Form T applications

[minds1786]

Hey Everyone

I'm just wondering has anybody been through the Form T process with the biometrics added in? or if anyone has any advice about my situation?.

Finally decided I should probably go through the Form T route since I've lived here all my life and had my education here. I only learned of this a few years ago when i tried to apply for a passport and was advised they need my parents marriage certificate to prove I was British. I also had to leave my job within a government contract, as its even getting more stricter to apply for jobs without a passport. Learned this the hard way when they starting asking about my parents work status at the time of my birth which is strange.

My situation i was born in 1986 in the UK. My father and mother were both born in Nigeria. My Dad was born in 1932 and left there in 1958 to travel to the UK to work and study, he spent a few years here before marrying my mother. Upon returning to Nigeria sometime in the 60s, I believe this is when Nigeria became an independent state and he then had to apply for leave to enter the UK for an indefinite period, this was a stamp in his passport at heathrow, is this classed as the "settled" status? This was granted in 1976. The marriage took place in 1977 and then my dad returned to the UK and i think my mother had to apply for the spouse visa? Not entirely sure of the process back then. I think when this was granted my mother then joined my father in the UK and my sister was born 1979 and brother born 1983 so they don't have this issue when it came to applying for passports as they were born before the 1983 cut off date.

As my mother passed away in 1989 i have no idea of what her status was at the time of my birth as i don't have her passport it may have been lost. I also wrote to the home office and they advised records are destroyed after a number of years. I asked my father a few years ago before he died if remembers if had the marriage certificate but he couldn't remember what had a happened to it. When he passed away a few years ago i had a look through his possessions and found the first passport he traveled here on which was British passport of Nigeria, which also had British Subject status in. But i'm guessing he lost that status and returned to Nigeria as his passport after that was a Nigerian one? i also found a photocopy of the marriage certificate, which took place in Nigeria, but i know this wouldn't be enough to satisfy the requirement and since it was such a long time ago i doubt records have been kept over there. I have no idea how i could find out as i know nothing about Nigeria and or whether i have any family over there my dad pretty much cut ties and never went back after my mother passed away. I'm sure if my father knew of the requirements to become a British citizen he probably would of registered before i was 18, but i doubt it was well documented back then. I only learn of this in my 20s as we never traveled while we were growing up. Since my brother and sister didn't have this issue and he assumed i would be fine.

I went to use the NCS to apply using Form T but was advised form T is usually only for children? Which is strange as the form ask for work status and national insurance number for the character requirement. I had been avoiding this slightly cause i couldn't afford it, but as the fee keeps going up i thought i better do it as soon as possible as its taking me a few months to save for it.

[noajthan]

Some interesting points from the T guidance...

An application may be made by an adult or a minor

If one of your parents was a BC, or settled in UK at the time of your birth, you are already a British citizen and there is no need to apply for
registration

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/s ... c_2015.pdf

In view of the above it may be worth shooting for a NS check (before committing hard-earned funds to the form T application):
https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... us-form-ns

And, if you proceed with your original plan, worth checking if NCS will entertain a form T application - not sure that they can handle it.

[vinny]

he then had to apply for leave to enter the UK for an indefinite period, this was a stamp in his passport at heathrow, is this classed as the "settled" status? This was granted in 1976.

Yes.

brother born 1983

Your brother should have the same circumstances as you as the commencement date was 1 Jan 1983.

[minds1786]

Sorry that should be 1982 he was born in November so he was born just in time.

[vinny]

You only have to show that at least one parent was settled at the time of your birth.

[minds1786]

Would I show this to the home office or the passport office? As when I applied for the passport they required the marriage certificate which i couldn't provide, so i ended up having to cancel the application and losing the fee. Looking at the form NS form it looks like you have to prove you some form of ancestry in the UK? I doubt i would fall under this and i have no clue who my grandparents are i believe they passed away on my dads side. Not sure of my mothers side. I'm guessing they were all born in Nigeria aswell.

[vinny]

If you are claiming British citizenship via your father's settled status, then his marriage certificate with your mother is required. Perhaps you can get certified copies. If you are claiming via your mother's settled status, then her marriage certificate is not necessary.

No need to go into grandparents' status.

