- FAQ
- Login
- Register
- Call Workpermit.com for a paid service +44 (0)344-991-9222
ESC
Welcome to immigrationboards.com!
Moderators: Casa, John, ChetanOjha, archigabe, CR001, push, JAJ, ca.funke, Amber, zimba, vinny, Obie, EUsmileWEallsmile, batleykhan, meself2, geriatrix
I think the rules were different before 2/10/2000.PR is automatically attained after 5 years of exercising treaty rights as a qualified person. The child would not be 'automatically British'.
Ahhh, I see. Thank you for the correction and link.LilyLalilu wrote:I think the rules were different before 2/10/2000.PR is automatically attained after 5 years of exercising treaty rights as a qualified person. The child would not be 'automatically British'.
Before that date in 2000, you only needed to be exercising treaty rights to be deemed as settled so as long as the EEA parent of the child did this at the time of the child's birth, the child should be British by birth. Did you provide evidence that the relevant parent was exercising treaty rights at the time of the child's birth?
See 3.2 of this document: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/s ... Policy.pdf
I think you may have the case of a caseworker who is not familiar with the pre-October 2000 rules (or accidentally did not apply them). Suggest you send evidence of having exercised treaty rights at the time of the child's birth (if you have not already done so) and write back with a clear explanation referring to the above caseworker guidelines
Is this what you are referring to?Shevcraig wrote:Hi
I am hoping someone can help me with an issue I am having with the Home Office. My wife and I moved to the UK in 1997. wife is Dutch citizen, I am South African. In August 2000 my daughter was born. all the web sites I have visited (including the Home Office) all state that a child born in the UK before October 2000, to EU parent/s only need to have been exercising treaty rights at the time of the childs birth for the child to be British. We recently applied for my daughters first UK passport only to be told by the home office that we needed to be settled at the time of her birth. I am confused and not sure how to proceed. Any helpwould be appreciated.
Ref MN1 guidance: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/s ... r_2015.pdfA child born in UK before 2/10/2000 to an EEA national parent will be a BC if the parent was exercising EC treaty rights at the time of birth
If the applicant was born before 1 October 2000, please provide evidence that their parents were exercising Treaty Rights at the time of the applicant’s birth (5 years evidence is not required in these cases).
Who are you dealing with HO or HMPO?Shevcraig wrote:Hi
Thank you so much for your replys. I to feel it is a case of the case worker not applying the correct rules. I have contacted a law firm who confirmed that my information is correct. I wrote to the case worker pointing out the guidelines set out by the Home Office dealing with the specific Time/date of my daughters birth but they do still not accept it. My wife and I were both exercising treaty rights at that time as we were issued our ILR in March 2004. They are insisting that we needed to have been settled at the time.
How do I proceed as I am sure I am correct, but am loosing the battle.
All help appreciated.
Sounds like you need an appropriate professional to press your law suit then. The pre-2/10/2000 clause is clearly the key.Shevcraig wrote:Hi
dealing with HMPO. After our application we got a letter saying they needed evidence of parent/s being settled. I wrote back pointing out the date of my daughters birthday and that we only needed to be exercising treaty rights. I also sent in the original correspondence from Home office in 2004 asking for evidence of exercising treaty rights in order for us to be granted ILR. ILR was granted and stamps are in passports. Second letter arrived Quoting the British Nationality Act of 1981. Section 1 of this Act says that a child born on or after 1 January 1983 will be British if when they were born, either parent was settled in the United Kingdom. This is after I pointed out the Section on being born before 2 October 2000, which he/she seems to have ignored.