Good character requirements British citizenship para: 9.5 Illegal Entry

[Chowdhury78]

" 9.5 Illegal Entry
In circumstances where an applicant entered the UK illegally, an application for citizenship
should normally be refused for a period of 10 years from the date of entry, if it is known. If
it is not known, the period of 10 years starts from the date on which the person first brought
themselves to or came to the attention of the Home Office."


Hi
I would be grateful if someone can advise me regarding the confusing good character requirement of the British citizenship. I have ILR and i got my ILR in October 2015 through spouse visa.
I entered in the UK illegally in 2001 later i applied for work permit visa which was refused in 2003 without any right to appeal and ordered to return home. I remain in the UK illegally for another 5 years then in August 2008 i was arrested by the UKBA officers (came to their attention?). Returned home voluntarily in November 2008. I married a British citizen back home in March 2009. Applied for the spouse visa 2009 but refused several times finally after 4 and half years later after a long battle i got the visa and entered in the UK April 2013 and then got my ILR in 2015.

Now the question is from when the 10 years ban starts for me and when can i apply without any rejection? For your convenience you will find the dates in chronological orders below . I hope you guys will help me out with this matter. Much appreciated.

DATES IN CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER:

Date of arrival in the UK: June 2001 (Illegal entrance)

Applied for work permit: May 2003

Work permit application refused: October 2004

Arrested by the Immigration Enforcement Unit: August 2008

Went to sign in 2 times: Between August and November 2008

Returned voluntarily with own expense: 26th November 2008

Got married with a British citizen: March 2009

Applied for entry clearance: 10th June 2010

Appeal allowed ( finally after 4 and half years later ) : February 2015

Date of entry in the UK: April 2013

ILR granted: August 2015

Kind regards

SK

[ouflak1]

" 9.5 Illegal Entry
In circumstances where an applicant entered the UK illegally, an application for citizenship
should normally be refused for a period of 10 years from the date of entry, if it is known. If
it is not known, the period of 10 years starts from the date on which the person first brought
themselves to or came to the attention of the Home Office."

Appeal allowed ( finally after 4 and half years later ) : February 2015?

...I got the visa and entered in the UK April 2013 and then got my ILR in 2015.
.
.
.

DATES IN CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER:

..
.
.

Date of entry in the UK: April 2013

ILR granted: August 2015

Kind regards

SK

I believe you will qualify to apply for citizenship on April 2023. I think you accidently put February '2015' for your appeal when you meant February'2013'. Unfortunately it is difficult to edit a post after a set time limit. Just a side question: Are you still married and living with your wife?

[ouflak1]

Date of entry in the UK: April 2013

ILR granted: August 2015

Those dates just now jumped out at me. That's a pretty quick turnaround for ILR. Are you sure you've got your dates right?

[CR001]

Date of entry in the UK: April 2013

ILR granted: August 2015

Those dates just now jumped out at me. That's a pretty quick turnaround for ILR. Are you sure you've got your dates right?

OP got the spouse visa after the appeal process. Originally submitted prior to the 9th July 2012 rules changing and would therefore be under the 2 year route spouse visa once appeal won and visa granted.

[Chowdhury78]

" 9.5 Illegal Entry
In circumstances where an applicant entered the UK illegally, an application for citizenship
should normally be refused for a period of 10 years from the date of entry, if it is known. If
it is not known, the period of 10 years starts from the date on which the person first brought
themselves to or came to the attention of the Home Office."

Appeal allowed ( finally after 4 and half years later ) : February 2015?

...I got the visa and entered in the UK April 2013 and then got my ILR in 2015.
.
.
.

DATES IN CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER:

..
.
.

Date of entry in the UK: April 2013

ILR granted: August 2015

Kind regards

SK

I believe you will qualify to apply for citizenship on April 2023. I think you accidently put February '2015' for your appeal when you meant February'2013'. Unfortunately it is difficult to edit a post after a set time limit. Just a side question: Are you still married and living with your wife?

You guys are right. My apologies the appeal allowed date would be February 2013

[Chowdhury78]

" 9.5 Illegal Entry
In circumstances where an applicant entered the UK illegally, an application for citizenship
should normally be refused for a period of 10 years from the date of entry, if it is known. If
it is not known, the period of 10 years starts from the date on which the person first brought
themselves to or came to the attention of the Home Office."

Appeal allowed ( finally after 4 and half years later ) : February 2015?

...I got the visa and entered in the UK April 2013 and then got my ILR in 2015.
.
.
.

DATES IN CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER:

..
.
.