[Richard W]

If you are claiming British citizenship via your father's settled status, then his marriage certificate with your mother is required. Perhaps you can get certified copies. If you are claiming via your mother's settled status, then her marriage certificate is not necessary.

I'll be mildly surprised if you can't get a fresh marriage certificate for your parents, but if you can't, then you could also register as British using form UKF, which is substantially cheaper than form T. The key point is that though no longer British, your father could transmit British nationality to his legitimate children born in the UK.

However, I have one grave concern over your ability to register as British (apart from the issue that you can't if you're British, but I don't think that's Catch 22). On what basis would you be in the UK if you were not British? By Section 41A of the BNA 1981, you can't be registered as British if you are of bad character, and being in the UK unlawfully would make you of bad character. If you can't prove you're already British, you may have to apply for leave to remain on the basis of long residence (20 years) and then register 10 years after becoming legal.

I may be wrong on this, and I hope I am. If you have never left the UK. you will be lawfully present 'in breach of the immigration rules', and being so present might not be evidence of bad character.

[noajthan]

...

Finally decided I should probably go through the Form T route since I've lived here all my life and had my education here. I only learned of this a few years ago when i tried to apply for a passport and was advised they need my parents marriage certificate to prove I was British.
...

My situation i was born in 1986 in the UK. My father and mother were both born in Nigeria. My Dad was born in 1932 and left there in 1958 to travel to the UK to work and study, he spent a few years here before marrying my mother. Upon returning to Nigeria sometime in the 60s, I believe this is when Nigeria became an independent state and he then had to apply for leave to enter the UK for an indefinite period, this was a stamp in his passport at heathrow, is this classed as the "settled" status? This was granted in 1976.

...

i also found a photocopy of the marriage certificate, which took place in Nigeria, but i know this wouldn't be enough to satisfy the requirement and since it was such a long time ago i doubt records have been kept over there. I have no idea how i could find out as i know nothing about Nigeria and or whether i have any family over there my dad pretty much cut ties and never went back after my mother passed away. I'm sure if my father knew of the requirements to become a British citizen he probably would [have] registered [me] before i was 18, but i doubt it was well documented back then.

...

Even if father was not settled at the time of your birth there is no question of you being illegal in your home country. Children born in the UK, who are not British, are not illegal entrants because they have not entered unlawfully.
If they have not applied for leave to enter/remain in the UK, then they are not overstayers nor in breach of their conditions of leave because they do not have any conditions to breach.

It seems quite clear your father was at least settled in UK when you were born - so, at the very least, morally you are British.

It seems you may be able to obtain a certificated copy of parent's marriage certificate at the Ikoyi Registry in Lagos, Nigeria.
(Or possibly from the Federal Marriage Registry at Abuja).
Suggest email: info@interior.gov.ng to check it out.

Flights to Lagos are available at around the £350 mark (if you don't have anyone on the ground who could organise getting the copy for you).

What better time is there than the present to go and discover your roots?!

[minds1786]

Thanks for your help noajthan. I will check that out.

I really doubt I'm classed as an over stayer plus form t is for people who were born here and have lived here for 10 years and over regardless of their parents status according to gov website. I would have only been in breach of any conditions if say I had a Nigerian passport and have left the country a number of times which I haven't. And I've not applied for one either because that would make me even more worst off.

[Richard W]

Even if father was not settled at the time of your birth there is no question of you being illegal in your home country. Children born in the UK, who are not British, are not illegal entrants because they have not entered unlawfully.
If they have not applied for leave to enter/remain in the UK, then they are not overstayers nor in breach of their conditions of leave because they do not have any conditions to breach.

The government is being quite nasty about people who have no right of re-entry.

For example, if the OP were illegitimate, he would be present "in breach of the immigration laws". (I should have said "immigration laws", not "immigration rules", in my previous post.) Fortunately, it seems that merely being in breach of the immigration laws does not demonstrate bad character (nor should it), though the OP would thereby be disqualified from naturalising by Section 50A of the BNA 1981.

