Immigrationboards.com

Is there anything someone can do if they want to apply for BC, but don't have any referees? For example, can they write a cover letter to explain the reasons why they won't be able to find any suitable referees?

I can think of a couple of different scenarios that may make it extremely difficult to find suitable referees, but there may be other circumstances as well.

1. If somebody has a severe disability they may have neither been studying or working in the last few years, in which case they won't have teachers or work colleagues to ask. Because of their disability, they may not have been expected to have regular in-person contact with the Job centre, so they won't have a caseworker there who they have had regular contact with. They may have friends who are retired or not working due to disability and who would not be willing to share their passport number, or their friends may not have a passport number at all, or their friends may not be based in the UK at all. It is often the case that people have friends who are in a similar situation, and if you are housebound, it may be difficult to make friends with a professional person, as the only professionals you'll see would be there in a professional capacity and obviously not friends. If they have a social worker or personal assistant, unfortunately there may have been a lot of staff changes in the last few years, due to Covid and staffing issues generally. Even if they have had the same worker or PA for the last 3 years, that person may not have a UK passport, or may not be willing to share their personal passport number.

2. There may also be people who have been self-employed and working from home (in the UK) for the last few years, with clients who are based abroad and who have never met them in person. It would not be appropriate to ask somebody who has only interacted with you by email to be a referee. If they have only been working remotely and don't have any suitable friends who are dentists, priests or any of the professions on the list, then what would they do?

3. There may be cases of, for example, stay-at-home parents who might not have any friends who belong to any of the professions on the list (even if they are married to someone who is a professional, that doesn't necessarily mean that the person they are married to would have a lot of professional friends who would be able or willing to be a referee for someone else's spouse). What would they do when it comes to finding referees? Assume that they have already asked friends of their husbands/wives - not everyone is willing to help someone else's wife/husband/partner that they've barely even met, or the friends may not meet the criteria to be a referee.

From what I've read, the referees can't be strangers. So you can't just pay 2 random solicitors who you've never met before. And even someone who does know you may be put off by the thought of giving out their British passport number.

The Home Office is well aware of all these possible reasons, and has put in place the rules very much on purpose.

It all comes down to a word: integration. One of the requirements to become a British citizen is to have integrated into British society in such a way that you are in a position to ask people to be a referee. If you aren't in such a position it means you have not reached the level of integration into British society required to become a British citizen. As simple as that.

It's just wrapped up in the form of referees. But it's all very much an intentional and selective way of adding a final condition every applicant needs to meet.

Anybody who knows you personally over a period of time can be your referee.

Everybody has neighbours. They will have chatted with you on the street, probably met over a child's or a housewarming party or at a religious event. Keep in mind that ministers of religion can be referees. It is likely that the applicant would at least know the local minister of religion.

If the applicant genuinely knows nobody in the local community for a period of years, that will likely trigger alarm bells at multiple levels, from the applicant's mental health (perhaps they are autistic, in which case it may trigger a medical intervention) to the applicant being held hostage or in a hostile family environment (which may justify a police intervention). I would be cautious of making an argument on those grounds.

And as @kamoe has correctly pointed out, countries in western Europe take integration into the national culture very seriously. See for instance, this news article from 2018, when a woman was denied French citizenship because she refused to shake the hands of a male official at the citizenship ceremony (literally the last stage of the journey).

kamoe wrote: ↑

Sun Aug 07, 2022 6:14 pm

The Home Office is well aware of all these possible reasons, and has put in place the rules very much on purpose.

It all comes down to a word: integration. One of the requirements to become a British citizen is to have integrated into British society in such a way that you are in a position to ask people to be a referee. If you aren't in such a position it means you have not reached the level of integration into British society required to become a British citizen. As simple as that.

It's just wrapped up in the form of referees. But it's all very much an intentional and selective way of adding a final condition every applicant needs to meet.

I really thought that this was supposed to be a supportive forum, and was expecting people to offer suggestions, or at the very least, some empathy. The above contains nothing that is helpful or sympathetic towards the OP's situation. The tone is lacking in empathy and politeness and you present your theories as though they were facts.

