they won't issue a passport in one's new name if one can't get that new name on one's foreign passport. That in conjunction with the rather contemptible 'royal prerogative, no right to a passport' idea renders our prospects 'drear', as Rabbie Burns would say (and as a product of the Scottish Enlightenment he would find this whole mechanism despicable).

So it seems that either the HMPO's request, as per noajthan's letter, for written confirmation implies that then they will issue the passport in the desired name (which it may not), or evidence, as per MariaD's experience if I remember correctly, that one has *applied* for a change of name with one's foreign passport authorities will be accepted as grounds for issuing the passport in one's desired name, or one is up a river of metabolic effluvia bereft of means of propulsion and must either go for judicial review (which as I say is likely to cost 2000 queenie papers), take it further by means of a heavy-duty legal challenge involving e.g. the UDHR, the presumption of innocence and that verdict re: the ICCPR which I cited above (at the cost of even more wonga which many of us may not have - I know I don't), battle one's non-British country for name change (as I am currently doing, though the quest is almost certainly doomed, hence heroic but ultimately irrelevant), or abandon one's foreign citizenship and provide a magic letter to that effect from one's former homeland - a most horrifying thing to ask someone to do. (Some countries, of course, make it easy to regain that nationality. Just saying).

I do suspect that even if a legal fisticuffs involving the right to choose one's name under international law would be declared as conveying the right to British citizens to change their names - a right which they already have - the passport people will still say 'yes, you have the right to HAVE that name, in some theoretical disembodied way, but not specifically to have it on the identity page of your passport, because we're above the law, and furthermore, nanny nanny boo boo'.

However, the right to control one's name under international law might be useful in obtaining a name change in one's non-British country which refuses to change one's name; again this may involve much bureaucracy and painful disbursement of pecuniary resources of which I am sadly bereft. However, I do intend to use this angle, inter alia, in my challenge to my non-British country's refusal to change my name, which is ongoing.

As you can see, this nestless birdie really, really wants a nest.

Antsmall wrote:ouflak1: it is my understanding that the UDHR is not legally binding.

Correct. Hency my statement that if they decide not to follow it, or even leave the agreement altogether, then so be it. That's their choice. Heck even some legally binding treaties aren't worth the paper they're printed on.

Antsmall wrote:I of course find it quite monstrous that a passport should be a privilege and not a right. I find it unjust and quite frankly verging on the totalitarian.

United Kingdom Government wrote:"....There is however, no entitlement to a passport".
"Because passport facilities are granted at the discretion of the Secretary of State exercising the Royal Prerogative, there is no contractual relationship between the IPS and a passport applicant."

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

Which is fine. I'm not saying a passport is a right in those cases where an alternative for that individual actually exists. Dual citizens can travel on there alternative passports, and get ROA endorsements. Stateless people can, in theory, get travel documentation from any government in the world. If someone gets their passport confiscated because of hooliganism, then they shouldn't have been a hooligan, subsequently foregoing that right to travel. The point is that ss long as there exists a realistic possibility to be able to leave the country, and return to your country of citizenship at its border, then you don't have a right to a passport. But there is no theoretical possibility for women who have married and changed their names with their maiden name in their previous passport from a country that doesn't allow dual citizenship. You cannot get travel documentation from your home because you are no longer a citizen. You cannot get Stateless travel documentation because you are not statelees. By denying such women a passport, they are denying them to the fundamental right to leave their country and return to their home country at its border. Perhaps I wasn't clear about that. Sorry.

Antsmall wrote:... name change legalities...

Interesting. I just don't know enough about that to comment except to say good luck.

Antsmall wrote:As you can see, this nestless birdie really, really wants a nest.

You are not a nestless birdie. You represent an entire class of women who are being denied a fundamental right. If anything, the UK isn't letting you leave the nest. Even if you wanted to!