As far as I can make out, according to the Guidance on implementing the overseas visitor hospital charging regulations 2015, the OP is no longer entitled to 'free' NHS treatment - "A child born in the UK to an above mentioned exempt person is also exempt from charge up to the age of three months provided that the child has not left the UK since birth." The OP would be a 'visitor' because he would be subject to immigration control and does not have ILR. I can't find the legal basis for the restrictive part of that rule - I suspect it is a misinterpretation of the immigration Act 2014.

[ouflak1]

For example, if the OP were illegitimate, he would be present "in breach of the immigration laws".

There is no law that says that someone born in the UK must immigrate to the UK or leave. Further, as a new born baby can't possibly be expected to have any concept of UK immigration law (even if such a law did exist), there is no 'bad character' element in this discussion at all. The status of the parents is completely irrelevant in that regards.

The government is being quite nasty about people who have no right of re-entry.

No the government is not being nasty to people who have 'no right of re-entry'. The UK admits business people and other visitors from relatively high risk countries on limited visas all the time. And the UK will continue to do so long into the future as long as those individuals can demonstrate that they will abide by the rules of that visa.

The OP ...<snipped nonsense>... would be subject to immigration control ....

Only if the OP has ever left the country or acquired a visa of any kind to remain in the UK. So unless there was a border agent standing in the delivery room at the time of the OP's birth demanding to see some papers for the infant, the OP is not subject to immigration control and is not in violation of any immigration law or immigration rule or immigration whatever. Further, there are specific rules and laws in place for the OP to register as a citizen, no problem at all.

[Casa]

+1 ouflak1 The voice of reason.

[Richard W]

For example, if the OP were illegitimate, he would be present "in breach of the immigration laws".

There is no law that says that someone born in the UK must immigrate to the UK or leave. Further, as a new born baby can't possibly be expected to have any concept of UK immigration law (even if such a law did exist), there is no 'bad character' element in this discussion at all. The status of the parents is completely irrelevant in that regards.

It does look as though childhood immigration 'offences' are irrelevant for character assessments for registration purposes. What had worried me was that the OP was now very much an adult. My fears would have explained why someone should think that 'Form T is for children'.

The OP ...<snipped nonsense>... would be subject to immigration control ....

Only if the OP has ever left the country or acquired a visa of any kind to remain in the UK. So unless there was a border agent standing in the delivery room at the time of the OP's birth demanding to see some papers for the infant, the OP is not subject to immigration control and is not in violation of any immigration law or immigration rule or immigration whatever. Further, there are specific rules and laws in place for the OP to register as a citizen, no problem at all.

There appear to be inequivalent definitions of 'subject to immigration control' floating around. The one I was using comes from the general principles of the 1971 Act, which just talks of people being subject to control. Of course, the issue of people born in the UK rarely presented any issues when the act originally came into force, as they were nearly all born with right of abode.

Indeed there are rules for him to register, so long as he is of good character. Form UKF looks the best if he can't obtain acceptable evidence of his parents' marriage.

[secret.simon]

The one I was using comes from the general principles of the 1971 Act, which just talks of people being subject to control. Of course, the issue of people born in the UK rarely presented any issues when the act originally came into force, as they were nearly all born with right of abode.

The line of reasoning that has been expressed on these forums and that has (apparently) been accepted by the Home Office is that as a child born in the UK did not need a visa to enter the UK, s/he can not have violated the terms of such visa. However, if the child left and re-entered the UK even once, it would become subject to the immigration laws as it would have required a visa to re-enter the UK.

Rather than muddy the waters with Form UKF, I would suggest to the OP that he apply on Form T, provided he has proof of his first ten years being in the UK with no more than 90 days absence in each year. I presume from the circumstances he has listed that he has never left the UK at all anyway.

I went to use the NCS to apply using Form T but was advised form T is usually only for children.

They are incorrect. Registration under Form T is a lifelong entitlement under Section 1(4), which means that it can not be declined if the requirements are met. As an entitlement, to the best of my knowledge, it can not be declined even on not meeting "good character" requirements.

Section 1(4) of the BNA 1981 states;

(4)A person born in the United Kingdom after commencement who is not a British citizen by virtue of subsection (1) , (1A) or (2) shall be entitled, on an application for his registration as a British citizen made at any time after he has attained the age of ten years, to be registered as such a citizen if, as regards each of the first ten years of that person’s life, the number of days on which he was absent from the United Kingdom in that year does not exceed 90.