"If you aren't in such a position it means you have not reached the level of integration into British society required to become a British citizen. As simple as that." That's an opinion, not a fact. And no it really isn't as simple as that. Unlike what you seem to be saying, it really doesn't mean that you aren't integrated. So if you are disabled and unable to work and your friends are retired or work in low-skilled jobs, and they don't have passport numbers, then you aren't integrated? Or if you are self-employed and work from home for a multi-national company, then you aren't integrated? If you have worked for 4 different employers in the last 3 years and thus your current colleagues have not known you for 3 years, are you not integrated? If you have moved to a new city recently, and thus your new colleagues or new friends have not known you for long enough to act as referees, does that also mean you're not integrated? If you weren't integrated, you would have struggled to pass the 5 year qualifying period, the language requirement and the Life in the UK test, so the fact you've managed to pass those tests, suggests you ARE integrated.

Being integrated is not about having friends who work in certain professions. You would be just as integrated if your friends were street cleaners or plumbers, or if some of your British friends have moved to Australia.

Referees

The referee must:

• have known the (adult) applicant for at least 3 years
• a British passport holder and either a professional person or aged over 25 (at least one referee must be a professional person)

The referee must not:

• be related to the applicant or the other referee
• be the applicant’s representative
• be employed by the Home Office
• have been convicted of an imprisonable offence in the last 10 years for which the sentence is not spent under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974.

Referees cannot be strangers.

I think they require referees to confirm both an applicant’s identity and Good Character.

anonymous09 wrote: ↑

Mon Aug 08, 2022 12:16 am

it really doesn't mean that you aren't integrated.

I invite you to re read my post again.

I didn't say it meant you weren't integrated. I said it meant "you have not reached the level of integration into British society required to become a British citizen". Big difference.

Note the last part "required to become a British citizen". The Home Office sets a bar, and if you want to become a citizen you have to reach that bar. I never said the level of that bar was fair or that I agreed with it, I simply said said such bar existed and such was the level (which are both facts).

I hope that clarifies my message.

With regards to your perception that there is a lack of helpfulness, let me try then to correct some of the misunderstandings you have about referee requirements. Let's see:

So if you are disabled and unable to work and your friends are retired

Retired people can be referees. You don't have to be in active work to be a referee.

or work in low-skilled jobs, and they don't have passport numbers,

I'm afraid, this one is true. Yes, the Home Office does establish a very selective list of professions for referees. Hence why I said it was exclusive as requirement. Again, I never said this was fair or that I agreed.

then you aren't integrated?

As per my first comment, being integrated to some degree, and meeting the Home Office requirement to be considered integrated are not the same thing. Again, I'm not trying to say where the fairness of the bar lies, just that there is one.

Or if you are self-employed and work from home for a multi-national company

I am assuming you mean "or", not "and". Since the two conditions above are mutually exclusive.

If you are self employed, you would have met suppliers, and clients.
If you work from home for a multinational company, you would have met colleagues online.

If you have worked for 4 different employers in the last 3 years

Your previous colleagues can be referees. Nothing says you have to still work with them, or keep super close ties with them right up until the moment you ask them to be referees. In today's world, it is not uncommon for friends to lose touch for a couple of years then reconnect. That still meets the requirements of knowing someone for at least 3 years. Nothing wrong of asking a colleague you met 4 years ago, worked with them for a year, then left the company; if you had reasonable good ties with them.

and thus your current colleagues have not known you for 3 years

This one is true. You cannot ask someone you have not known for less than 3 years to be your referee.

If you have moved to a new city recently, and thus your new colleagues or new friends have not known you for long enough to act as referees

Again, you can ask your previous colleagues, neighbours, and friends. No requirement for the referees to still live in the same city of work at the same company.

If you weren't integrated, you would have struggled to pass the 5 year qualifying period, the language requirement and the Life in the UK test, so the fact you've managed to pass those tests

I disagree. It is entirely possible to pass all those and still live an isolated life with no contact with British citizens. Lots of example of people living in their isolated national communities.

Being integrated is not about having friends who work in certain professions. You would be just as integrated if your friends were street cleaners or plumbers

I agree, but don't tell that to me. Tell that to the Home Office.

, or if some of your British friends have moved to Australia.

Your referees don't have to live in the UK. You can ask a British national who lives in Australia (or anywhere in the world) to be your referee, if they meet the requirements.

