from what you put on I still understand it needs to be a guilt, or maybe I am wrong, it says " you must stick to the principle of innocent until proven guilty", I mean if the charge was dropped, then it is a different story, it was dropped, but if they can prove someone has done something wrong and he or she is founded guilty but with less sentence because of lack of evidence then they can refuse. I know where you are coming from, then again like what you said "there is no definition of good character in nationality law" therefore their hands are open to do whatever they like,rod_p wrote:You are correct in what you say. However, again I must state you will find a lot of points that seem to be ambiguous. Some parts of a doc will say one thing and other parts or other docs will form a contradiction.Alish60 wrote: ...onlyconcern should be conviction or caution etc, not aaccusations or even charges without conviction. Am I wrong?
This is the related link:
http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/sitec ... ch18annexd
On the surface, it would seem that "no criminal convictions = naturalisation now". However, if you read the documentation and witness the plight of many of this forum's members, it is not so simple. UKBA does state on their website "there is no definition of good character in nationality law". Clearly ambiguous.
On page 44 of the document I pointed you to, it states:
The consequences of the person’s actions. Involves looking at the offence the person has committed. The person does not need to be convicted for specifically causing a particular offence which makes them culpable to the criminal standard, for example, they commit a serious offence but convicted of a lesser one because it cannot be proven beyond reasonable doubt they were guilty of the more serious offence. Instead, you must look at the consequences
And, later on page 80, it states:
However, although you must stick to the principle of innocent until proven guilty, insufficient evidence to bring a case to court does not prevent you refusing the application. This is because the standard of proof is lower for a refusal under character and/or conduct grounds.
Sorry Mr. sarwar74 for engaging in this debate. However, some members have the tendency to be very stressed about slow approvals and some of what myself and Mr. Alisha are discussing are relevant and perhaps helpful to those who encounter prolonged approvals. If the moderators can move this debate to a more suitable location, then great - I agree with that decision as I understand the importance of this thread to those that is is mainly aimed at.
**About what Mr. sarwar74 said is right but what we are saying is not irrelevant. we must have a sticky topic about the delays and the possible causes, these is very important. it needs to stay at the top like the timelines, because the main concern for everyone is the delay and the causes. so moderators attention please, we need a sticky topic for this issue.