Yes, I had understood the point about everyone having the right to leave their country, including their own. I meant to comment on that but, unladylike as it is, I really needed the loo and had to run! But yes, just as we theoretically have the right to leave the country but the passport office doesn't give us the document which happens to be the only means of doing that (legally), so we theoretically have the right to choose our names, except that the passport office doesn't give us the right to specifically have that name on a particular document. And yes, perhaps the travel thing could be challenged.

Interestingly, even for dual nationals this may be relevant because entering one's own country on the passport of a foreign country is an expatriating act and is illegal, or something along those lines (again I'm not a lawyer). So if I were a dual British-Ruritanian citizen, denial of my British passports on grounds that Ruritania doesn't allow married names would mean that I couldn't enter Britain, a country of which I am a citizen, on my British passport, because I couldn't have one; and by entering Britain on a Ruritanian passport I'd be perpetrating an act which is some kind of illegal. So by denying me a passport, the British passport people would also be denying me the right to enter my own country legally. So even if we grudgingly accept for the sake of argument that we don't have a legal right to a passport, we still retain the legal right to enter our own country, and refusal of a passport, especially on non-criminal grounds ('crime prediction', 'FutureCrime' or whatever scifi name they want to give it) is hindering that legal right. I wonder if that can be challenged. Probably, with enough mula. And I wonder if it would work.

Antsmall wrote: And yes, perhaps the travel thing could be challenged.

Even if they deny you the 'travel thing', forever trapping you in this country, I don't see how they could make you, or anyone challenging this restriction, pay their legal fees. Especially as you and everybody else affected by this law had every good reason to expect to be able to travel out of the country based the rather glaring fact that the UK is one of the first signatorees to a treaty specifically granting this right!

Antsmall wrote: Interestingly, even for dual nationals this may be relevant because entering one's own country on the passport of a foreign country is an expatriating act and is illegal,

Not for the United States it isn't. Other countries may have their own specific laws on the matter. The U.S. does require that its citizens have a passport when entering the country at a controlled border. But even then, there is no punitive measure in place. If the citizen can prove their citizenship, they have to be allowed in, no matter where they enter and/or how they prove their citizenship. If a citizen tried to enter on a foreign passport, one swipe of that passport would probably be enough for the truth to come out. So weird questions, for somebody trying to do something kind of weird, and a huge delay as some background checks are done to see if you are trying to hide from the law or something. Nothing more than that. But that's just one country. Each and every country is going to be different.

Hmm. Well this may be relevant
http://irdial.com/blogdial/?p=195
though it is a bit old.

The thing is, if a British citizen is allowed to leave and/or enter Britain without a British passport, then the link between passport refusal and refusal of the right to leave or enter one's own country no longer subsists, which means that we can't use that argument as grounds for contesting refusal of a British passport.

Antsmall wrote:Hmm. Well this may be relevant
http://irdial.com/blogdial/?p=195
though it is a bit old.

The thing is, if a British citizen is allowed to leave and/or enter Britain without a British passport, then the link between passport refusal and refusal of the right to leave or enter one's own country no longer subsists, which means that we can't use that argument as grounds for contesting refusal of a British passport.

But what country is going to allow you into their country without you have any travel documents? The UK Right of Abode certificate is strictly an arrangement between the UK and that individual. No other country recognizes this as anything other than just that. I doubt most countries even have a similar designation document. Sure, with an ROA, you could travel into the UK without a passport. But how would you travel outside of the UK in the first place to even get to use that ROA? You need atleast some kind of travel document; a passport, stateless papers, a residency ID for that country, something. You can't get a passport from your country of birth because you are no longer a citizen. You can't get stateless papers because you aren't stateless. I am assuming you aren't a permanent resident of another country (and even if so, how many issue such an ID that can be used in lieu of a passport?). Most international airlines won't let you board a plane without a passport or equivalent documentation. But I don't think you would even make it that far. With UK now doing exit checks, that would probably be the end of the line for anyone without a passport or equivalent documentation right then and there.