Good luck.

kamoe wrote: ↑

Mon Aug 08, 2022 9:14 am

Or if you are self-employed and work from home for a multi-national company

I am assuming you mean "or", not "and". Since the two conditions above are mutually exclusive.

Nope, they're not mutually exclusive. You can work for a multi-national company on a self-employed basis (sometimes known as 'freelance'). There are different kinds of self-employment and different kinds of contracts (there might still be some kind of contract that states that you are not an employee and that they are not obliged to offer any hours. You don't get any holiday entitlement etc. If you have to complete tax returns, then you are probably self-employed.). What I meant by multi-national was not that they are well-known but that they are based abroad and that all the contact you have with them is from your home, over email. You can work for them on a self-employed basis, and the fact there is some kind of (freelance) contract between the company and yourself, doesn't mean you are an employee of theirs.

If you are self employed, you would have met suppliers, and clients.

This depends on the nature of the work. Some self-employed people only have clients who are based abroad, and have never met them in person. And your client might be a multi-national company that you've had regular contact with over email for 10 years, but you may never have interacted with the company's director but only with lots of different project managers (and project manager was not on the list of acceptable professions the last time I checked), due to projects being assigned to different project managers in the many different countries that the company owns offices in. This all depends very much on the nature of the work! I do have personal experience of this. You don't get a lot of personal contact with the same individual. They have a system where you just press a button to let them know you accept a task, and then you press a button once you have completed the task. There are different kinds of self-employment. Not just people who run shops or cafés.

If you work from home for a multinational company, you would have met colleagues online.

That really does depend on the nature of the work! You don't have to meet colleagues online if your work is individual. And if you occasionally do interact with some of them for handovers, it's unlikely that they would be able to meet the criteria for a referee as they don't live in the UK (multi-national means that the team of people who work for them from their homes are scattered around the world. I have personal experience of this and it is due to the nature of the business that they need to have representatives in different countries, who speak different languages. It's unlikely that my colleagues in Spain or Italy are British citizens and they probably don't belong to any of the professions on the list either as that's not the kind of work we do).

You are going on a tangent here.

The point is, as it is clear not only from my answer but from other answers of other members who have contributed to similar posts, is that, the fact that you might be limited to make connections with British nationals in one way should not be a reason to not have connections to British nationals in every other way, to the point that you do not have anyone to ask to be your referee. If you integrated to British society to the level required, then you must have made connections in one way or another (be it work, neighbourhood, religious community, leisure activities, etc).

In other words, while it's reasonable and common to be isolated from wider society in some ways, if you have managed to have a lifestyle that isolates you from society in all ways, then you need to ask yourself some questions regarding how truly you are integrated into the host society.

I have provided clarifications above regarding your previous misunderstandings. Some restrictions you believe apply aren't actually real. Hope that is helpful.

And, with regards to:

anonymous09 wrote: ↑

Mon Aug 08, 2022 1:26 pm

You can work for a multi-national company on a self-employed basis (sometimes known as 'freelance').

If you are freelance, then you do not work for a company. You supply services for that company. Big difference. I would not recommend presenting yourself as working for X or Y company, if you are only freelancing, as that is akin to misrepresenting the truth. Be careful.

kamoe wrote: ↑

Mon Aug 08, 2022 9:14 am

the Home Office does establish a very selective list of professions for referees.

This is how the list was explained to me by my own referee. It is obviously not government advice, but it seems to make sense to me.

I am tempted to suggest to the OP and to @kamoe to leave things be, else we may have to consider locking the thread.

To the OP, we (the members, not just the moderators) are here to help people out with our experience of the system and the knowledge that we have had from our own journeys. But we do deal with the immigration system as it is, not as how we or others think it should be.

This is ideally a place to place questions on immigration and get some (occasionally even contradictory) answers. What these forums are not is a space for venting one's feeling. There is Facebook, Twitter and Reddit for that.

I believe that you have been given sufficient advice in this thread for you to make a decision on the question at hand.

If you decide to write to the Home Office on the lines you outlined in your posts, keep us posted of any response either ways.

secret.simon wrote: ↑

Mon Aug 08, 2022 3:46 pm

To the OP, we (the members, not just the moderators) are here to help people out with our experience of the system and the knowledge that we have had from our own journeys. But we do deal with the immigration system as it is, not as how we or others think it should be.

