Immigrationboards.com

Hi there,

we just received yesterday 1 good and 1 bad letter from the HO. The bad news first: my husband's application has been refused and the letter ended with a sentence that told him our daughter's application was successful. Which was the good news. The other letter brought the certificate for our daughter.
Ok, let's talk business now. My husband's application has been refused due to not satisfying the criteria at chapter 18, Annex D, Paragraph 9.7c of the Nationality Instructions. What means that he broke the law working in UK during his asylum seeker term. There is a loophole which allowed him to work (almost) legally. He's been (and still is) self employed. HMRC was very pleased to receive taxes from him and did know about his status. His accountant also did know since first contact about his status and could help him in his situation (ages ago).
However, we've been very honest in his application and wrote down all important details and never thought about that it could direct us in a fatal situation. As you can imagine we are deeply disappointed and upset about this result.
We are wondering to contact an immigration lawyer to find out if there is a slight chance for us, to get the result undone. Especially because our daughter became the british citizenship. It feels a bit like cynicism?!

Important details to my husband:
entered country illegally in 1999
applied for asylum in 1999
used to live under a false name (due to a mistake by translation) until 2013
received 2013 ILR (due to change to real name and birth of 1st child)
applied March 2015 for british citizenship


Is there anybody out there who can give us a tiny bit of hope and/or a tip for a good immigration lawyer in London (as ours seems to be not the ideal person for that job)?

Was he ever granted Asylum and if so, when?

When did he start 'working' as self employed? Which loophole is it that you are referring to?

There is a loophole which allowed him to work (almost) legally.

Also, you are not able to appeal a citizenship refusal. You can ask for a reconsideration though, costs £80 I think.

Depending on your partners full history in the UK, the below thread might be of interest but as he was refused for working without permission, it might not be relevant.

http://www.immigrationboards.com/britis ... 84190.html

CR001 wrote:Was he ever granted Asylum and if so, when?

When did he start 'working' as self employed? Which loophole is it that you are referring to?

There is a loophole which allowed him to work (almost) legally.

Also, you are not able to appeal a citizenship refusal. You can ask for a reconsideration though, costs £80 I think.

Depending on your partners full history in the UK, the below thread might be of interest but as he was refused for working without permission, it might not be relevant.

http://www.immigrationboards.com/britis ... 84190.html

Asylum was not granted and started working as self employed in 2008.
Reconsideration sounds good! Thanks a lot for the information.
Will let you know more when I spoke to the accountant.

Asylum was not granted and started working as self employed in 2008

So he had no right to work in the UK at all and had no legal status in the UK until he got ILR in 2013. He was working illegally between 2008 and 2013, even if self employed.

The refusal decision would be correct then and he will be eligible to apply for citizenship in 2023, ten years after he legalised his stay.

yes, that's the same the HO told us in the letter yesterday.

so you would advise not to try to reconsider the case? As I said I will have to talk to the accountant about the "loophole". We really don't want to give up that easy after 16years.... if there is just a small chance for him.

Any 'loophole' that might or might not exist is irrelevant as he had no legal status and no right to work in the UK in any capacity, not even as a volunteer.

Unlikely that there is any chance of success at this stage and he will likely need to wait till 2023 as advised. The rules are the rules and the good character requirement changed and became tougher in December 2014 and unfortunately, a lot of applicants are being refused for the same and similar reasons to your partner.

Citizenship is a privilege and not an entitlement/right.

My eyes popped out when I read the title!

Citizenship application refused due to "good character"

Did you try telling UKV&I about his (almost legal) working between 1999 and 2013?
Many illegal entrants are allowed to work, but with the permission of UKV&I. Did you seek one? HMRC doesn't cross verify with UKV&I about every illegal entrants right to work. HMRC is more concerned about workers paying tax in line with tax laws than checking working rights of a honest tax payer.
The accountant was probably more interested in making money for himself than reporting an illegal worker and losing a client

Many illegal entrants are allowed to work, but with the permission of UKV&I

Sushmehta, presumably then there would be a record that an applicant had permission from UKVI/Home Office to work and as such it would be checked and on file. Likely no permission to work then if citizenship app was refused.

Certainly, Char! Not suggesting the decision was wrong.

I realized my post is missing a question I am sure I typed (probably deleted inadvertently) that I have now added.

Many illegal entrants are allowed to work, but with the permission of UKV&I. Did you seek one?

Thanks Sush, not questioning you, was asking purely for clarity as I was not aware (consciously) that permission could be sought to work as an illegal entrant/asylum seeker.

sushdmehta wrote: Did you try telling UKV&I about his (almost legal) working between 1999 and 2013?
Many illegal entrants are allowed to work, but with the permission of UKV&I. Did you seek one?

ok, I see the problem. No he didn't seek for a working permission, as he's never been told about this option (even by his solicitor). However, that wouldn't change anything now. Do you think there would be a tiny chance at least if he would try to explain? I mean we don't want to waist any money if there's not even a µ.

Do you think there would be a tiny chance at least if he would try to explain?

No, highly unlikely as he worked without the permission to do so. Ignorance of the rules is not an excuse and any explanation will be pointless. The best option is to wait until 2023 as advised and then reapply.