British Citizenship Entitlement?

[John]

Something on today's BBC local news programme has surprised me. Quite simply it does not sound right. The video extract can be viewed by clicking here.

I know no more than broadcast by the BBC but my immediate thought was that to qualify for Naturalisation, specifically mentioned by the BBC reporter, the person has got to have ILR .... and if the person has ILR they have the right to benefits.

Any thoughts? We are told both parents are British but the person's birth was in Zambia. We are shown the birth certificate .... birth in 1969.

[ppron747]

I think I may have it....

The father was a BC by descent, so "Stephen" had no automatic claim to BC.

The reporter says that the fees required by HO are about £600 - a lot more than the fee for naturalisation alone.

I suspect they're suggesting that he apply for ILR and naturalisation simultaneously (£335+£268=£603), and they're proposing to excuse him from having had ILR for the 12 months leading up to the date of application

Howzat?

[JAJ]

I think I may have it....

The father was a BC by descent, so "Stephen" had no automatic claim to BC.

The reporter says that the fees required by HO are about £600 - a lot more than the fee for naturalisation alone.

I suspect they're suggesting that he apply for ILR and naturalisation simultaneously (£335+£268=£603), and they're proposing to excuse him from having had ILR for the 12 months leading up to the date of application

Howzat?

If he came to the United Kingdom aged 1 (as ther article suggests) then surely he must have been granted ILR long ago.

One also has to ask what passport he travelled on to the UK, and for any journeys since.

[ppron747]

If he came to the United Kingdom aged 1 (as ther article suggests) then surely he must have been granted ILR long ago.

If anyone applied for him to have it, yes... Otherwise, no.

One also has to ask what passport he travelled on to the UK,

If I'm correct in guessing that his father was a CUKC by descent, it is quite likely that he was also a citizen of somewhere else by birth, and that "Stephen" had a claim to that citizenship by descent, and travelled on a passport issued by that country. Alternatively, he would almost certainly have been included in the British passport of one or both of his parents, had they applied - with or without an endorsement to effect that "The included child is not a citizen of the UK & Colonies". This was not at all uncommon in the 1960s.

and for any journeys since.

If he travelled at all during his childhood it could quite possibly have been on a British Visitors Passport - a one-year triptych-format excuse for a passport which, until things were tightened up, could be got at a Post Office on production of a public library card and a milk-bottle top. (Well, not quite, but the applicant could cherry-pick from a list of suggested supporting documents and produce two items, neither of which had anything to do with proving citizenship).
Even after things were "tightened up" the new rules only applied to people getting a BVP for the the first time - anyone who'd previously had one could get a replacement without further evidence, right up to when the thing was discontinued in 1995 (according to the UKPS website) although I thought it was a bit earlier...
Travel during his Army service would have been covered by military papers, provided he wasn't on a commercial flight.

[JAJ]

I'm no expert, but I think one has to apply for ILR in order for it to be granted.

I was wondering whether his parents had done anything to regularise his status in the UK as a child.

One also has to ask what passport he travelled on to the UK, If I'm correct in guessing that his father was a CUKC by descent, it is quite likely that he was also a citizen of somewhere else by birth, and that "Stephen" had a claim to that citizenship by descent, and travelled on a passport issued by that country.

And the media leave us guessing as to what this country might be.

Alternatively, he would almost certainly have been included in the British passport of one or both of his parents, had they applied - with or without an endorsement to effect that "The included child is not a citizen of the UK & Colonies". This was not at all uncommon in the 1960s.

The wording from this part of the Nationality Instructions seems more cryptic than it needs to be:
http://www.ind.homeoffice.gov.uk/docume ... iew=Binary

Could it help in a case like this? (if indeed he was included on parent's British passport).


6.3.5 Special cases
6.3.5.1 Cases sometimes come to light where, due to official error, people have been consularly registered while ineligible for such registration or wrongly issued with British passports or certificates of entitlement to the right of abode. As a result they might have lost age- or time-limited entitlements to citizenship. So that they are not disadvantaged by the official error we should be ready in such cases to construe the application as an undetermined application for citizenship and process it accordingly.

