Change to visa requirements from 13 November 2005

The following webpage may be of interest :-

Do I Need A UK Visa

-: in particular :-

Change to visa requirements from 13 November 2005
From 13 November 2005 all those who are not British or EEA nationals will need a visa or entry clearance for all stays in the UK over six months.

Previously this applied only to some so-called non-visa-nationals ... now it applies to all. Of course visa nationals, by definition, require a visa to enter the UK for any reason whatsoever.

which countries are affected by this rule?

By definition all Visa Nationals require a visa to enter the UK for any reason whatsoever.

As regards non-Visa Nationals, the main countries are already covered by the requirement to always get a visa if the stay is going to be over six months duration. Now as from next Sunday all Visa Nationals will be affected.

Simply ... if your stay is going to exceed six months duration ... you will always need a UK visa ... irrespective of your nationality.

I think the main category of people hit by this are students.

John wrote:Now as from next Sunday all Visa Nationals will be affected.

Don't you mean all nationals John?

dont students need visas in the first place?

perhaps it is geared towards australians, south africans and kiwis and us nationals.

in that case there might be a reciprocal effect

John wrote:

Change to visa requirements from 13 November 2005
From 13 November 2005 all those who are not British or EEA nationals will need a visa or entry clearance for all stays in the UK over six months.

It is interesting that holders of Certificates of Entitlement to the Right of Abode don't seem to be mentioned in any of the publicity, and I can't quite get my head around the question of whether they are affected or not.

Except those who happen to be dual nationals, they're not British, but my understanding is that the fact that they have the right of abode means that they're not just "non-visa nationals"; they don't, by definition, need "entry clearance" under any circumstances. They have to produce a CoE, but cannot be refused entry or made subject to any time limit on their stay.

It's a puzzle....

paul

ppron747
Many people with Certificates of Entitlement for the Right of Abode are by definition British and could qualify for a UK passport if they choose to apply. They could be either British Citizens or another class of UK citizenship with Right of Abode. There are some other Commonwealth citizens who are not British, who can also have Right of Abode.

With Right of Abode, they are not subject to Immigration Control in the UK and can enter the UK via the British Citizen/EU line without filling out a landing card.

The UK is rather unique in that it allows British dual nationals to use their foreign passport to enter and leave the UK with a Certificate of Entitlement. Most countries seem to be like the US and Brazil (my experience), where those countries require their citizens to use only their home country passport when entering or leaving their country.

Joseph

I think ppron is referring to those Commonwealth citizens with right of abode who are not British citizens.

The answer is simple - the Secretary of State has no power to impose immigration restrictions on persons with the right of abode, and any immigration rule or policy instruction that tried to do so would be ultra vires the Immigration Act 1971. So long as a person presents either a British citizen passport or a certificate of entitlement to the right of abode in accordance with s. 3(9) of the Act he is free from any immigration control.

The position for other British nationals without right of abode seems inconsistent - they require residence permits as students for courses over 6 months (if they come without one they will only be given 6 months and told to apply to the Home Office for a residence permit), but not for work permits over 6 months.

There are a few instances where a Commonwealth Citizen who is not a British Citizen can have right of abode (as listed below):

Commonwealth citizenship

3.7 If you are not a British citizen, you could still have the right of abode if you are a Commonwealth citizen and, on 31 December 1982:

a) you were a Commonwealth citizen with a parent (see Note 2) who, at the time of your birth or legal adoption (see Note 3), was a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies and had his/her citizenship by being born in the United Kingdom (see Note 1); or

b) you were a Commonwealth citizen and are, or were, the wife of a man with the right of abode.

Note: If you were not a Commonwealth citizen on 31 December 1982 or you ceased to be a Commonwealth citizen (even temporarily) at any time after that date, you will not have the right of abode. For example, nationals of South Africa and Pakistan do not qualify because these countries left the Commonwealth before 1983 and rejoined afterwards.

