noajthan wrote:If British represent yourself as British, act British and get in British line. Explain it all to the wo/man at the counter.
The logical legal position is quite weird. Under Section
3(9) of the Immigration Act 1971 (as amended)
(9)A person seeking to enter the United Kingdom and claiming to have the right of abode there shall prove it by means of—
- a United Kingdom passport describing him as a British citizen,
- a United Kingdom passport describing him as a British subject with the right of abode in the United Kingdom,
- an ID card issued under the Identity Cards Act 2006 describing him as a British citizen,
- an ID card issued under that Act describing him as a British subject with the right of abode in the United Kingdom, or
- a certificate of entitlement.
So, if the Immigration Officer asserts that the OP's wife is a British citizen, he ought to allow her in as she has the right of abode. If, as is his right, he refuses to accept that she is a British citizen, then unless her ILR has actually been revoked, she still has ILR, and he must admit her.
We don't know how long the OP's wife has been British, and how long ago she received ILR. As UKVI (UKBA as I think it was then) had a policy of deleting most inactive files after 15 years, it is entirely possible that they have no record of her having ILR (note that she has no BRP), and so will not have revoked it. Moreover, though while they did have a policy of revoking BRPs upon naturalisation, we don't know how far the program has gone; some one may have decided it was simpler and cheaper to just revoke the BRP when the holder was stripped of British nationality. (The cause of the problem is that some one was stripped of British citizenship but then entered using the UK using his BRP evidencing ILR.) I therefore think it is unlikely that her ILR has actually been revoked.
As to the motivation of the law on proof of citizenship, I recall reading an explanation in Parliament that only passports were accepted as proof because otherwise too much time would be spent checking other documents. (Can an expert googler help here? I can't find it in Hansard.) In most of the recent cases, people have only just become British, and an IO may be expected to have sympathy with their position. In this case, the OP's wife seems to have had plenty of time to obtain a British passport, so I fear she may not get much sympathy.
noajthan wrote:Why would someone represent themself (at UK border) as an American (visitor?) with invalid ILR. (And they should pop up as British on the IO's screen anyway).
I think she would present herself as someone who has been given permission to stay in the UK without time limit. The conditions have changed, but not in any way relevant to the proposed returns. (She's a dual national, so her permission can still be revoked, though not as readily as before naturalisation.)
There is anecdotal precedent for dual national American/British citizens entering for settlement being admitted as visitors.
noajthan wrote:Having done so on egressing US, presumably for perceived convenience and to avoid explanations, doesn't justify doing so at UK border.
Would the OP's wife have to state the purpose of her journey to the UK in order to board? I thought the legal position was that normal Americans don't need visas in order to seek admission at British ports.
As to the queue, my understanding is that Immigration prefer families not to be split, so the OP's wife should use a queue applicable to demonstrably British British citizens. This is the queue she should use even if she were not British.
I think the new American passport should be used on departure; this better establishes on the computer records that she was recently in the UK. This is relevant to any argument based on still having ILR if proof of the truth be held inadmissible, in accordance with the law of the land.