I personally, by default, would remain a citizen of my non-British country after registering for British citizenship by descent, because both countries allow dual citizenship, so citizenship of the other country wouldn't be lost upon acquisition of British citizenship. For people in this position - dual nationals - the argument 'refusal of a British passport undermines my right to travel' would only apply if any subset of travel - for instance 'travel *to* the UK' - would be hindered by absence of a British passport. As it stands, it seems that this is not the case, and therefore dual nationals couldn't use this argument against refusal of a British passport. What we are ultimately trying to do, if I understand correctly, is to find arguments against refusal of a British passport on grounds of discrepancy with the name on a foreign passport. This route may therefore be useless for dual nationals at least, provided that entry into Britain on a foreign passport is allowed for British (dual) citizens.

Those who have only British citizenship could use this argument, but if the only reason for refusal of a British passport were the presence of a foreign passport with a different name on it, belonging to their former country, then presumably this could be solved by means of some document from the relevant authorities declaring that the person is no longer a citizen and therefore their non-British passport is not valid. Of course, acquiring such a document is another matter, as we can see from noajthan's difficulties in obtaining the same, but it would merely be a statement of an inconfutable fact, and it would be unreasonable of the authorities to deny it. This is not to say that the history of mankind has never witnessed instances in which authorities have been less than reasonable.

Update on my wife's case...

It's taken 3 or 4 phone calls & 4 or more emails since our visit in person to the embassy on 30 April.
There has been a lot of confusion over arranging a Certificate of Cancellation as it doesn't seem to be a regular procedure.

Even after the embassy visit and all requested documents (& passport) had been filed we were still being asked:

• what do you want & why?
  we will need your passport (they had it);
  we will need to see naturalisation certificate;
  (as explained, original is being held at HM PO so scan copy mailed in 4 times over);
  better if you can call in person (we had);

At last, this morning, Royal Mail Track & Trace shows a package is on its way to us from the Philippine embassy.
Hopefully that is the duly cancelled passport & an accompanying Certificate of Cancellation.

Antsmall wrote: Those who have only British citizenship could use this argument, but if the only reason for refusal of a British passport were the presence of a foreign passport with a different name on it, belonging to their former country, then presumably this could be solved by means of some document from the relevant authorities declaring that the person is no longer a citizen and therefore their non-British passport is not valid.

That's simply not a logical deduction. Denying someone the human right to leave their country on the wild and baseless presumption that some other country might have some bureaucracy established to formally recognize that someone is not a citizen? There is no international agreement or any kind of unwritten understanding that any nation provide such verification. Even if there were, the UK, or any country, cannot assume that such documentation is actually available without restrictions (such as time limits to apply). Heck the country(ies) in question might not even exist anymore, or could be in the midst of all sorts of social upheaval. This is a groundless argument for defending the denial of a human right as expressed in a treaty that the UK is signatory to.

Anyway, good luck with the Philippines and thanks for keeping us updated. I'm impressed and amazed that they are going along with this (I wouldn't if I were them), and I think you are very lucky. I could find no such equivalent procedure for the U.S. to get such verification. As far as I'm aware, nothing like that exists. I suspect the same is true for most countries in the world. Once you're gone, you're gone. Anything else that requires passports and such things is strictly business between you and your new country.

ouflak1 wrote:Anyway, good luck with the Philippines and thanks for keeping us updated. I'm impressed and amazed that they are going along with this (I wouldn't if I were them), and I think you are very lucky. I could find no such equivalent procedure for the U.S. to get such verification. As far as I'm aware, nothing like that exists. I suspect the same is true for most countries in the world. Once you're gone, you're gone. Anything else that requires passports and such things is strictly business between you and your new country.

ouflak1, many thanks for your continuing support.

Well, I haven't seen yet what we've been sent.
And HM PO will still have to agree to accept it. That's not a given.

Even at the embassy, only 1 official seemed to have any idea what we were talking about and asking for.
And she had disappeared (off duty) by the time we returned with photocopies; the other 3 or 4 officials we then spoke to weren't so clued up.
The subsequent phone calls seem to confirm this.
It's clearly not a standard or well-established procedure they're executing for us.

