The discussions on this thread are becoming quite unruly and everybody is reminded to keep their contributions civil and polite. Otherwise this thread may be locked.
AjitK1, you are already on "thin ice". While you may make valid points, phrase them politely and courteously and not in a manner that may cause unnecessary offence. The objective of these and any forum is to help address any questions and/or clarifications raised. If you feel the person has not done their research or is asking very basic questions, either politely point them to the answer, or do not respond to the thread.
Phil2020, the law requires the Home Office to be satisfied that you are of "good character" before extending to you the privilege of citizenship. It has therefore published
guidance as to how it evaluates "good character". Be aware that sentences that are spent may be taken into account when evaluating good character.
Page 5 of the Good Character guidance linked to above wrote:Certain immigration and nationality decisions are now exempt from section 4 of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974. This means that it does not matter whether a conviction is “spent” when assessing good character provided the application was made in England, Wales or Scotland.
As Mrs Justice Lang stated in the
Hiri vs SSHD case in the High Court, "The Secretary of State is required to make an evaluation of the applicant's character on the basis of the material before her, having proper regard to the guidance in the Nationality Instructions. The onus is on the Claimant to satisfy the Secretary of State that he is of good character. Although the Secretary of State must exercise her powers reasonably,
essentially the test for disqualification is subjective".
The case linked to above provides for a more flexible approach towards interpreting "good character" and you could quote from it if you reapply for reconsideration. But, it also essentially states that it is a subjective test and exercisable only by the Home Office (i.e. the route to judicial review is quite narrow).
Ouflak1 also raises an important point. The definition of statelessness is considerably narrower than what people think it to be. One is stateless only if one does not have nationality by the application of law of any country in the world. For instance, a child born to Australian or Indian parents in the UK while neither parent is settled in the UK and who is not registered with the relevant High Commission would be stateless, because the child is not a British citizen by British law and not Australian or Indian unless s/he is registered with the High Commission. However, a child born to a Chinese parent (anywhere in the world) is automatically Chinese according to Chinese law and therefore can never be stateless.
It seems that
Eritrean nationality is defined in extremely broad terms and it is highly likely that you are Eritrean by nationality. Potentially, you could also be Ethiopian by nationality. The Home Office has a handy guide on
People of mixed Eritrean/Ethiopian nationality. In general, the UK Home Office is aware of the nationality laws of other countries, precisely so that it can judge whether an applicant is stateless or not.
With statelessness, it is not the choice of the person, but the application of the nationality laws of countries (typically, the countries of one's ancestors and the country of birth) that determines if you are stateless or not.
ouflak1 wrote: ↑Tue May 29, 2018 4:28 pm
I don't know of any circumstance where statelessness allows for any discretion with regards to the Good Character requirement.
Ouflak1 is correct on this point. Being stateless allows you to be issued with a relevant Convention Travel Document, but does not dispense with the good character requirement, nor does it raise an obligation on the UK government to grant you naturalisation under all circumstances.
I am not a lawyer or immigration advisor. My statements/comments do not constitute legal advice. E&OE. Please do not PM me for advice.
