secret.simon wrote: ↑Fri Nov 14, 2025 7:04 pm
My response will come across as callous and harsh, but I think I'm being factual and dispassionate.
Look at it from a Home Office civil servant's point of view. They receive hundreds, possibly thousands of citizenship applications every month. The vast majority (90%+) are dealt with satisfactorily within the six month self-imposed deadline.
Of the handful that exceed six months, there are some, like yours, that are stuck with an external agency that they have no oversight of and no responsibility for.
From their point of view, it's not their problem. Worse, it's is nobody's problem but yours.
From their point of view, they don't see any urgency of you getting British citizenship. Others have, and you can, live decades in the UK on ILR. British citizenship is not a necessity to live in the UK, from their point of view. It's a lovely add-on, not a necessity.
So the question for you is, how do you chase something which is nobody's problem but yours? How does it negatively impact the Home Office if one person's naturalisation application is delayed because of an external agency check, when hundreds, if not thousands, have received naturalisation successfully in that timeframe?
Also, "systemic failure" may be a bit overblown. One edge case out of thousands of applications does not a systemic failure make.
Thanks @secret.simon, that's a very helpful dose of reality. I wanted exactly this kind of feedback on how the system thinks.
On your point about citizenship being a "lovely add-on" – I'm not sure I agree, especially not in 2025. With parties like Reform UK projected to do well and openly talking about scrapping ILR (even retrospectively), citizenship feels less like an 'add-on' and more like basic security. It’s hard to plan a life here (buy a house, etc.) with that level of uncertainty.
And on it being an "edge case" – I'm not so sure. I personally know other Iranians waiting 2, even 7 years. We've even noticed the same caseworker name on our letters. It feels less like a random one-off, and more like a specific, broken check for a specific cohort. (My suspicion: a few caseworkers have a specific check they run on people from certain nationalities, and the external agency doing it is badly under-resourced).
I agree the caseworker can't do anything. But the 'external agency' is still part of the UK government (e.g. MI5) or an ally (like FBI). My argument is that a 400-day wait for one check isn't a 'process', it's a high-level policy failure (i.e., they've failed to properly resource that specific agency/check).
This brings me back to my main questions:
1. Given this, does this "policy failure" angle still seem like a total waste of time? I know I'm in
uncharted territory, but the alternative is to just give up and wait for years. I'd rather at least try. Do you have any alternative suggestion?
2. What's the
actual risk? If I do this and it just annoys the caseworker (who has already told me that communicating with others has no effect = politely saying "please stop"), what's the worst that can happen? Can they genuinely "make life miserable" in an indirect way, or am I just being paranoid?
I'm really just asking for your opinion on the risk vs. reward of trying this one last angle. Thanks.