And I agree it only shows a status at a single point of time;
any piece of paper from another country doesn't really stop people using other names in this jurisdiction as per British tradition (& English common law).
How could it

In the meantime, keeping fingers crossed and feeling about 60% confident so far.

noajthan wrote:Well, I haven't seen yet what we've been sent.
And HM PO will still have to agree to accept it. That's not a given.

The long-awaited 'Certificate of Cancellation' and my wife's newly-cancelled passport have been received from the embassy.

The certificate confirms the passport is not valid and that, since the date of UK naturalisation, my wife is no longer entitled to hold a Philippine passport.
It is written in the form of a legal document on embossed and ornate official embassy paper; it has been duly signed and stamped by the consul, rather like an affidavit.

As all seems in order, and it complies with what the HM PO official asked for, the documents have now been repackaged and sent on to HM PO.

Ouflak1, no ad hominem attacks please. There are gentler ways to investigate the ramifications of an issue than to accuse a well-intentioned and polite person of being illogical and making "wild and baseless presumptions". I really hope not to be drawn into an endless argument about something which is getting increasingly theoretical just to defend myself against aspersions on my intelligence. I'm having enough problems with the passport people without having the urgent need for yet more problems.

The issue initially under discussion (in this particular subset of the thread, of which a major theme appears to be 'how to challenge the passport people's new habit of denying people passports on the basis of name discrepancy') was whether denial of a British passport interferes with a person's right, under international law (assuming for the sake of argument that there is one, which is a different matter), to enter or leave their own country. This presupposes that the person is a British citizen of course. If the person is going to be allowed to enter or leave their own country (Britain) without a British passport, then the passport issue is rendered moot because a passport is not necessary to enter or leave the country. If instead, for whatever reason, the person cannot enter or leave Britain without a British passport, then refusal of a passport does indeed interfere with the right to leave or enter one's own country, and this can perhaps be used as an argument for contesting refusal of a passport. So far so logical, I hope. The whole thing is really an extended tautology.

One subspecies of 'being able to enter and leave Britain without a British passport' is 'possession of another citizenship and its passport which one can use to travel instead of a British passport'. If a British citizen can enter or leave Britain on a foreign passport, then denial of a British passport again doesn't preclude the right to leave or enter Britain, and hence can't be contested on those grounds (which of course doesn't exclude a challenge on other grounds).

And if denial of a British passport is based entirely on possession of another citizenship in which one has another identity than that requested on the British passport, then it follows - quite logically I daresay - that if one *does not* in fact possess the foreign citizenship to which the passport authorities are (rightly or wrongly - which again is a completely different issue) objecting, then the passport people's grounds for refusal of the passport are in fact invalid. What is missing is a method of *demonstrating* that one does not possess that citizenship and its attendant 'other identity'. Yes, it does not automatically follow from the proposition 'one does not have the citizenship of country X' that 'country X will issue a statement proving that one does not have its nationality'. I am only pointing out that, again, if possession of that citizenship, and its other identity, is what the British passport people find (logically or not) objectionable, then *some* demonstration of non-possession of that citizenship, which could (but need not necessarily) come under the form of the aforementioned statement kindly issued by the relevant authorities of the foreign country, should be enough to convince the British passport people that their objection has been undermined - if they behave in a coherent and rational manner, that is, which is not necessarily the case and is another matter.