In most cases, to get Right of Abode, one needs to show the same characteristics as a full British Citizen (i.e. a full British Citizen, not not a British national without ROA), so, in effect, it amounts to the same thing in most cases.

Your comment about British Nationals without ROA is true. In my opinion it reflects the shabby treatment of former colonials by the previous and current British Governments.

Joseph

Joseph wrote:ppron747
People with Certificates of Entitlement for the Right of Abode are by definition British and could qualify for a UK passport if they choose to apply. They could be either British Citizens or another class of UK citizenship with Right of Abode.

Right of Abode holders who are not British citizens must qualify for naturalisation or registration as a British citizen under normal rules before they can get British passports.

There are no special concessions in the British Nationality Act for ROA holders.

Joseph wrote:There are very few instances where a Commonwealth Citizen who is not a British Citizen can have right of abode:

I would have thought the opposite - quite a few people in Australia, Canada and New Zealand born before 1983 with a British mother would have ROA but not British citizenship. Not South Africa though, as it wasn't a Commonwealth member on 1.1.83

The recent concession for adult children of British mothers allows some to get British citizenship (by descent) now, but only those born on or after 8 Feb 1961. And many of those who are eligible for that may prefer to naturalise in the UK instead and become British 'otherwise than by descent'.

Another significant group of ROA holders are British subjects connected with the Republic of Ireland before 1949.

Joseph wrote: Your comment about British Nationals without ROA is true. In my opinion it reflects the shabby treatment of former colonials by the previous and current British Governments.

Joseph

If a British national is otherwise stateless they can (usually) now register as a British citizen provided they meet the requirements of s4B of the 1981 Act. And if they're not stateless, then effectively they have another nationality they can use.

JAJ
Thanks for your points which are all valid. You obviously know a lot about the ROA subject. I have modified my posts accordingly.

Regarding my comment about the treatment of British nationals getting full citizenship: Yes, in some cases they can apply to be registered as British Citizens but they have to pay the same fee (minus the ceremony) as the rest of us non-commonwealth (myself included) who apply for naturalisation. It now takes many of us a couple of weeks to get our naturalisation approved, so there is really no peferential treatment for them. Since their cases are less common, they could take even longer to get approved.

Having just benefited from a quick naturalisation decision, I'm on the other side from them, but I think it's unfair to them.

Joseph

I am grateful to penanglad and JAJ for clarifying the position on non-British nationals with the right of abode. Perhaps my original post should have had a more comprehensive explanation of the people I had in mind...

There must be hundreds of thousands of Commonwealth citizens with ROA either through a UK-born mother or (in the case of women) through having been married before 1983 to a man with ROA.

But this wasn't the point I had in mind! What was bothering me was the explicit statement to the effect that the new policy purports to apply to all non-BC / non-EEA passport-holders coming to UK for more than six months, whereas it seemed to me it doesn't, because of the non-Brits with ROA.

It seems to me that, with any policy that doesn't apply to a substantial number of people, the publicity (and the instruction book)

• (a) shouldn't claim that it does, and
  (b) should make the exceptions clear, and not just ignore them

I suspect that the lack of clarity in the publicity is going to cause unnecessary concern to a substantial number of people, and a number of enquiries to the Home Office and to UK offices overseas that could easily have been avoided.

We'll see!

paul

Joseph wrote:JAJ
Thanks for your points which are all valid. You obviously know a lot about the ROA subject. I have modified my posts accordingly.

Regarding my comment about the treatment of British nationals getting full citizenship: Yes, in some cases they can apply to be registered as British Citizens but they have to pay the same fee (minus the ceremony) as the rest of us non-commonwealth (myself included) who apply for naturalisation.

1. Since 1.1.2004, British nationals applying for registration need to attend a ceremony too. They ought not to have to, as they are already British, however the law insists they do.