In other words, don't shoot the messenger. Thanks @secret.simon, better put than I could.

From my perspective, I consider this topic closed (unless the OP has any further questions not previously addressed).

secret.simon wrote: ↑

Sun Aug 07, 2022 7:52 pm

If the applicant genuinely knows nobody in the local community for a period of years, that will likely trigger alarm bells at multiple levels, from the applicant's mental health (perhaps they are autistic, in which case it may trigger a medical intervention) to the applicant being held hostage or in a hostile family environment (which may justify a police intervention). I would be cautious of making an argument on those grounds.

Please clarify what you mean. Trigger alarm bells to whom and in what context? Do you mean in the context of applying for BC, even if the applicant has provided evidence of exceptional circumstances? Do you mean that if somebody who, due to no fault of their own, struggles to find suitable referees, the Home Office deliberately wants to exclude them from successfully applying, even if they have a valid reason that can be evidenced (e.g. medical statement and/or police report)? Do you mean that somebody who has a learning difficulty, and/or autism, and/or a disability that makes them housebound, and/or has been a victim of domestic abuse and/or harassment (none of those are mutually exclusive and you can also have multiple disabilities at the same time) will not be able to apply for any kind of exemption from the referee requirement, even if they have strong evidence to show that the circumstances are of no fault of their own? What I'm trying to find out is whether they have EVER granted an exemption from the referee requirement, due to exceptional/mitigating circumstances - please do back up your answer with some stats or at least some anecdotal accounts or some articles that discuss these barriers to vulnerable groups in more depth. Since some groups CAN be exempt from the language and LITUK test (people over 65 and people with certain types of memory problems), I wouldn't rule out that there might be some way for them to overlook the fact someone has too few referees, in exceptional circumstances. That's what I'm trying to find out please. If you've never heard of such an exemption being made, then please leave the thread open as there might be people who have personal experiences of dealing with the Home Office in similar circumstances. I would be very interested in hearing from people who have been in a similar situation, due to no fault of their own.

secret.simon wrote: ↑

Sun Aug 07, 2022 7:52 pm

And as @kamoe has correctly pointed out, countries in western Europe take integration into the national culture very seriously. See for instance, this news article from 2018, when a woman was denied French citizenship because she refused to shake the hands of a male official at the citizenship ceremony (literally the last stage of the journey).

I don't think he/she mentioned anything about Western Europe but I'm from Western Europe and I can assure you that my home country doesn't even have any kind of language test or anything, and they definitely wouldn't dream of directly or indirectly excluding vulnerable groups of people. Since you brought up other countries, I don't think most Western countries can compare to the UK in terms of the many requirements and high fees, but let's leave that discussion out of this.

In other words, while it's reasonable and common to be isolated from wider society in some ways, if you have managed to have a lifestyle that isolates you from society in all ways, then you need to ask yourself some questions regarding how truly you are integrated into the host society.

Please could you clarify - is this YOUR personal opinion or the Home Office's opinion? If the latter, why not clearly state that, by adding something like "In the eyes of the Home Office, ..." That way you would reduce the risk of people mistaking your statement for your opinion. IF that IS your personal opinion, then it comes across as judgemental as you don't know what people have been through, to end up in such a situation, due to no fault of their own. If you are still talking from the perspective of the Home Office, then please clarify this, but I still have a follow-up question regarding vulnerable groups (e.g. victims of domestic abuse, harassment etc., who can provide evidence of their situation).

If you are freelance, then you do not work for a company. You supply services for that company. Big difference. I would not recommend presenting yourself as working for X or Y company, if you are only freelancing, as that is akin to misrepresenting the truth. Be careful.

