Nightmare - what can we do?

[HelpingMyHusband]

Hello all,

So my husband is a failed asylum seeker.
Entered UK illegally in 2011
Met me 2013
Married February 2014
Acquired DL in June 2014
Completed 10 years legal leave to remain June 2024
Passed English test with distinction
Passed Life in UK test in December 2024
Applied for ILR in December 2024 (still awaiting decision)

I am British born. My husband and I have 2 British daughters, aged 2 and 7. The eldest daughter is autistic. We both have jobs. We own a British house together (both names on mortgage papers).

We had intended to apply for British citizenship for my husband as soon as he got his ILR.

But now I understand from the new guidelines on "Good character" requirement, since February 2025, that my husband is now barred from ever getting citizenship due to his entry into the UK. (Wow what extremely bad timing given his immigration timeline...)

Is this true?

This is devastating. My husband has no passport. A failed asylum seeker can only apply for a black certificate of travel, and when we got one from the Home Office in 2015 we were advised that the UK government would only provide this once only and not renew it in future.

So now, without recourse to a British passport, my husband is landlocked to the UK for the rest of his life.

How can this be morally justifiable?

I have written to my MP and I understand this update to the immigration rules is being challenged in the courts at the moment, but I would appreciate the opinion of anyone here on my husband's situation - could he qualify for a discretionary grant of citizenship for compassionate/family reasons??

Thank you

[HelpingMyHusband]

I think perhaps I should add...

The illegal entry happened in February 2011 via the Eurotunnel and my husband was not "concealed" but arrived in 2nd class seating with another English family. He didn't use a boat or hide in a crate, and he didn't pay anyone to smuggle him in.

The new guidance states:

"A person who applies for citizenship from 10 February 2025 who has previously
arrived without a required valid entry clearance or electronic travel authorisation,
having made a dangerous journey will normally be refused citizenship.
A dangerous journey includes, but is not limited to, travelling by small boat or
concealed in a vehicle or other conveyance. It does not include, for example, arrival
as a passenger with a commercial airline."

Since I don't think my husband's entry could be considered a dangerous journey, will he still be affected?

[contorted_svy]

This is hard to determine as the rules have just changed and as you said are being challenged.

That being said, your husband chose to come here to request asylum and be protected from what could have happened in his home country, which the UK is doing. Citizenship is not a right, it is an entitlement - except for travelling abroad, which is a restriction that the UK (and I imagine other countries) may put on asylum seekers, isn't a violation of human rights in itself in my view. A discretionary application may consider circumstances such as having received a job offer that requires British citizenship to obtain security clearance. In any case, once your husband has ILR he has right to live and work indefinitely in the UK.

I would advise to wait until your husband gets ILR and then see what the state of things is. You may want to consult a solicitor to build your strongest case and then apply knowing there is a chance of being refused.

[zakithegreat]

Really sorry to hear about your circumstances, hope your application is approved when you do apply.

I am in a similar position although I came as a child at the age of 13 and have now obtained ILR. Lets keep the thread active with updates as in when they are available.

[zakithegreat]

"except for travelling abroad, which is a restriction that the UK (and I imagine other countries) may put on asylum seekers, isn't a violation of human rights in itself in my view."

Luckily the human rights charters are not constructed according to "your view" or else we would be living in a very dark world.

Not being allowed to Travel abroad when living legally in a country isn't considered a violation of human rights lol give me a break.

[HelpingMyHusband]

This is hard to determine as the rules have just changed and as you said are being challenged.

That being said, your husband chose to come here to request asylum and be protected from what could have happened in his home country, which the UK is doing. Citizenship is not a right, it is an entitlement - except for travelling abroad, which is a restriction that the UK (and I imagine other countries) may put on asylum seekers, isn't a violation of human rights in itself in my view. A discretionary application may consider circumstances such as having received a job offer that requires British citizenship to obtain security clearance. In any case, once your husband has ILR he has right to live and work indefinitely in the UK.

I would advise to wait until your husband gets ILR and then see what the state of things is. You may want to consult a solicitor to build your strongest case and then apply knowing there is a chance of being refused.

Yes we will wait and hope and pray for the best when the ILR visa comes. At the very least, that visa will grant us some financial respite from all the punishing 2.5 year renewals (we start saving straight away).

