Immigrationboards.com

Hi guys I have been asked this question by an aquantance of mine.

I got his history as below..

He claimed Asylum in 1999 as Afghan and was refused in 2004 however in the meanwhile he got married to a Solvak women in 2002 had 3 kids and converted his status to family member of EEA member instead of appealing.

Got his residence permit, PR and eventually BC about 2 years ago.

He want to change his Place on birth details to India.

How feasiable it is and what are the risks. Will he be deprived of his Citizenship or Nulify or will he be spared under the 14 years rule as stated in Chapter 55, ANNEX D, as spouse of EEA member with PR and exercised treaty rights.

Any comments or links to read further are much appreciated.


https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... structions

If he was not born in India, unlikely that he will be able to change it as he would not have any documentary evidence/proof of his birth there.

CR001 wrote:If he was not born in India, unlikely that he will be able to change it as he would not have any documentary evidence/proof of his birth there.

thanks CR001

sorry I did not explain it properly earlier.
He is infact an Indian however claimed asylum as Afghan initially that failed and then got RP,PR and BC as spouse of EEA National as Afghan too.
I am sure he was born in India and should be able to prove it.

The question was whether he will be deprived or not of BC as he has been here over 14 years, no criminal records etc in his circumstances.

Thanks

Well that would be deception then wouldn't it and yes, he could lose his citizenship as it will be a concealment of a material fact.

Did he apply for citizenship using an Afghan passport? If so, was it real or not?

Don't know what you mean by 14 years as I have scanned the link you provided and can't seem to find what you are talking about.

CR001 wrote:Well that would be deception then wouldn't it and yes, he could lose his citizenship as it will be a concealment of a material fact.

Did he apply for citizenship using an Afghan passport? If so, was it real or not?

Don't know what you mean by 14 years as I have scanned the link you provided and can't seem to find what you are talking about.

Sorry I was away, Thanks for your replies.

No there was no Afghan Passport used.

The Annex D is in the link
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/s ... annexd.pdf
#####################################
Annex D – Sample Notice of Decision not to deprive
Dear (insert name)
On (date) we wrote to advise you that the Secretary of State was considering
depriving you of your British citizenship on the grounds that it had been
obtained as a result of fraud, false representation or concealment of material
fact.
Your case was referred to us because restate details of referral
The full facts and any mitigating circumstances that you have presented have
now been considered in accordance with our policy.
I am now writing to inform you that the Secretary of State has decided not to
deprive you of citizenship because
Insert one of the following statements, as relevant
• Although you used a false identity to claim asylum, you were granted
indefinite leave to remain on the basis of the Family ILR Concession, for
which there was no nationality requirement. As such the fact that you claimed
to be X instead of Y would not have had a bearing on the outcome of your
case.
• Although you obtained citizenship as a result of deception, you have lived
in the United Kingdom for more than 14 years and so your case falls outside
the scope of our policy.
• Although you falsely claimed to be married to/in a civil partnership with a
British citizen, your application had not been granted on the basis of that
marriage/civil partnership and so your case falls outside the scope of our
policy.
• Although you obtained ILR/citizenship on the basis of false information,
you were a minor at the time the deception was practised and so your case
falls outside the scope of our policy.
• Your case does not fall within our policy
As a result you will remain a British citizen. Your certificate of British
citizenship and/or passport are enclosed.
Close Letter
######################################

johnty wrote: .
.
.
• Although you used a false identity to claim asylum, you were granted
indefinite leave to remain on the basis of the Family ILR Concession, for
which there was no nationality requirement. As such the fact that you claimed
to be X instead of Y would not have had a bearing on the outcome of your
case.
• Although you obtained citizenship as a result of deception, you have lived
in the United Kingdom for more than 14 years and so your case falls outside
the scope of our policy.
.
.
.

They need to update this document. That 14 year exclusion was on the basis on the now deprecated possibility of obtaining ILR on the basis of 14 consecutive years of presence in the UK. That is no longer a route to residency of any kind and therefore is not an exclusion. However, I do wonder if the fact that he got family residence via the EEA might be in his favor. Even though this route is somewhat dependent on the original citizenship in that he himself could not be an EEA national, that wouldn't be relevant anyway since he's only claimed to be from non-EEA countries (unless you've got another bombshell of critical information to tell us about).

johnty wrote:How feasiable it is and what are the risks? Will he be deprived of his Citizenship or Nulify or will he be spared under the 14 years rule as stated in Chapter 55, ANNEX D, as spouse of EEA member with PR and exercised treaty rights.