Date of entry in the UK: April 2013

ILR granted: August 2015

Kind regards

SK

I believe you will qualify to apply for citizenship on April 2023. I think you accidently put February '2015' for your appeal when you meant February'2013'. Unfortunately it is difficult to edit a post after a set time limit. Just a side question: Are you still married and living with your wife?

You guys are right. My apologies the appeal allowed date would be February 2013

And yes still married and living with my wife and two kids..

[Chowdhury78]

Date of entry in the UK: April 2013

ILR granted: August 2015

Those dates just now jumped out at me. That's a pretty quick turnaround for ILR. Are you sure you've got your dates right?

OP got the spouse visa after the appeal process. Originally submitted prior to the 9th July 2012 rules changing and would therefore be under the 2 year route spouse visa once appeal won and visa granted.

Yes mate. You are right.

[Chowdhury78]

I don’t understand one thing if I came to the atttention of the home office when the UKBA caught me then why not counting the days start from that day? Or when the first time I applied for the spouse visa?

[ouflak1]

I don’t understand one thing if I came to the atttention of the home office when the UKBA caught me then why not counting the days start from that day? Or when the first time I applied for the spouse visa?

I believe the intention with 9.5 had to do with someone who entered the country illegally and then shortly afterwords, usually within 3 months, successfully became legally present, or started the sucessful process of eventually becoming legally present in the country (hence notifying the UK government of their intentions).This doesn't appear to be the case in your situation as it was almost two years before your first application after illegal entry. They are pretty tight on that 3 months and it even took a significant court case to get that much leeway.

[Chowdhury78]

Thanks for your response mate. Much appreciated. I found this links and thought I should share it with you all ..please let me know your opinions.

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/ ... egal_entry


https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/ ... e.pdf.html

[ouflak1]

I've just had an overnight think about this. It may be that your ten years started from the date you were last present in the UK illegally. In which case, you may be able apply after November 26th, 2018. I ran into a thread similar to this before where somebody corrected me on a point just like that. I'll see if I can dig it up.

[Chowdhury78]

Thanks buddy. Thanks for your time. Really appreciated..

[ouflak1]

Thanks for your response mate. Much appreciated. I found this links and thought I should share it with you all ..please let me know your opinions.

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/ ... egal_entry


https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/ ... e.pdf.html

For the first case, I don't know enough about the OP's immigration history offer a useful comment. In the second case, I'd still like to know more details, but on this forum, similar cases have played out a few times like that and the ten years began from the date legal presence in the UK was established. It would be remarkable if those who entered illegally gained such a significant advantage over those who entered legally.

Example of what I mean:

Immigrant 1: Enters the UK illegally. Makes presence known 3 years later when applying for (non-Asylum) visa. Obtains legal residence at 4 years presence in country.

Immigrant 2: Enters the UK legally as a non-visitor. Is known from the beginning. Original visa expires and appeals fail. At three year point, after all discretionary time periods have passed, applies for another visa (non-Asylum) and again obtains legal residence at 4 years presence in the country.

Both of the non-Asylum visas were the same type for each immigrant.

By your interpretation, Immigrant 1 who entered the country illegally would be able to qualify for citizenship 4 years earlier than Immigrant 2 who entered the country legally. That's an astonishingly unfair loophole if that is indeed the case. I think anybody would reasonably assume and understand that a person who entered the country legally should have atleast the same privileges as someone who entered illegally, if not more.

The Good Character Requirement is still young and perhaps this loophole does infact exist. But it is remarkable if it does and I doubt it will last for long once HO/Parliament/etc... get wind of it.

[marcnath]

When you applied in 2003, was the refusal due to the fact that you were illegal. If so, that is the first date when HO was aware you were illegal and hence the start of the 10 year.

[ouflak1]

I can't find the thread where somebody pointed out that the ten year clock starts when illegal presence ended versus when legal presence began. I know that happened but I'm notoriously terrible with message board search engines. Perhaps some mod can dig that up.

marcnath, Just asking for an opinion, but do you think that loophole in favor of illegal entrants really exists? Quite fascinating if actually true. For Asylum cases, I can see it. But for non-Asylum cases, it's hard to imagine.

[Chowdhury78]

When you applied in 2003, was the refusal due to the fact that you were illegal. If so, that is the first date when HO was aware you were illegal and hence the start of the 10 year.

Yes that was the reason. They refused the work permit because I was not living in the UK legally.

[Chowdhury78]

Thanks for your response mate. Much appreciated. I found this links and thought I should share it with you all ..please let me know your opinions.