I understand your point, but put it this way, my husband and I have 2 British kids. Without the British passport, my husband can never go on holiday abroad with either of his kids. He will never be able to visit his children if they decide as British citizens to live or study abroad in the future.

Of course, I haven't gone abroad in the last 13 years anyway in solidarity with supporting my husband, but think of it - my children throughout their lifetime cannot travel with their own father abroad?

Is that morally justifiable?

Never mind the fact my husband has a British job, pays British taxes, raises British kids, but has now been stripped of his right to ever be recognised as British...

[HelpingMyHusband]

Really sorry to hear about your circumstances, hope your application is approved when you do apply.

I am in a similar position although I came as a child at the age of 13 and have now obtained ILR. Lets keep the thread active with updates as in when they are available.

I am sorry to hear this is happening to you too. My husband was 19 years old when he entered the UK.

I think due to your age you will be given more discretion than my husband, as children under the age of 16 years are to be granted exemption from the illegal entry disqualification as I understand it. This is because you could not have stopped/been responsible for the illegal entry due to your age at the time, especially if you entered with your family or guardians. A good lawyer will be able to make a strong argument for you on this point.

I will be praying for you to be granted citizenship in this country. This is your home and I am so sorry you have not been accepted as you should have been. I understand the mental toll this takes on others, despite being a British born citizen myself. I have supported my husband for the last 13 years on his journey to acceptance and I will not give up now!

[contorted_svy]

This is hard to determine as the rules have just changed and as you said are being challenged.

That being said, your husband chose to come here to request asylum and be protected from what could have happened in his home country, which the UK is doing. Citizenship is not a right, it is an entitlement - except for travelling abroad, which is a restriction that the UK (and I imagine other countries) may put on asylum seekers, isn't a violation of human rights in itself in my view. A discretionary application may consider circumstances such as having received a job offer that requires British citizenship to obtain security clearance. In any case, once your husband has ILR he has right to live and work indefinitely in the UK.

I would advise to wait until your husband gets ILR and then see what the state of things is. You may want to consult a solicitor to build your strongest case and then apply knowing there is a chance of being refused.

Yes we will wait and hope and pray for the best when the ILR visa comes. At the very least, that visa will grant us some financial respite from all the punishing 2.5 year renewals (we start saving straight away).

I understand your point, but put it this way, my husband and I have 2 British kids. Without the British passport, my husband can never go on holiday abroad with either of his kids. He will never be able to visit his children if they decide as British citizens to live or study abroad in the future.

Of course, I haven't gone abroad in the last 13 years anyway in solidarity with supporting my husband, but think of it - my children throughout their lifetime cannot travel with their own father abroad?

Is that morally justifiable?

Never mind the fact my husband has a British job, pays British taxes, raises British kids, but has now been stripped of his right to ever be recognised as British...

I am not saying that this is morally justifiable or isn't, and I am not happy that this situation exists, for you and for others. British citizenship is not an entitlement but a privilege and the UK decides who can get this privilege granted or not. You have made a choice to support your husband which is commendable, but note that I am only answering based on the guidance rather than what I or anyone else may think is right or wrong.

[zakithegreat]

This is hard to determine as the rules have just changed and as you said are being challenged.

That being said, your husband chose to come here to request asylum and be protected from what could have happened in his home country, which the UK is doing. Citizenship is not a right, it is an entitlement - except for travelling abroad, which is a restriction that the UK (and I imagine other countries) may put on asylum seekers, isn't a violation of human rights in itself in my view. A discretionary application may consider circumstances such as having received a job offer that requires British citizenship to obtain security clearance. In any case, once your husband has ILR he has right to live and work indefinitely in the UK.

I would advise to wait until your husband gets ILR and then see what the state of things is. You may want to consult a solicitor to build your strongest case and then apply knowing there is a chance of being refused.

Yes we will wait and hope and pray for the best when the ILR visa comes. At the very least, that visa will grant us some financial respite from all the punishing 2.5 year renewals (we start saving straight away).

I understand your point, but put it this way, my husband and I have 2 British kids. Without the British passport, my husband can never go on holiday abroad with either of his kids. He will never be able to visit his children if they decide as British citizens to live or study abroad in the future.