I am fairly certain the 14 year exclusion is defunct along with the former policy it was associated with. You may need to contact the HO about that. However the EEA family route to PR might leave the door open to resolve this. The risks are obvious. He could be stripped of his citizenship and deported. The current environment is somewhat hostile and Theresa May seems to be on the tail end of a power trip. He might want to consider waiting until the magic 20 year mark passes, when he would almost certainly have qualified for residency anyway. Or perhaps the 30 year mark when he would likely have been able to get citizenship anyway. If he's held to his story for this long, and benefited so well from it, it's hard to imagine 6 - 16 more years making all that much of a difference for him personally.

Thanks Outflak

No there ar no other bomshells

Reading the Chaptor 55 in bit more of details and I get the impression that if the country of the applicant was not a factor to get ILR & BC i.e. in this case any Non-EAA then a person may not be deprive of BC or nulify.

I think that what you meant aswell that being the Spouse of an EEA national may do him favour?

However the EEA family route to PR might leave the door open to resolve this

Thanks

Hi

It should not cause any problem as his route to BC was not material to the country of origin, so it doesn't matter whether he was born in India or Afghanistan as his claim for asylum as an afghan national was refused anyway.

I'm speaking from someone who recently applied for naturalisatuon and his dob and place of birth was incorrect. They managed to successfully get it sorted without an problems but remember he needs to provide evidence for the change to happen.

As his bc is irrelevant of country of origin, worse case scenario will be they won't change it if enough evidence is not produced, however they are no risks of deprivation of BC as suggested earlier.
Like I have spoken to someone who has similar problem and it was not an issue so ur should get it rectified, sooner the better and tell him not to worry!!

Thanks Cool-Dude1980

I agree and it is hitting all the spot
i.e. he was Failed asylum seeker and never got any Leave on the basis.
his route to BC was not material to the country of origin
he did not use spiouse visa route
He was merely pouse of EEA national who was exercising treaty right and the time spent on residence permit that lead to PR and eventually BC was more important than his country of origin

On the basis as Outflak mentioned that he was spouse of EEA national (and the fact if still matters he is already here for over 14 years already) put him in safe bracket if he sends his old Naturalisation certificate with evidence of correct place of birth to be amended with correct details.

Any thoughts from John, JAJ, Batelaykhan, Vinnie and Amber..

Best regards

My concern would be the recent introduction of the 'good character' rule for British citizenship and in particular under 'reasons to refuse' Section 8-d
d. providing false or deliberately misleading information at earlier stages of the immigration application process (e.g. providing false bio-data, claiming to be a nationality they were not or concealing conviction data). Where this applies, a refusal under deception grounds may also be merited.
and in Section 8.4
8.4 Deception in Previous Applications
The decision maker will normally refuse an application where there is evidence that a person has employed deception either:
a. during the citizenship application process; or
b. in a previous immigration application.
It is irrelevant whether the deception was material to the grant of leave or not.
The decision maker will normally refuse an application if there has been any deception in the 10 years prior to the application for citizenship. For these purposes, the deception is regarded as continuing until the date on which it is discovered or admitted. For example, if a person used deception in an application in 2008, but that was discovered or admitted to in 2010, the 10 year period would start in 2010.


https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/s ... _D_v02.pdf

You say that he was granted BC around 2 years ago. I don't know whether BC can be revoked due to failing on good character, when these Rules weren't in place then.

johnty wrote:...
.
.
On the basis as Outflak mentioned that he was spouse of EEA national (and the fact if still matters he is already here for over 14 years already) put him in safe bracket if he sends his old Naturalisation certificate with evidence of correct place of birth to be amended with correct details.
.
.

