Refused:reliant on public funds + no sickness insurance

[Komisaruk]

I am a British Citizen whose wife is Polish. We have been married since 2001 and living together in the UK since 2005. I have been employed full time during the entire period that we have been together in the UK. She was a full-time mother of our children up until 2014, when she gained employment.
Her application for British Citizenship submitted in September 2015 has just been refused after a request to reconsider.
The grounds for the refusal were that she does not qualify for permanent residence. The specific reasons given are that while she was not employed she [1] was not a self-sufficient person because she obtained tax credits (with me) and thus is reliant on public funds, and [2] didn't have comprehensive sickness insurance. Neither of these requirements appears in the June 2015 version of the Booklet AN which we referred to when preparing her application, so I feel that we have not been treated fairly in this process. I am considering a letter to my MP, but I would appreciate the thoughts of those with more experience of the system before I go ahead.

[CR001]

If she was not exercising treaty rights (by either working or being a student or self sufficient with CSI) then she won't be a qualify person and won't have attained permanent residence, which is required before applying for citizenship.

HO appear to be incorrect with their refusal.

Did you have medical insurance that covered the entire family since working?

[noajthan]

The requirement is for an applicant to be free of immigration time restrictions.
In the context of a Union citizen that means having PR status.

One category of PR is for selfsufficient persons - who need to have had CSI (or alternative cover) in place.

The AN guide is not the full picture and is not a definitive statement of the law.

You can get up to speed on qualified persons here:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/s ... _clean.pdf

Union citizens are now required to hold DCPR (a PR card confirming their PR status) but that requirement had not come in in mid 2015.

[Komisaruk]

Thanks for your responses.
My wife doesn't have CSI and I now have found out that being entitled to use the NHS is not sufficient.
I still feel aggrieved that booklet AN didn't alert us to the need for CSI or mention the reliant on public funds catch.
If she remains in employment, hopefully she can reapply for naturalisation in 2019.

[noajthan]

Thanks for your responses.
My wife doesn't have CSI and I now have found out that being entitled to use the NHS is not sufficient.
I still feel aggrieved that booklet AN didn't alert us to the need for CSI or mention the reliant on public funds catch.
If she remains in employment, hopefully she can reapply for naturalisation in 2019.

Most unfortunate.
In the meantime, it may be prudent for your wife to put CSI in place, if not working, (and apply for a RC - EEA QP) to help regularise her position, especially with all this wild talk of Brexit.

If currently working, a RC could still prove a worthwhile investment as any transitional arrangements to be put in place (if any) for Union citizens may be predicated on certain EU status by a certain date - all yet TBC.

[ohara]

I still feel aggrieved that booklet AN didn't alert us to the need for CSI or mention the reliant on public funds catch.

Having CSI and not being reliant on public funds are not direct requirements for naturalisation. What did you interpret the "free of immigration time restrictions" requirement to mean?

[Petaltop]

The specific reasons given are that while she was not employed she [1] was not a self-sufficient person because she obtained tax credits (with me) and thus is reliant on public funds,

Were you both taking the second adult element of WTC? If you took Housing Benefit, the rate a single gets (you) can be different to what a couple takes. Self sufficients, by the very nature of the words, must be self sufficient - not taking UK benefits as they can't afford to keep themselves.

[Komisaruk]

Petaltop - We received child tax credit (but not WTC) and also child benefit.

ohara - As a citizen of an EU country, my wife was, at the time of application (before the requirement for a permanent residence certificate), not subject to immigration restrictions, having been permanently resident in the UK for over 5 years.

[noajthan]

- but simply residing in UK is not enough to acquire PR.

And to qualify as a selfsufficient qualified person it is clear CSI is required.
No CSI means no treaty rights, thus no basis to reside in UK (at that time).

[ohara]

Being resident in the UK for 5 years does not make you free from immigration time restrictions. Under the EEA regulations you must exercise treaty rights as a qualified person for a continuous period of 5 years in order to acquire permanent residence. Even though your wife was subject to immigration time restrictions, as an EEA citizen she does not require a visa to enter the UK and would normally be admitted on the basis of being an EEA citizen. It's worth noting that an EEA citizen not exercising treaty rights after the initial 3 month period of residence, technically does not have a right to reside in the UK and can be subject to administrative removal.

The change in November 2015 only added that you must submit a document certifying permanent residence with your citizenship application. The requirement to have acquired permanent residence was still there before this, the difference is that after November 2015 you had to separately apply for the DCPR. Before this, you would send all the evidence that you would send for the DCPR in with the citizenship application. The reason this change was made was to split the workload, so that the permanent residence part was dealt with by a specialist EEA immigration team rather than the caseworker dealing with the citizenship application itself, which is subject to a different set of laws.

In short; you always had to have PR when applying for citizenship. The difference is that after November 2015 you just had to prove you had PR in a slightly different way.