Of course, I haven't gone abroad in the last 13 years anyway in solidarity with supporting my husband, but think of it - my children throughout their lifetime cannot travel with their own father abroad?

Is that morally justifiable?

Never mind the fact my husband has a British job, pays British taxes, raises British kids, but has now been stripped of his right to ever be recognised as British...

I am not saying that this is morally justifiable or isn't, and I am not happy that this situation exists, for you and for others. British citizenship is not an entitlement but a privilege and the UK decides who can get this privilege granted or not. You have made a choice to support your husband which is commendable, but note that I am only answering based on the guidance rather than what I or anyone else may think is right or wrong.

Fair enough, apologies for my earlier comment.

[zakithegreat]

Really sorry to hear about your circumstances, hope your application is approved when you do apply.

I am in a similar position although I came as a child at the age of 13 and have now obtained ILR. Lets keep the thread active with updates as in when they are available.

I am sorry to hear this is happening to you too. My husband was 19 years old when he entered the UK.

I think due to your age you will be given more discretion than my husband, as children under the age of 16 years are to be granted exemption from the illegal entry disqualification as I understand it. This is because you could not have stopped/been responsible for the illegal entry due to your age at the time, especially if you entered with your family or guardians. A good lawyer will be able to make a strong argument for you on this point.

I will be praying for you to be granted citizenship in this country. This is your home and I am so sorry you have not been accepted as you should have been. I understand the mental toll this takes on others, despite being a British born citizen myself. I have supported my husband for the last 13 years on his journey to acceptance and I will not give up now!

Thanks for the kind words, I wish you all the best in return and hopefully discretion is exercised in your husband's favor. I am not sure if there is a specific chapter in the guidance that confirms that under 16s will be granted discretion and it just seems very arbitrary and depending on the mood of the caseworker.

[CR001]

Thanks for the kind words, I wish you all the best in return and hopefully discretion is exercised in your husband's favor. I am not sure if there is a specific chapter in the guidance that confirms that under 16s will be granted discretion and it just seems very arbitrary and depending on the mood of the caseworker.

Citizenship has absolutely nothing to do with 'the mood of the caseworker'!! They follow the rules and official guidance, that is it.

[zakithegreat]

Thanks for the kind words, I wish you all the best in return and hopefully discretion is exercised in your husband's favor. I am not sure if there is a specific chapter in the guidance that confirms that under 16s will be granted discretion and it just seems very arbitrary and depending on the mood of the caseworker.

Citizenship has absolutely nothing to do with 'the mood of the caseworker'!! They follow the rules and official guidance, that is it.

I respectfully disagree. Please refrain from making dismissive statements without first reviewing the guidance. The guidance contains multiple points confirming that caseworkers have the discretion to make decisions based on individual circumstances, especially when it relates to children.

In reality, if a case that would typically be refused is presented, but the guidance permits the caseworker to exercise their discretion, they are entitled to do so. Therefore, decisions can, to a significant extent, be influenced by the caseworker’s subjective judgment or their "mood".

[HelpingMyHusband]

This is hard to determine as the rules have just changed and as you said are being challenged.

That being said, your husband chose to come here to request asylum and be protected from what could have happened in his home country, which the UK is doing. Citizenship is not a right, it is an entitlement - except for travelling abroad, which is a restriction that the UK (and I imagine other countries) may put on asylum seekers, isn't a violation of human rights in itself in my view. A discretionary application may consider circumstances such as having received a job offer that requires British citizenship to obtain security clearance. In any case, once your husband has ILR he has right to live and work indefinitely in the UK.

I would advise to wait until your husband gets ILR and then see what the state of things is. You may want to consult a solicitor to build your strongest case and then apply knowing there is a chance of being refused.

Yes we will wait and hope and pray for the best when the ILR visa comes. At the very least, that visa will grant us some financial respite from all the punishing 2.5 year renewals (we start saving straight away).

I understand your point, but put it this way, my husband and I have 2 British kids. Without the British passport, my husband can never go on holiday abroad with either of his kids. He will never be able to visit his children if they decide as British citizens to live or study abroad in the future.

Of course, I haven't gone abroad in the last 13 years anyway in solidarity with supporting my husband, but think of it - my children throughout their lifetime cannot travel with their own father abroad?

Is that morally justifiable?