You've been picking on my choice of words/grammar tbf. I correctly used the word 'and' as you can definitely be self-employed AND the self-employed work you do can be for a company as you can also be a contractor who works for a specific company. You can also be self-employed AND employed somewhere else at the same time. They are in no way mutually exclusive and it's not akin to misrepresenting the truth since, at least colloquially, you can say you work for them if you are a self-employed contractor, even if you have to complete tax returns. You've been saying they are mutually exclusive but I'm trying to explain that that isn't the case. Whether it's grammatically correct to say that you work for a company if you are a self-employed and at the same time are a contractor for a specific company is besides the point though. My point was that if you work for home on a self-employed basis and the people you carry out work for are abroad, you may not have close regular contact with a lot of people (depending on the nature of the work), and at the same time you might belong to a vulnerable group (e.g. housebound, learning difficulty, abuse victim etc.), and the question I had in relation to this was whether the Home Office has EVER taken mitigating/exceptional circumstances into account. I'm looking for statistics or anecdotal accounts from people who have had similar circumstances, due to no fault of their own.

secret.simon wrote: ↑

Mon Aug 08, 2022 3:46 pm

If you decide to write to the Home Office on the lines you outlined in your posts, keep us posted of any response either ways.

I would seriously consider doing this, or to write to my MP, but before I do that, I would like to hear from people who may have personal experiences of having ended up in a similar situation due to no fault of their own. So please do not lock the thread as there might be other people who have at some point been in a similar situation and who have some suggestions, based on their experiences.

I'm sorry if my question wasn't clear from the beginning - I'm talking about extreme cases. People who can show evidence of excruciating circumstances that makes it difficult to find two referees. People who have - due to no fault of their own - ended up in a situation that makes it difficult to find two suitable referees that have known them for 3 years. For example, people who have severe disabilities that makes them housebound and/or who have experienced serious abuse or harassment, which has led to them ending up in a situation that makes it difficult to find two referees who meet the criteria. None of those circumstances mean that they are bad people in any way, and it doesn't mean that the Home Office deliberately wants to weed them out (if that is deliberate, it would be a human rights issue as it's indirectly discriminating against vulnerable groups, such as victims of domestic violence/harassment and people with learning difficulties or autism, which obviously doesn't mean they are bad people or that they shouldn't have the right to become British citizens should they wish to).

I just want to find out whether anyone has EVER been granted an exemption due to extreme circumstances (for example, they only managed to find one referee but they had a police report to explain why they had to break ties with former friends, e.g. to escape a stalking former partner. Don't blame the victim for ending up in a situation out of their control.). If there's nobody on this forum who is able to answer based on their own experiences, then perhaps there might be a way to make an information request under the freedom of information act.

Just because the referee requirements are there for a reason (to verify your identity etc.), doesn't mean that they've never made an exemption on compelling and compassionate grounds, or whatever it's called (please don't pick on my words, maybe that's not the correct term in this context, but you should know what I mean). THAT'S what I'm trying to find out. Has it ever happened? Obviously the applicant would have to provide medical statements, police reports or other verifiable evidence to explain their circumstances, so I'm obviously not suggesting that people should be able to skip the referee requirement just because they couldn't be bothered to ask anyone.

A lot of people don't have kids and there's nothing unusual about not being a church-goer (or equivalent), whether you are able-bodied or not. If you live in a tower block, you may not have close contact with your neighbours. If you have complained about your neighbours partying too much or they've been showing abusive tendencies, it would be inappropriate to suddenly approach them about being a referee. Your relationship with your neighbours might be different if you live in a terraced house and your neighbours do chat to you regularly, but not everyone does have neighbours like that and just because you live in a tower block and the few neighbours that you do talk to are retirees who don't have passports, doesn't make you a bad person.

Regarding the comment about retired people:
Here's what I found online:
Can a retiree be a referee for British citizenship?
Because only one of the referees needs to be of professional standing, the second referee can be any British citizen over the age of 25, so a retiree would be suitable. They cannot be your first referee because someone who is retired would not count as someone of professional standing because they can no longer be held to the standards of their professional authorising body.

So if you have a friend or neighbour who is a British retiree, they can be your second referee but not your first (but they can only be your second referee IF they have a British passport, right? Sadly many British pensioners don't have a passport or a driving license. Do correct me if I've misunderstood the passport requirement.). But if you have a friend who is a retired accountant from Germany, then you can't use them, neither for your first or your second. Presumably, the same problem would arise if your friend _used to_ be a teacher or social worker, but they no longer work in that profession (e.g. career change or they permanently stopped working due to long-term illness).

If you are going to quote me, please don't exclude the rest of the sentence from the quote as that can take it out of its context.