6.3.5.2 This policy will not normally cover the holders of British Visitors passports which have been issued in error.

It is intended primarily to benefit people who had, but no longer have, an avenue to registration under the minor or other registration provisions of the British Nationality Act 1948 or the British Nationality Act 1981 and have been led to believe that they are British or have a UK right of abode. Although we should act reasonably in the circumstances of each individual case, the policy should not normally apply where a realistic avenue to citizenship is still open, nor where, at the time of the error, the person would clearly not have been eligible for the grant of citizenship (as would be the case, for instance, with an adult who was unable to meet the unwaivable requirements for naturalisation or registration) but any discretion should normally be exercised in the person's favour. The policy should not apply, either, where there is reason to believe that the passport, certificate of entitlement or consular birth registration was obtained by deception, or where the person could reasonably have
known that no such claim existed.

6.3.5.3 It is important to note that if an application referred to in paragraph 6.3.5.1 above is to be construed as a citizenship application, it must have been received by the authority specified in the appropriate nationality regulations. In this connection it should be noted that the Passport Office did not form part of the Home Office until 1 April 1984. Also note that an application for registration as a CUKC under s.6(2) or
s.7(1) of the British Nationality Act 1948 had to be made to the Home Secretary if the applicant was in a foreign country. If a passport etc application is known to have been received but cannot now be traced and (if necessary) passed to the correct receiving authority, it will not be possible to treat it as a citizenship application.

Of course if mother became British otherwise than by descent, there might now be a possibility to register as a British citizen on that basis. It would at least avoid the ILR fee.

Even after things were "tightened up" the new rules only applied to people getting a BVP for the the first time - anyone who'd previously had one could get a replacement without further evidence, right up to when the thing was discontinued in (I think) the early 1980s.

It seems that the BVP lasted right up to 1995:
http://www.passport.gov.uk/general_history_visitors.asp

[ppron747]

The wording from this part of the Nationality Instructions seems more cryptic than it needs to be:
http://www.ind.homeoffice.gov.uk/docume ... iew=Binary

Could it help in a case like this? (if indeed he was included on parent's British passport).

Almost certainly not - non-Brit children were almost routinely included in the passport of a British parent until the '70s, simply to facilitate travel. The passport would only show the parent's nationality, and it was generally explained to the parent that the child wasn't British, and that they needed to do something about it when they got to UK.

I think the "Special Cases" bit in NIs is for people who were wrongly recognised as CUKCs or BCs - eg by registering their birth in a consular birth register, or issuing them with their own British passport, stating that they're a CUKC/BC, etc. The IND will look and see whether the original birth reg or passport application can be construed as an "in-time" minor registration application. An example might be a child born to BC by descent parent. Entitled to be HO-registered under section 3(2) BNA 1981. The parents apply for a passport for the child before its first birthday, and the passport is issued, instead of the parent being advised of the entitlement to 3(2) registration. Fast-forward ten years, and the mistake is noticed when child needs a replacement passport. It is now too late for a 3(2) application, so HO construe the first passport application as if it had been a 3(2) application. Problem solved.

Of course if mother became British otherwise than by descent, there might now be a possibility to register as a British citizen on that basis. It would at least avoid the ILR fee.

Good point.

It seems that the BVP lasted right up to 1995:
http://www.passport.gov.uk/general_history_visitors.asp

I wouldn't stake my life on it, but I think that may be a misprint, and that BVPs died a bit earlier than that...

Incidentally, I edited my post while you were typing your reply, which explains why your quotes don't tally with what my post now says....

[JAJ]

I wouldn't stake my life on it, but I think that may be a misprint, and that BVPs died a bit earlier than that...

It seems the BVP did last until around 1995. From Hansard, 10 Feb 2005:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/p ... 210w30.htm

[Mr Browne] : "The peak in [passport] renewals around 2006 is partly driven by the fact that this is the tenth anniversary of the year when the one year British Visitors' Passport" was abolished ... "

[ppron747]

It's a good job I didn't stake my life on it then.