Never mind the fact my husband has a British job, pays British taxes, raises British kids, but has now been stripped of his right to ever be recognised as British...

I am not saying that this is morally justifiable or isn't, and I am not happy that this situation exists, for you and for others. British citizenship is not an entitlement but a privilege and the UK decides who can get this privilege granted or not. You have made a choice to support your husband which is commendable, but note that I am only answering based on the guidance rather than what I or anyone else may think is right or wrong.

I understand, and I apologise too if the tone of any of my comments came across as aggressive or too strong.

I suppose I am simply trying to work out the arguments for compassionate discretion to be exercised in my husband's case (and indeed, for any other British family with a refugee/former asylum seeker in a similar situation).

The impact analysis of the new February 2025 changes have not yet been made. I wonder how the Labour Government fares with pursuing these policies when more stories like mine and others come out.

I will try and see what case I can present to my Labour MP and hope the courts rule in favour of compassion and social integration.

[contorted_svy]

I am not disagreeing with you or justifying the actions of Labour in pursuing this "clarification" as the HO phrased it - based on the guidance, being able to travel abroad with family would most likely not count as compassionate grounds.

[HelpingMyHusband]

I am not disagreeing with you or justifying the actions of Labour in pursuing this "clarification" as the HO phrased it - based on the guidance, being able to travel abroad with family would most likely not count as compassionate grounds.

But keeping a legal British resident stuck indefinitely in the country is compassionate? The Home Office have stated they will not renew my husband's Certificate of Travel. Therefore my husband cannot go abroad, for holidays or anything else.

And what of his Britush children's rights to travel as a family unit with their father? This "clarification " seems to deny them the right to ever travel with their father.

This could affect more than holidays. In years to come as our children become adults and travel/live/study abroad, their father can never accompany them. If medical treatment is required abroad, my husband cannot go, for himself or them.

It is almost as if the British Government has been happy to take all our money for visas, test and NHS surcharges over 10+ years and would have us now uproot our whole British family to try and build another life in a different country where we can travel as a family unit.

I am an Optician, so the UK would be losing clinical staff if this case.

[contorted_svy]

I am not disagreeing with you or justifying the actions of Labour in pursuing this "clarification" as the HO phrased it - based on the guidance, being able to travel abroad with family would most likely not count as compassionate grounds.

But keeping a legal British resident stuck indefinitely in the country is compassionate? The Home Office have stated they will not renew my husband's Certificate of Travel. Therefore my husband cannot go abroad, for holidays or anything else.

And what of his Britush children's rights to travel as a family unit with their father? This "clarification " seems to deny them the right to ever travel with their father.

This could affect more than holidays. In years to come as our children become adults and travel/live/study abroad, their father can never accompany them. If medical treatment is required abroad, my husband cannot go, for himself or them.

It is almost as if the British Government has been happy to take all our money for visas, test and NHS surcharges over 10+ years and would have us now uproot our whole British family to try and build another life in a different country where we can travel as a family unit.

I am an Optician, so the UK would be losing clinical staff if this case.

Again, just going off the guidance, all we know is

Any person applying for citizenship from 10 February 2025, who previously entered
the UK illegally will normally be refused, regardless of the time that has passed since
the illegal entry took place.

and

Arriving without a required valid entry clearance or electronic travel
authorisation, having made a dangerous journey
A person who applies for citizenship from 10 February 2025 who has previously
arrived without a required valid entry clearance or electronic travel authorisation,
having made a dangerous journey will normally be refused citizenship.
A dangerous journey includes, but is not limited to, travelling by small boat or
concealed in a vehicle or other conveyance. It does not include, for example, arrival
as a passenger with a commercial airline.

You said your husband didn't make a dangerous journey, so you could try to highlight that and the fact he has always lived here, worked, paid taxes, etc.