Yes, it is arguably unreasonable of the British passport people to demand such declarations from foreign authorities in response to their own recently concocted regulations, as it is arguably daft of them to assume that foreign authorities have a mechanism in place to declare the non-citizenship of a person. It is, in a similar manner, highly obtuse of them to assume that foreign authorities will easily change a person's name, and to take the consequent step of denying British citizens the well-established common-law right to choose their own name just because they are dual nationals of a country with inferior name-choosing rights. This can be construed as Britain bowing down to the substandard rights provided by other countries and withdrawing the normal rights of citizens from some of its own citizens, ultimately because of their dual nationality. I think that even if we assume (again, for the sake of argument) that the new 'no discrepancy with foreign identity' rule has a security-based or other justification, any security threats caused by a person being called X in Britain and Y on their foreign passport issued by country Z can be circumvented with staggering ease by means of a note on the British passport stating "holder is also known as Y on their passport from country Z". Rendering the issue of a British passport in 'another identity' contingent on such a note being placed in that passport would be a more reasonable way of solving the alleged security problem than denying the passport altogether, it can be argued.

And yes, I do regard it as quite grotesque to make it a privilege, and not a right, to hold a British passport. It verges on the totalitarian: these unaccountable bureaucrats have the extra-legal right to deny what is one of the main documents that a person requires and have ultimate sole discretion over the matter. That is undemocratic, I submit.

The fact that I explore various aspects and intersections of unreasonable regulations doesn't mean that I endorse these unreasonable regulations. It so happens that I find them highly objectionable. However, I am trying to figure out how they work, and in so doing I'm trying to see how they interact with other laws and regulations to see if a solution can be found.

Now, please let's be nice and peaceful and friendly to each other, because the world (including its various bureaucratic manifestations dreamt up by a certain subset of humans) already creates enough unpleasantness for us without our having the pressing necessity to manufacture even more unpleasantness for ourselves. Let's be gentle to each other, ok? Why wouldn't we?

noajthan wrote:

noajthan wrote:Well, I haven't seen yet what we've been sent.
And HM PO will still have to agree to accept it. That's not a given.

.... and it complies with what the HM PO official asked for...

I still find this part very strange. It's not the Phillipines responsibility to make sure that UK citizens can leave their own country in conformance with basic human rights. It's the UK's responsibility to make sure its citizens can leave the country in conformance with human rights. I hope you've made a copy of all your correspondance. I think you have genuine civil rights complaint against the UK government. You might be able to get a nice settlement.

Antsmall wrote:Ouflak1, no ad hominem attacks please. There are gentler ways to investigate the ramifications of an issue than to accuse a well-intentioned and polite person of being illogical and making "wild and baseless presumptions". I really hope not to be drawn into an endless argument about something which is getting increasingly theoretical just to defend myself against aspersions on my intelligence. I'm having enough problems with the passport people without having the urgent need for yet more problems.

That wasn't aimed at you. That was aimed at the UK government. Unfortunately, for some strange reason, they've changed the edit time limits and I couldn't make that clear. We used to have a full 24 hours to correct/update posts. They seemed to have changed that to 5 minutes.

If the UK thinks that it is logical or reasonable that foreign nations should ensure that UK citizens can travel outside of the United Kingdom on the assumption of the existance some beauracracy that likely doesn't exist for 90% of the countries of the world, then they need to be taken to task for that line of thinking. Especially since the UK has often been the most critical of countries that wouldn't allow their own citizens to leave their country. But it really is more than just gross hypocracy. You and others are being denied a fundamental human right. This cannot be allowed to continue.

Ok. I understand.

The British authorities (or at least the ones that are behaving like this) are indeed being unreasonable and arrogant. I think it's also unreasonable of them to assume that other countries allow the ease of name-changing that Britain does (to those who aren't dual nationals) and punish people whose other nationalities have inferior name-choosing rights.

Page 6 (paras 21-23) of this
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/s ... -_v1_0.pdf
concerns transgender people and basically says that they must either get their non-British country to accept their new identity and place it on their foreign passports, or 'seek to revoke' their other citizenship(s). I mean, that is grotesque. Someone whose country doesn't understand their new gender identity may yet continue to love that country and consider it a part of their identity; they may reasonably want to be able to visit their relatives there without having to jump through complicated and expensive hoops (visas etc). This holds especially true since many of the countries which absolutely reject any gender change, gay rights etc are also the ones that make travel difficult for foreigners. How cruel to make someone choose between the country they love (even if it has a silly government) - with the ability to visit their own relatives there - and the identity with which they feel most comfortable.