Careful here!. I'm fairly certain that 14 year exception no longer applies. In his case, it's 20 years at the soonest. A milestone he has not reached yet. If I were him, I'd seriously consider waiting until atleast that 20 year mark has passed. I do think the EEA route is plausible, and likely to be well-considered. But there is always a risk here. The less risk he takes on this matter, the better.

I agree with ouflak1 +1. The good character BC rules have cast the net far wider and could still have an impact on past deception.

Thanks CASA really something to think about..

however from your link

This guidance applies to all decisions taken on or after 11 December 2014

It may be useful to get the relevant year copy of guidance to see what was in section 8.4 then.

@outflak yes I know what you mean. the question is how plausable it is..
Could you please explain this 20 years milestone bit how it works and if you have any link to any guidence.

Best regards

johnty wrote:Thanks CASA really something to think about..

however from your link

This guidance applies to all decisions taken on or after 11 December 2014

It may be useful to get the relevant year copy of guidance to see what was in section 8.4 then.

@outflak yes I know what you mean. the question is how plausible it is..
Could you please explain this 20 years milestone bit how it works and if you have any link to any guidance.

Best regards

The information on 20 years long residence can be found here. Do a search on 276ADE(1)(iii).

To sum up: If he's lived in the 20 years in the UK, then he would qualify for LTR. After 10 more years, ILR. I'm more wary of this now. 30 years is really the safer bet, but even that supposes 10 years of legal LTR. At that 30 year point, he would have likely gotten ILR. They've really covered their bases on this one. This leaves so much more in the hands of the person deciding on the application and/or, in this case, deciding deprivation.

If I can ask a more fundamental question, possibly off-topic. Why does he want to do this? It seems like his current position is stable. I'm wondering if it wouldn't be best to just leave well enough alone....

ouflak1 wrote:Why does he want to do this? It seems like his current position is stable. I'm wondering if it wouldn't be best to just leave well enough alone....

Thanks for the link
I remember asking him the same question and said because he knew someone in London with nearly similar circumstances i.e married to EEA citizens exercising treaty right who renewed his passport with correct country of birth (from SriLanka to India ) and there was no problem so he thought it would be OK for him too but I told him he may need to change the Naturalisation Certificate instead as Passport Office data may not be same as UKBA and he may have problem on the Airport with immigration officers if that is the case.. Was I right?

johnty wrote:

ouflak1 wrote:Why does he want to do this? It seems like his current position is stable. I'm wondering if it wouldn't be best to just leave well enough alone....

Thanks for the link
I remember asking him the same question and said because he knew someone in London with nearly similar circumstances i.e married to EEA citizens exercising treaty right who renewed his passport with correct country of birth (from SriLanka to India ) and there was no problem so he thought it would be OK for him too but I told him he may need to change the Naturalisation Certificate instead as Passport Office data may not be same as UKBA and he may have problem on the Airport with immigration officers if that is the case.. Was I right?

Ok, so that was obviously a somewhat different scenario, and from a different time when all of the systems perhaps weren't quite as tied together as they've become recently, especially this year. You were wise to advise him as you did. This still doesn't quite answer why he wants to do this, but perhaps it's just personal and he hasn't really bothered to tell you. In any case, I don't know if there is much more information that can be shared on this subject.

Since the rules have changed, it is now not as clear cut that there is any exception to deprivation due to the individual involved acquiring ILR via an alternate route not dependent on citizenship. The Home Office has now changed the criteria and the long residency route in particular now has a 10 year disconnect there. The EEA spouse/family route is a plausible work-around the UK rules, but since there is an indirect tie-in of citizenship (being non-EEA) that is very arguably irrelevant, it invites risk. The good character requirement changes have put in a new barrier and dynamic that makes this all hard to predict. If he were to try and get his citizenship information corrected, he may very well be the first to try that under these recent rule changes.

I don't know if he has any regrets about all of this, but if he does, he may just have to live with them. I think many would argue that he has come out far better being a UK citizen having claimed to be Afghani, than remaining an Indian citizen and trying to enter and stay in the UK via completely legal/administratively-correct means.

True well said.. no he did not tell me all the reason I guess but I think it is a regret oh it will be easy for him to visit India more easily instead of going to own emabassy as Afghan and apply for a visa

well in short it is not worth a bother..
thanks all for your inputs