British Nationality Act - "Good Character" - Breach of Immigration Laws

Hi,

The British Nationality Act 1981 expressly states that applicants must not have been in “breach of immigration laws” during the qualifying period of three or five years before the date of application (depending on whether it is made under s6(1) or (2)).

So why HO saying that the qualifying period is 10 years not 5 or 3 years?
Isn't it against the BNA?
Is there any case law in this regards?

Many thanks

They are two separate requirements. The good character requirements go beyond only immigration offences and can take other offences in nature as well. It is left to the Secretary of State's discretion (generally expressed as a policy) as to what constitutes lack of good character.

There is no time limit set in the law on how long ago any offences may have taken place (or even which country; thus it can be used to deny terrorists British citizenship even if they did not commit any terrorist act within the UK itself).

Section 1(1)(b) of Schedule 1 of the British Nationality Act 1981.

1(1)Subject to paragraph 2, the requirements for naturalisation as a British citizen under section 6(1) are, in the case of any person who applies for it—
...
(b)that he is of good character; and

Also see this thread from earlier today.

Freemovement has a really good write-up about how broad the good character requirements are.

asha-hussain wrote: ↑

Sun May 31, 2020 12:37 am

Hi,

The British Nationality Act 1981 expressly states that applicants must not have been in “breach of immigration laws” during the qualifying period of three or five years before the date of application (depending on whether it is made under s6(1) or (2)).

So why HO saying that the qualifying period is 10 years not 5 or 3 years?
Isn't it against the BNA?
Is there any case law in this regards?

Many thanks

HO doesn't follow its own rules .BNA doesn't specify any details of good character but home office has self defined it and refuses anyone on any small thing.These rules are not rules but politics.If good character was modified as a tool in 2015 then why people who have been here before 2015 have to face such nightmare changings.Obviously of someone knows that this is the law don't overstay you would delay nationality the person may not overstay but the time overstaying isn't an offence the same time no one must be treated as have committed an offence .Sense can't prevail on politics as politics is an ugly game .

secret.simon wrote: ↑

Sun May 31, 2020 1:59 pm

The good character requirements go beyond only immigration offences and can take other offences in nature as well. It is left to the Secretary of State's discretion (generally expressed as a policy) as to what constitutes lack of good character.

So where are the specifics of "Good Character Requirements" in the BNA?

asha-hussain wrote: ↑

Sun Jun 14, 2020 8:01 pm

So where are the specifics of "Good Character Requirements" in the BNA?

There aren't any specific requirement for what constitutes "good character" in the British Nationality Act 1981, but there is a broad overarching requirement stating that the applicant must be "of good character"

Schedule 1 of the British Nationality Act 1981 wrote: 1 (1). Subject to paragraph 2, the requirements for naturalisation as a British citizen under section 6(1) are, in the case of any person who applies for it—
...
(b)that he is of good character,...

That means that it is left to the Secretary of State for the Home Department to determine how to assess for "good character".

I think the only legal requirements are that they can't be arbitrary (they need to be knowable (i.e. are accessible to the applicants) and apply to everybody equally or at least, any deviation must be justified) and they should not fail the Wednesbury unreasonableness test, the threshold for which is relatively high ("So outrageous in its defiance of logic or accepted moral standards that no sensible person who had applied his mind to the question to be decided could have arrived at it").

An example of a good character requirement that would likely fail the Wednesbury unreasonableness test would be if it barred somebody from naturalising for life even for the most minor offence (not paying the BBC license fee, for instance). But I don't think the current good character requirement meets the Wednesbury unreasonableness threshold.

You can certainly take the government to court if you feel that the good character requirement does not meet the Wednesbury unreasonableness test mentioned above. But otherwise the law gives the Home Office quite a lot of leeway in determining the good character requirement.

By the way, do you think the lack of CSI for EEA migrants (and therefore being in breach of the 'lawful residence' requirement) would fall under the Good Character 10-year rule (irrespective of the need to not have been in breach for the qualifying period)?

I am asking because:

Breaches of immigration law in the qualifying period

This section tells you who is in breach of the immigration laws and when to exercise discretion over periods of breach. ‘Breach of the immigration laws’ for the purpose of the residence requirements refers only to unlawful residence. It does not include contravening immigration law in any other way, but this is considered as part of the good character requirement. However, it can include being in the UK without meeting an additional requirement, such an EU, EEA or Swiss national not holding comprehensive sickness insurance if they needed to.

And the same guidelines do mention that CSI was an 'additional/implicit' conditions of stay, so the HO seems to acknowledge that it's not a breach as serious as other immigrations offences.

So it seems there is a distinction:

- Breach of immigration laws for the purpose of residence requirements : Only refers to lawful residence and no other immigration offence: CSI is relevant
- Other breaches of immigration law: Considered as part of the good character but not considered for the purpose of 'breaches of immigration law in the qualifying period'

GC is only mentioned in the second case, so shouldn't it also be mentioned in the first case if it was relevant?

However, unlawful residence (either within or without the context of EEA regulations) is never mentioned in the Good Character guidance, as an immigration-related issue, abuse or offence to be taken into account for GC. But is it implicitly considered just like any other 'immigration offence', even though all the others are mentioned explicitly?

@asha-hussain, also see this post on a judicial review of a naturalisation application.

London22 wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 01, 2020 12:01 pm

If good character was modified as a tool in 2015 then why people who have been here before 2015 have to face such nightmare changings.

See also 55.

....The cases on which the Secretary of State founded support counsel’s contention that the petitioner’s only legitimate expectation was that his particular circumstances would be examined in the light of the applicable policy....