[vinny]

If you cannot prove that you are British, then Form T may be used. It does not depend on parent's status.

I believe that Good character is applicable. However, if you have never left the UK nor applied for leave, then you should not be considered as an overstayer.

[Richard W]

The one I was using comes from the general principles of the 1971 Act, which just talks of people being subject to control. Of course, the issue of people born in the UK rarely presented any issues when the act originally came into force, as they were nearly all born with right of abode.

The line of reasoning that has been expressed on these forums and that has (apparently) been accepted by the Home Office is that as a child born in the UK did not need a visa to enter the UK, s/he can not have violated the terms of such visa. However, if the child left and re-entered the UK even once, it would become subject to the immigration laws as it would have required a visa to re-enter the UK.

Three different issues!

1) Tangential issue of NHS cover - both legal and practical. With any luck the OP could just blag it with his birth certificate.
2) Definition of 'subject to immigration control'. As far as the definition for benefits is concerned, he appears not to be, but there is a wider definition that would include people with ILR.
3) Good character - it seems that there is no evidence of being present 'in breach of the immigration laws' (current BNA 1981 definition) is treated as evidence of bad character.

Rather than muddy the waters with Form UKF, I would suggest to the OP that he apply on Form T, provided he has proof of his first ten years being in the UK with no more than 90 days absence in each year. I presume from the circumstances he has listed that he has never left the UK at all anyway.

The trade-offs are up to the OP. My reasoning was that using form UKF attracts a fee of £80 (and doesn't require proof of residence in the UK), while form T attracts a fee of £1121. Both have the additional cost of biometric registration.

Registration under Form T is a lifelong entitlement under Section 1(4), which means that it can not be declined if the requirements are met. As an entitlement, to the best of my knowledge, it can not be declined even on not meeting "good character" requirements.

Section 1(4) of the BNA 1981 states;

(4)A person born in the United Kingdom after commencement who is not a British citizen by virtue of subsection (1) , (1A) or (2) shall be entitled, on an application for his registration as a British citizen made at any time after he has attained the age of ten years, to be registered as such a citizen if, as regards each of the first ten years of that person’s life, the number of days on which he was absent from the United Kingdom in that year does not exceed 90.

But Section 41A prohibits the SS from registering someone unless the SS is satisfied of their good character. It applies to Form T, UKF and UKM routes; indeed, I think to all registration routes. David Hicks got his British citizenship via the Form UKM route.

[secret.simon]

Richard W,
You are quite correct about registrations under Section 1(4) requiring good character. But in any case, provided the OP has never left the UK, he is not in breach of immigration law.

there is a wider definition that would include people with ILR

While there is an argument for such a definition being valid, a person having ILR is generally treated, for the purposes of law, as being "free from immigration control".

The trade-offs are up to the OP. My reasoning was that using form UKF attracts a fee of £80 (and doesn't require proof of residence in the UK), while form T attracts a fee of £1121.

For Form UKF, the OP needs to prove his father's status at the time of his birth and is issued under Section 4G of the BNA 1981.

For Form T, the OP needs to prove that he has lived the first ten years of his life in the UK, with any absences of no more than 90 days. Parents status in the UK is irrelevant, as Vinny has pointed out.

[Richard W]

The trade-offs are up to the OP. My reasoning was that using form UKF attracts a fee of £80 (and doesn't require proof of residence in the UK), while form T attracts a fee of £1121.

For Form UKF, the OP needs to prove his father's status at the time of his birth and is issued under Section 4G of the BNA 1981.

For Form T, the OP needs to prove that he has lived the first ten years of his life in the UK, with any absences of no more than 90 days. Parents status in the UK is irrelevant, as Vinny has pointed out.

But, as, FWIW, Noajthan concurs, the OP appears to have evidence of his father's status:

Upon returning to Nigeria sometime in the 60s, I believe this is when Nigeria became an independent state and he then had to apply for leave to enter the UK for an indefinite period, this was a stamp in his passport at heathrow, is this classed as the "settled" status? This was granted in 1976.

The OP's problem appears to be demonstrating that he can acquire British nationality from his father. The £1,000 saving looks attractive to me.