Look also at the last part of the guidance

Exceptional grants
This section explains when a person might exceptionally be granted citizenship and
the approval level needed if proposing to grant.
An exceptional case is one where on the facts of the case, the application would
normally be refused but there are mitigating circumstances which mean it would be
appropriate to grant.
Examples of where applications may be granted include, but are not limited to, cases
where:
• the person’s criminal conviction is for an offence which is not recognised in the
UK or there is no comparable offence, for example homosexuality or
membership of a trade union: see convictions and sentences imposed outside
of the UK
• a person in their late sixties has offending committed a long time ago, which
would normally require refusal of citizenship due to a 2-year custodial sentence,
but over 40 years have passed since the last conviction with no further
offending or other adverse factors. When balanced against the earlier
offending, the significant proportion of their UK residency that was spent in
compliance with the law and avoiding wider character concerns, indicates that
they are now of good character
• a person who entered illegally 14 years ago would normally require refusal of
citizenship as an illegal entrant but has been recognised as a victim of
trafficking and subsequently granted refugee status. They haven’t acquired any
other notable adverse character issues during their residency, indicative that on
a balance of probabilities they are now of good character
• a person with one single 14-month custodial sentence, from 12 years ago when
they were aged 19, which would normally require refusal of citizenship under
the sentence-based threshold. Since their conviction they have committed to
reform by actively engaging with youth and mental health charities and
promoting the reduction of youth crime, indicative that on a balance of
probabilities they are now of good character
• a person who has a significant partially unpaid NHS debt that would normally
require refusal of citizenship, but who has mitigating circumstances
demonstrating that the debt was accumulated for life sustaining treatment
which is now impacting their employment opportunities and ability to repay the
remainder
The court of appeal judgment in the case of Secretary of State for the Home
Department v Hubert Howard (deceased), clarified that there is no direct connection
between good character on one hand and long residence and integration on the
other. Therefore, it is the applicant’s conduct during their residency that is the
important factor to consider when considering an exceptional grant, and not the
length of residency alone.
However, it is possible that long residency or offending that happened a long time
ago, may in some cases have enabled an applicant to accumulate enough strong
positive factors to demonstrate they are now a reformed character despite earlier
offending that would normally result in refusal under the sentence based thresholds,
or to demonstrate that a significant proportion of their life has not been associated
with any indicators of poor character such that on the balance of probabilities they
are considered to be of good character now and a refusal would be
disproportionate.
Discretion must be applied on a case-by-case basis in relation to the individual
conduct of the applicant, when considering whether to exceptionally grant citizenship
who would otherwise face mandatory refusal of citizenship.
All proposals to grant exceptionally must be approved by the chief caseworker.
Any proposal to grant a person who has who has a custodial conviction, or
convictions, at a level that would normally lead to refusal, must be approved by
ministers:
• for applications made prior to 31 July 2023 this will be any proposal to grant a
person who has been convicted with a sentence of 4 years or more
• for applications made from 31 July 2023 this will be any proposal to grant a
person who has been convicted with a sentence of 12 months or more, or
consecutive sentences totalling 12 months or more

For the good character requirement, there is nothing that allows discretion to the caseworker based on "compassionate grounds" that I could find. For other requirements, eg absences, this is instead possible.

[razergd1]

Just had a read through this thread. Few points to add for discussion.
As written above citizenship is a matter of policy. The UK have decided to bar people who broke it's sovereignty from ever obtaining citizenship. This is a matter of regulation. British citizenship is not a right or entitlement.

Not having it won't bar anyone with firm legal immigration status from traveling. The first option is to obtain a passport or a travel document from your country of citizenship. If this is not possible and you obtained LTR or ILR then your other option is to apply for HO travel document. This can facilitate international travel. Though it will not grant you the same level of access as British passport as you may need to obtain a visa to visit other nations.

You can find details here
https://www.gov.uk/apply-home-office-travel-document

I would like to point out that many other countries may refuse entry for those who knowingly violated other countries immigration laws in the past.

[HelpingMyHusband]

Just had a read through this thread. Few points to add for discussion.
As written above citizenship is a matter of policy. The UK have decided to bar people who broke it's sovereignty from ever obtaining citizenship. This is a matter of regulation. British citizenship is not a right or entitlement.

Not having it won't bar anyone with firm legal immigration status from traveling. The first option is to obtain a passport or a travel document from your country of citizenship. If this is not possible and you obtained LTR or ILR then your other option is to apply for HO travel document. This can facilitate international travel. Though it will not grant you the same level of access as British passport as you may need to obtain a visa to visit other nations.

You can find details here
https://www.gov.uk/apply-home-office-travel-document

I would like to point out that many other countries may refuse entry for those who knowingly violated other countries immigration laws in the past.