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/ ... egal_entry


https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/ ... e.pdf.html

For the first case, I don't know enough about the OP's immigration history offer a useful comment. In the second case, I'd still like to know more details, but on this forum, similar cases have played out a few times like that and the ten years began from the date legal presence in the UK was established. It would be remarkable if those who entered illegally gained such a significant advantage over those who entered legally.

Example of what I mean:

Immigrant 1: Enters the UK illegally. Makes presence known 3 years later when applying for (non-Asylum) visa. Obtains legal residence at 4 years presence in country.

Immigrant 2: Enters the UK legally as a non-visitor. Is known from the beginning. Original visa expires and appeals fail. At three year point, after all discretionary time periods have passed, applies for another visa (non-Asylum) and again obtains legal residence at 4 years presence in the country.

Both of the non-Asylum visas were the same type for each immigrant.

By your interpretation, Immigrant 1 who entered the country illegally would be able to qualify for citizenship 4 years earlier than Immigrant 2 who entered the country legally. That's an astonishingly unfair loophole if that is indeed the case. I think anybody would reasonably assume and understand that a person who entered the country legally should have atleast the same privileges as someone who entered illegally, if not more.

The Good Character Requirement is still young and perhaps this loophole does infact exist. But it is remarkable if it does and I doubt it will last for long once HO/Parliament/etc... get wind of it.

Thanks indeed . I will see a solicitor soon. Let’s see what he says. My gratitude to everyone here for your precious time.

[mkhari]

Thanks for your response mate. Much appreciated. I found this links and thought I should share it with you all ..please let me know your opinions.

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/ ... egal_entry


https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/ ... e.pdf.html

For the first case, I don't know enough about the OP's immigration history offer a useful comment. In the second case, I'd still like to know more details, but on this forum, similar cases have played out a few times like that and the ten years began from the date legal presence in the UK was established. It would be remarkable if those who entered illegally gained such a significant advantage over those who entered legally.

Example of what I mean:

Immigrant 1: Enters the UK illegally. Makes presence known 3 years later when applying for (non-Asylum) visa. Obtains legal residence at 4 years presence in country.

Immigrant 2: Enters the UK legally as a non-visitor. Is known from the beginning. Original visa expires and appeals fail. At three year point, after all discretionary time periods have passed, applies for another visa (non-Asylum) and again obtains legal residence at 4 years presence in the country.

Both of the non-Asylum visas were the same type for each immigrant.

By your interpretation, Immigrant 1 who entered the country illegally would be able to qualify for citizenship 4 years earlier than Immigrant 2 who entered the country legally. That's an astonishingly unfair loophole if that is indeed the case. I think anybody would reasonably assume and understand that a person who entered the country legally should have atleast the same privileges as someone who entered illegally, if not more.

The Good Character Requirement is still young and perhaps this loophole does infact exist. But it is remarkable if it does and I doubt it will last for long once HO/Parliament/etc... get wind of it.

Thanks indeed . I will see a solicitor soon. Let’s see what he says. My gratitude to everyone here for your precious time.

Hello Brother

is there any reply on your naturalization

I am in same boat similar to yoru case

[Chowdhury78]

Hi Mkhari

Got my passport few weeks ago. Good luck.

[bluebird12]

That is great news .. congratulations

[mkhari]

Hi Mkhari

Got my passport few weeks ago. Good luck.

Congratulation bro

[2017Freedom]

Many Congrats..
I'm on the same boat and I was told in this forum that the 10 year starts when I got first granted ...but clearly according to the FOI response it's not ..
Could you please share the cover letter with me (inbox) as I'm also planning to apply since I submitted a fresh claim since 2008 but not sure what to say if I get asked how I have lived until I was granted in 2011 ..many thanks

[Chowdhury78]

Hi mate. I did not include any cover letter with my application. I just followed the form and filled it myself. It’s best to see a solicitor and ask him any queries that you have. Good luck.

[mkhari]

Many Congrats..
I'm on the same boat and I was told in this forum that the 10 year starts when I got first granted ...but clearly according to the FOI response it's not ..
Could you please share the cover letter with me (inbox) as I'm also planning to apply since I submitted a fresh claim since 2008 but not sure what to say if I get asked how I have lived until I was granted in 2011 ..many thanks

OUR CASES are quite similar before 2011 we were illegal

that freedom of inforamtion answer good help

I think why not we write a letter to MP and confirm when can we apply nationality


same as i did when i applied ILR and asked when can i apply after completing 6 years or when current leave expire before 28day

[2017Freedom]

It kind of does not make any sense to me ...on the HO response via what do they know request it is confirmed that it starts when you become known /apply yet on refusals I can see that this period is considered not legal unless you have a valid stay ...very confusing indeed ..