Yes, they are being unreasonable, inflexible, unimaginative and unnecessarily obtuse on many counts. Rather provincial as well.

I anticipate that I will have the same problem when applying for my first British passport.

My birth country's passport ( which is blank but valid, it's a replacement of a lost/stolen ) is issued in my maiden name and my naturalisation certificate is in my married name ( although there's an error on the certificate, an error from the HO's side which I will send to be amended next week but that's another boring story ).

Reading through this thread, it looks like if I send my valid passport which is under my maiden name, the British passport application will be refused.

Adding to the complication, my current surname is still my dad's name double barrelled with my husband's surname.
I didn't want to give up my father's name altogether.

A while back, I contacted my embassy in London, to enquire if I could have my name changed in my passport to reflect my married name and I was advised that I would have to go back to my country and reapply for it in person giving notice to the attorney general and it would take several months as they have to give notices in various newspapers. I checked this information with the change of name guidance of my country's laws and it appears to be true. More worryingly, the embassy doesn't issue any letter to this effect as it's outside the scope of their work.

I do, however, have a deed poll from many years ago, whereby I changed my maiden name to reflect my married name; I don't know if this will help?.

Alternatively, I am thinking to cancel my current passport, hence, I won't have this issue?. I will still retain my birth country's citizenship but only cancel the passport. I suppose I could also "lose" it "again" somehow
But, I am concerned that my embassy won't cancel it. I will have to book an appointment for next week and check with them. My country does allow dual citizenship.

I would have hoped that a deed poll would be sufficient document to show the change of name, along with a marriage certificate, but reading through this thread, it appears that the passport office doesn't issue a British passport if another passport is in a different name regardless of a deed poll or marriage certificate.

If I knew all these issues were going to happen, I would have applied for BC in my maiden name but that also would have been an issue as I didn't have all my documents in my maiden name. All my documents were in my married name. The only document in my maiden name was my passport.

And apparently, I can't correct my name on the naturalisation certificate now as it has to reflect what I had written down on my application form.

Therefore, it's a catch 22, which is frankly quite worrying. And there I was thinking it's all over. Hardly.


Good luck to everyone in this thread.

Antsmall wrote:... unreasonable, inflexible, unimaginative and unnecessarily obtuse on many counts. Rather provincial as well.

No need to stop there! But it doesn't matter if they are being <*deep breath*> reasonable, flexible, creative, exceptionally conducive and very worldly. Either way, the instant they deny one of their citizens the right to travel outside of the country, then they either need to demonstrate due process (that citizen is a hooligan or possibly trying to flee for some legal reason) or they need to be the ones who are making all of the efforts to resolve the human rights violation. They should have been the ones chasing verification through the state department and the Phillipines counterpart, or they should quickly pass through rules that deal with married women who have name changes, or something, anything to ensure that their citizens have the right to leave the country in the spirit of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of which they signatories. If the government of the United Kingdom is unwilling or unable to fulfill this duty, then they should recuse themselves from the UDHR treaty and never ever again criticise any of the many countries that notoriously behave in the same manner, especially with women.

hellonewhere wrote:I anticipate that I will have the same problem when applying for my first British passport.

My birth country's passport ( which is blank but valid, it's a replacement of a lost/stolen ) is issued in my maiden name and my naturalisation certificate is in my married name ( although there's an error on the certificate, an error from the HO's side which I will send to be amended next week but that's another boring story ).

Reading through this thread, it looks like if I send my valid passport which is under my maiden name, the British passport application will be refused.

...

Alternatively, I am thinking to cancel my current passport, hence, I won't have this issue?. I will still retain my birth country's citizenship but only cancel the passport. I suppose I could also "lose" it "again" somehow
But, I am concerned that my embassy won't cancel it. I will have to book an appointment for next week and check with them. My country does allow dual citizenship.