My husband cannot get a new Libyan passport without travelling to Libya, from where he (unsuccessfully) claimed asylum.

He cannot travel to Libya without applying for a Certificate of Travel (the only HO travel document there is for him in this case). The Home Office have stated they will not issue him another Certifcate of Travel in 2015.

He has been rendered effectively stateless by this decision to bar him from British citizenship (and access to a British passport).

What is he expected to do?

[HelpingMyHusband]

I am not disagreeing with you or justifying the actions of Labour in pursuing this "clarification" as the HO phrased it - based on the guidance, being able to travel abroad with family would most likely not count as compassionate grounds.

But keeping a legal British resident stuck indefinitely in the country is compassionate? The Home Office have stated they will not renew my husband's Certificate of Travel. Therefore my husband cannot go abroad, for holidays or anything else.

And what of his Britush children's rights to travel as a family unit with their father? This "clarification " seems to deny them the right to ever travel with their father.

This could affect more than holidays. In years to come as our children become adults and travel/live/study abroad, their father can never accompany them. If medical treatment is required abroad, my husband cannot go, for himself or them.

It is almost as if the British Government has been happy to take all our money for visas, test and NHS surcharges over 10+ years and would have us now uproot our whole British family to try and build another life in a different country where we can travel as a family unit.

I am an Optician, so the UK would be losing clinical staff if this case.

Again, just going off the guidance, all we know is

Any person applying for citizenship from 10 February 2025, who previously entered
the UK illegally will normally be refused, regardless of the time that has passed since
the illegal entry took place.

and

Arriving without a required valid entry clearance or electronic travel
authorisation, having made a dangerous journey
A person who applies for citizenship from 10 February 2025 who has previously
arrived without a required valid entry clearance or electronic travel authorisation,
having made a dangerous journey will normally be refused citizenship.
A dangerous journey includes, but is not limited to, travelling by small boat or
concealed in a vehicle or other conveyance. It does not include, for example, arrival
as a passenger with a commercial airline.

You said your husband didn't make a dangerous journey, so you could try to highlight that and the fact he has always lived here, worked, paid taxes, etc.

Look also at the last part of the guidance

Exceptional grants
This section explains when a person might exceptionally be granted citizenship and
the approval level needed if proposing to grant.
An exceptional case is one where on the facts of the case, the application would
normally be refused but there are mitigating circumstances which mean it would be
appropriate to grant.
Examples of where applications may be granted include, but are not limited to, cases
where:
• the person’s criminal conviction is for an offence which is not recognised in the
UK or there is no comparable offence, for example homosexuality or
membership of a trade union: see convictions and sentences imposed outside
of the UK
• a person in their late sixties has offending committed a long time ago, which
would normally require refusal of citizenship due to a 2-year custodial sentence,
but over 40 years have passed since the last conviction with no further
offending or other adverse factors. When balanced against the earlier
offending, the significant proportion of their UK residency that was spent in
compliance with the law and avoiding wider character concerns, indicates that
they are now of good character
• a person who entered illegally 14 years ago would normally require refusal of
citizenship as an illegal entrant but has been recognised as a victim of
trafficking and subsequently granted refugee status. They haven’t acquired any
other notable adverse character issues during their residency, indicative that on
a balance of probabilities they are now of good character
• a person with one single 14-month custodial sentence, from 12 years ago when
they were aged 19, which would normally require refusal of citizenship under
the sentence-based threshold. Since their conviction they have committed to
reform by actively engaging with youth and mental health charities and
promoting the reduction of youth crime, indicative that on a balance of
probabilities they are now of good character
• a person who has a significant partially unpaid NHS debt that would normally
require refusal of citizenship, but who has mitigating circumstances
demonstrating that the debt was accumulated for life sustaining treatment
which is now impacting their employment opportunities and ability to repay the
remainder
The court of appeal judgment in the case of Secretary of State for the Home
Department v Hubert Howard (deceased), clarified that there is no direct connection
between good character on one hand and long residence and integration on the
other. Therefore, it is the applicant’s conduct during their residency that is the
important factor to consider when considering an exceptional grant, and not the
length of residency alone.
However, it is possible that long residency or offending that happened a long time
ago, may in some cases have enabled an applicant to accumulate enough strong
positive factors to demonstrate they are now a reformed character despite earlier
offending that would normally result in refusal under the sentence based thresholds,
or to demonstrate that a significant proportion of their life has not been associated
with any indicators of poor character such that on the balance of probabilities they
are considered to be of good character now and a refusal would be
disproportionate.
Discretion must be applied on a case-by-case basis in relation to the individual
conduct of the applicant, when considering whether to exceptionally grant citizenship
who would otherwise face mandatory refusal of citizenship.
All proposals to grant exceptionally must be approved by the chief caseworker.
Any proposal to grant a person who has who has a custodial conviction, or
convictions, at a level that would normally lead to refusal, must be approved by
ministers:
• for applications made prior to 31 July 2023 this will be any proposal to grant a
person who has been convicted with a sentence of 4 years or more
• for applications made from 31 July 2023 this will be any proposal to grant a
person who has been convicted with a sentence of 12 months or more, or
consecutive sentences totalling 12 months or more