2. I don't know what you mean by "the rest of us non-commonwealth who have to apply for naturalisation." Only British nationals can apply for section 4 registration on the grounds of UK residence.

Anyone else - from a Commonwealth country (with the Queen as Head of State or otherwise), the Republic of Ireland, or a foreign country - must apply for naturalisation. This includes Commonwealth citizens with ROA.

It's been this way since January 1988 whe the transitional registration entitlements (in the 1981 Act) for Commonwealth and Irish citizens expired.

It now takes many of us a couple of weeks to get our naturalisation approved, so there is really no peferential treatment for them. Since their cases are less common, they could take even longer to get approved.

Home Office processing times are 1.67 months average for adult registrations compared to 4.04 months for naturalisation.
http://www.ind.homeoffice.gov.uk/ind/en ... ality.html

British nationals applying for section 4 registration (after five years in the UK, including ILR for 12 months) do have a few advantages over naturalisation applicants:
- no language test
- no need to pass the "Life in the UK Test"
- no future intentions requirement (although s6(2) naturalisation applicants are also exempt this)

There's nothing stopping a British national applying for naturalisation instead if he or she wishes. Some do this to access the shorter residence requirement for naturalisation if married to a British citizen compared to s4 registration (three years vs five).

Thanks again for the additional points. I meant non-British Nationals who have to apply for naturalisation.

I know that a number of us on this forum have averaged 5 - 15 working days for processing of their naturalisation application. I think that's hard to beat even by adult British nationals who would be registered. As you point out, they now even have to attend the ceremony even though they already have loyalty to the Queen, so I still think they are not getting a great deal compared to the "rest of us", except perhaps the £80 savings in the fee. That's just my opinion--maybe others who fall in the British national category feel strongly on this.

I'm certainly not complaining; in fact I have benefited from the UK's easy immigration and easier naturalisation policy which is a lot easier than the USA's, for example.

Joseph

There are a couple of additional differences. One that springs to mind is that at least some, and possibly all of the registration provision for non-BC British nationals are entitlements rather than being discretionary - so there are no "good character" requirements.

Theoretically this should mean that applications take less time to consider, because other agencies don't need to be consulted, although in practice it probably doesn't make a lot of difference.

Also, section 4B applications are hugely different, in that applicants don't need to trouble to come to the UK at all, or have any connection whatsoever with it....

-------------
paul

I have just found another webpage on the UK Visas website that gives a lot more detail, including the nationalities affected, if you click on "New entry clearance requirements - Q&A" :-

New immigration rules for people staying in the UK for more than 6 months (a reminder)

The change to the Immigration Rules is now available, and can be seen by clicking here.

Picking up on a point made earlier in this topic :-

2.For paragraph 23A, substitute:
"A person who is not a visa national and who is seeking leave to enter on arrival in the United Kingdom for a period not exceeding 6 months for a purpose for which prior entry clearance is not required under these Rules may be granted such leave, for a period not exceeding 6 months.

This paragraph does not apply where the person is a British National (Overseas), a British overseas territories citizen, a British Overseas citizen, a British protected person, or a person who under the British Nationality Act 1981 is a British subject.".

3.After paragraph 23A, insert:
"23B. A person who is a British National (Overseas), a British overseas territories citizen, a British Overseas citizen, a British protected person, or a person who under the British Nationality Act 1981 is a British subject, and who is seeking leave to enter on arrival in the United Kingdom for a purpose for which prior entry clearance is not required under these Rules may be granted such leave, irrespective of the period of time for which he seeks entry, for a period not exceeding 6 months.".

Looks like they have now changed it so that all British nationals without ROA will only be given up to 6 months leave if they come without entry clearance. Presumably this can simply be extended by leaving and re-entering the country, but it contradicts what the explanatory memorandum says, and what the policy announcements have all said, that the changes would not be applied to British nationals. I expect they found that having signed up to the directive they could not disapply it to British nationals who were non-EEA citizens.