Immigrationboards.com

Hello,

This is an unusual question but I hope someone can help.

In short: A person was granted ILR under the point based system, the person then left the UK for good and has no ties to the UK. Shortly before the 2 years period is up, when the ILR would lapse, it is believed the person made a short visit to the UK and then left again. A couple of months later, and certainly after the 2 years period is up, they returned to the UK. Unfortunately, due to lack of thorough check at the border, the person was allowed in. They then give birth the following month, and after claiming citizenship for the baby and UK passport under S1(1) of the 1981 Act, they all left the UK with no intention to settle here apart from occasional visit. How can we have the baby's citizenship and passport revoked as it was granted on the basis that the mother was a settled person at time of birth but clearly it's an error because of the 2 years rule?

How can you presume to know another person's intentions when entering the UK?

If the ILR wasn't cancelled at the border, then it remained valid, unless there was deception involved.

Because it's someone I know, and told everyone apart from HO of course that she will enter the UK, have the baby, get passport and then leave and has now left

How to prove deception? Is not telling the officer at the border "hey, you know what my ILR has actually expired" considered deception? Apart from this, all I can think of it's the landing card which must have told lies about purpose of visit, address (rented air bnb accommodation posed as own home) and duration of visit; though I was not travelling together so can't be sure what was written.

The UKVI/Border Force may find it difficult to prove deception, if the Immigration Officer didn't ask the appropriate questions. Moreover, according to you, she initially entered before the two years was up.

Why are you so concerned?

Paragraph 2.2 of Immigration Directorates’ Instructions (Ch 1 Section 3) states that:

The following categories do not qualify for admission under Paragraph 18 of HC 395:
…
* a person who is returning only for a limited period (eg. as a visitor) simply so as to show a period of residence here within 2 years of departure
…This will not disqualify a person from readmission as returning resident provided…at the time of admission he considers the United Kingdom to be his permanent home…
Paragraphs 19 and 19A (as inserted by Cm 4851) provide for the admission of a passenger in certain circumstances who has been away for more than 2 years if his ties with this country merit it.

Even though according to my belief she entered before 2 years was up, that particular trip fail to classify as an entry for the purpose of settlement because of not meeting the above criteria in bold. That is to say, at time of entry, (i) it was simply to show presence, (ii) she did not consider the UK to be her permanent home and (iii) has no ties with the UK as she has no asset, close relatives etc. here and instead have a career, family and home outside the UK and another child born outside the UK.

Minors cannot revoke citizenship.

As the UKVI/BF has already accepted that she was a returning resident, the burden of proof that she had used deception would be on the UKVI/BF.

To be not concerned is wrong because, firstly, it is a matter of principle that the baby did not qualify for S1(1) as at the time of birth the mother was not settled. Furthermore, the baby can now enjoy the perks of carrying a British passport, with some of those perks funded by taxpayers in this country, it is just wrong to cheat the country this way. As I say, the parents' career and centre of life is outside the UK, they aren't taxpayers here, not now and the foreseeable future. Sorry I sound cruel to be mean to a baby but it is the adult who is at fault here, for obtaining her passport by concealing facts about her status.

If they did not cancel her ILR, then she was settled at the time of her baby's birth.

Oh wow - maybe just let it be and focus your energy on other things. Especially because a minor is involved.

LilyLalilu wrote:Oh wow - maybe just let it be and focus your energy on other things. Especially because a minor is involved.

+1

There are more important things in life than worrying about somebody else's child acquiring citizenship by birth.

Let's put things in perspective. The two year limit on absences from the UK is a guideline for Immigration Officers to probe the returning resident's status in the UK. Some people have returned after two and a half years without issues, while some had their ILR revoked after a year and a half abroad. Here is an old thread for somebody whose ILR was revoked at 1 year and 8 months.

As I understand it (and others will correct me if I am wrong), a person with ILR entering the UK needs to convince an Immigration Officer of their residence status. An absence of a few days would likely not cause the Immigration Officer to have any questions. Absences over a year and a half will likely cause questions. It is the responses to those questions that will cause the Immigration Officer to stamp you in as either a resident/ILR holder or as a visitor (thus terminating your ILR).

That is also why short visits do not reset the ILR clock. The Immigration Officer is looking at the pattern of your absence, not at a countdown clock.

It is only when the Immigration Officer takes a decision based on your answers and stamps you in as a visitor that you lose ILR status.

In summary, the two year clock for residing outside the UK for ILR holders is a guideline for Immigration Officers to ask questions and help make a judgment about your residence in the UK. It is not an automatically activated countdown clock, unlike in the EU PR system, where it is very specifically a countdown clock.

As vinny has mentioned above, if the Immigration Officer did not revoke the ILR status at the airport, then the parent was an ILR holder. A child born in the UK to such a parent validly acquired British citizenship at birth.

user20170120 wrote:Hello,

This is an unusual question but I hope someone can help.

...

So that members may respond accordingly, is this case about you or a 'friend' or a relative?
And have you reported any immigration crime?

I'm quite disturbed at the OP's interest in seeing this person's ILR and baby's citizenship revoked. I hope s/he finds it in himself to sort out whatever issues s/he may have with this baby and it's mother without taking this drastic route. What has the innocent baby done to you? If UKVI accept the status, who are you to seek to revoke it?

The immigration journey is hard at the best of times and very expensive. It's sad to see there are people out there who are prepared to destroy people's lives over a very minor technical issue. Sad.

My advice to the OP is simple.

Keep your beak out.

Sounds quite personal.

Live and let live mate - it's got nothing to do with you. Like the member said above, why don't you focus your energies on something positive.