For the good character requirement, there is nothing that allows discretion to the caseworker based on "compassionate grounds" that I could find. For other requirements, eg absences, this is instead possible.

I mean... we could add that my husband completed the Gold Duke of Edinburgh award in 2018, receiving a certificate from Prince Edward in Buckingham Palace in May of that year.

Surely, this is could count as evidence of "good character" that overrides the illegal entry?

My husband has no criminal record in the UK, illegal entry notwithstanding. No periods of overstaying or absences, so I am not sure how illegal entrants can qualify in this regard under compassionate grounds but my husband cannot?

I would have thought the family rights of British spouse and British children to travel freely with their partner/father in and out of the UK might have counted for something.

Hopefully some further "clarifications" on the exceptional grants possible under these new rules will emerge after the court cases conclude

[contorted_svy]

We don't know what the practical consequences of this will be yet. You can bring evidence that shows you husband's good character but I think the main thing in your case is that he didn't enter the UK on a dangerous journey.

[razergd1]

Just to add. Your husband inability to get a Libyan passport in the UK without travelling to Libya is a ground for getting a certificate of travel.

'your country’s national authorities cannot issue passports in the UK or send an application to your own country to be processed'

This is in the certificate of travel guidance. If there is other reason for refusal (such as debt, absconding national service etc) then he's not entitled.

Lack of ability to get a travel document in circumstances beyond your husband control from his home country national authority should not be a barrier for travel.

CoT's for ILR holders are issued with 5 years validity.

[HelpingMyHusband]

Just to add. Your husband inability to get a Libyan passport in the UK without travelling to Libya is a ground for getting a certificate of travel.

'your country’s national authorities cannot issue passports in the UK or send an application to your own country to be processed'

This is in the certificate of travel guidance. If there is other reason for refusal (such as debt, absconding national service etc) then he's not entitled.

Lack of ability to get a travel document in circumstances beyond your husband control from his home country national authority should not be a barrier for travel.

CoT's for ILR holders are issued with 5 years validity.

Unfortunately the immigration instruction from the Home Office on the issuing of the CoT to my husband in 2015 was very explicit.

It said they would not issue another CoT, once the one we got expired in 2016.

The Home Office effectively transferred the responsibility to Libya authorities to issue him with any further passports or documentation. Yet at the same time the Home Office has barred my husband from travelling to Libya on the grounds of his failed asylum application.

My husband therefore has been left with no recourse to a passport since 2016.

[contorted_svy]

Is it worth trying to request another one, and seeing what the HO position is now?

[HelpingMyHusband]

Is it worth trying to request another one, and seeing what the HO position is now?

Is it worth the risk of losing money?

Is there a way to ask the HO for another CoT given these circumstances, without making and paying for an application that could just get refused (if the HO follow their own instructions from their letter in 2015?)

And even if we do get a CoT my husband cannot use it to go to Libya, so he still can never get a passport of his first (and only) nationality. He is still stateless.

Libya is at least a little bit safer than it was in 2011 when my husband claimed asylum, so this just socks that this stupid ban on British citizenship for refugees has left my husband trapped

If the Home Office would just grant my husband British citizenship he could travel anywhere with a British passport and none of this would be such a headache for us.

[contorted_svy]

Applying for British citizenship costs a lot more money than a CoT. What you choose to do is up to you.