...

Therefore, it's a catch 22, which is frankly quite worrying. And there I was thinking it's all over. Hardly.

Good luck to everyone in this thread.

Hello,
it's likely you will find yourself in this catch-22 if you are treated in the same way as my wife and other contributors to this thread.

Note: you may not be refused a passport outright - you are likely to be delayed, with any related travel plans having to be put on hold, whilst you negotiate with HM PO to find a way ahead.

It is due to this poorly publicised policy or guidance which was brought in in February:
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/crac ... -detection

If I knew all these issues were going to happen, I would have applied for BC in my maiden name but that also would have been an issue as I didn't have all my documents in my maiden name. All my documents were in my married name. The only document in my maiden name was my passport.

Part of the problem is the impact of this is made not clear in the passport application guidance notes;
NCS seems unaware of it too.
The HM PO officials we have been dealing with do not seem fully aware of or trained on this.
Certainly they have not been able to explain it clearly to us.
Each person we have dealt with at HM PO has handled it differently, with varying degrees of clarity.
Some deny there is a new policy or else state it's confidential and refuse to discuss it.

But forewarned is forearmed, you may have a few options before you apply for your passport.
Note: some of the options depend on your second country & what the embassy will or won't do for you.

1) Cancel existing passport

Then no need to submit such a passport with the application for British passport.
If dual nationality is still held then no need to declare it.

We are trying this route to remove the 'offending' (to UK HM PO) second identity.
In progress with HM PO at the moment. No outcome to report yet.

2) Lose passport

- I couldn't possibly comment.

(Note: Details of any/all lost passports still to be submitted).

3) Change name on original passport - if permitted by original country

May involve 2 steps: change name to married name; change or renew passport.
Time consuming, may involve home visits if UK embassy cannot/will not do this.

4) Revoke original citizenship (if not automatically revoked by naturalising in UK)

But if even there's an option why should anyone have to do this (unless planned anyway)
May involve loss of rights in that country; eg land rights etc.

In fact, my wife automatically lost her Philippine citizenship on the day she ws naturalised in the UK.
The problem is HM PO wouldn't accept us simply saying so.
We had to discover that the old, uncancelled but by now invalid passport had to be officially cancelled to satisfy UK officials.
Then discover how to do this.

5) Apply in married name but make case to have an official observation recording use of maiden name

See new guidance PDF.
Not aware anyone has used this route successfully (yet).

6) Apply for passport in maiden name

HM PO offered that as an option to my wife. But we are trying route #1 first.
Anyway, it should be a woman's choice by which name she wants to be known, not a bureaucratic choice made due to regulations.

I would have hoped that a deed poll would be sufficient document to show the change of name, along with a marriage certificate, but reading through this thread, it appears that the passport office doesn't issue a British passport if another passport is in a different name regardless of a deed poll or marriage certificate.

The new guidance seems to say that documents such as passports take higher precedence.
So the name used on a passport may be considered first, unless a deed poll was issued later than the passport ( )

And yes, any uncancelled passport in an old name seems to be a problem for HM PO (even if Naturalisation process can handle it).

And apparently, I can't correct my name on the naturalisation certificate now as it has to reflect what I had written down on my application form.

The new guidance is clear, a Naturalisation certificate records a point in time (similar to a birth certificate).
But this is why suggestion #6 (above) may be a valid option.

What else to be done?

There is the formal complaints process (as per passport guidance notes).

It's a 4-step process, all the way up to MPs, (MEPs) and Ombudsman.
I'm not aware anyone has travelled that far.

&/or
Enlist help of women's groups, human rights groups, equal opportunities organisations, migrants organisations, citizen's advice bureau.

I'm not aware anyone has attempted this so far.
(One contributor has consulted a law firm, as posted earlier in this thread).

Judicial review of this extension to the Royal Prerogative that governs passports in this country

Expensive. Would probably need someone (some group or MP) to take up the cause.