UK ILR holder living abroad more than 2 years

[dheeraj1025]

Hi,

I have been granted with an ILR on Nov 2020. My husband holds British Passport.

We both are planning to move to USA for work purposes. We might come back in 4-5 years time.

Do I need to worry about losing ILR in this time living outside UK?

According to the UKBA Returning Residents rules stated here - https://www.gov.uk/returning-resident-visa

"You also will not lose it if your spouse or partner is a British citizen or settled in the UK and one of the following"

Can some one confirm me that, what I am reading here is correct? I don't need to worry about losing my ILR as my husband holds British Passport.

Any suggestions are much appreciated.

[vinny]

ILR lapses after an absence of two continuous years.

Apply for naturalisation now. Then you come back whenever.

[dheeraj1025]

So, is there wrong information in the UKBA website, like I stated in my post? https://www.gov.uk/returning-resident-visa

"You also will not lose it if your spouse or partner is a British citizen or settled in the UK and one of the following""

Apply naturalisation now - Isn't there a rule to be on ILR for 12 months to be eligible for Naturalisation? Its only been 5 months now.

[vinny]

So, is there wrong information in the UKBA website, like I stated in my post? https://www.gov.uk/returning-resident-visa

"You also will not lose it if your spouse or partner is a British citizen or settled in the UK and one of the following""

Note the and.

Is your spouse “one of the following”

• a permanent member of the Diplomatic Service
• a UK-based British Council employee who works outside the UK
• a Department for International Development (DFID) employee
• a Home Office employee

Apply naturalisation now - Isn't there a rule to be on ILR for 12 months to be eligible for Naturalisation? Its only been 5 months now.

There’s no requirement for the spouse of a British citizen to wait for 12 months after ILR.

[dheeraj1025]

Thank you that's very useful.

Is not the and for the second statement after the or

You also will not lose it if your spouse or partner is a (British citizen) or (settled in the UK and one of the following)

[vinny]

I think they are referring to an ILR holder’s settled or British spouse, being one of the following.

It’s ambiguous?

[secret.simon]

I would read it as "You also will not lose it if your spouse or partner is (a British citizen or settled in the UK) and one of the following".

People settled in the UK have many of the same privileges and rights as British citizens within the UK (such as being able to be elected to the Commons or appointed to the Lords if holding Commonwealth citizenship, their children born in the UK having British citizenship by birth, etc). So it makes sense for the two statuses to be treated as one in the above sentence.

Also the relevant Immigration Rule is much more clear and unambiguous.

19A. Sub paragraphs (ii) and (iii) of paragraph 18 shall not apply where a person who has indefinite leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom accompanies on an overseas posting a partner, parent, a spouse, civil partner, unmarried partner or same-sex partner who is:
a) a member of HM Forces serving overseas; or
b) a British citizen or is settled in the UK and
(i) a permanent member of HM Diplomatic Service;
(ii) a comparable United Kingdom based permanent staff member of the British Council;
(iii) a permanent staff member of the Department for International Development; or
(iv) a permanent Home Office employee.

[vinny]

For unambiguity, I think they should have added parentheses or perhaps a “,” before the “and”?

[secret.simon]

19A. Sub paragraphs (ii) and (iii) of paragraph 18 shall not apply where a person who has indefinite leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom accompanies on an overseas posting a partner, parent, a spouse, civil partner, unmarried partner or same-sex partner who is:
a) a member of HM Forces serving overseas; or
b) a British citizen or
c) is settled in the UK and
(i) a permanent member of HM Diplomatic Service;
(ii) a comparable United Kingdom based permanent staff member of the British Council;
(iii) a permanent staff member of the Department for International Development; or
(iv) a permanent Home Office employee.

If they wanted to imply an alternate interpretation, they would have written the Immigration Rule in the way I've amended above.

The fact that the Immigration Rule is written the way it is and not the way I amended it above, I think, is suggestive that it is sufficiently unambiguous.

[vinny]

Without parenthesis, a conventional order of precedence is apparently different:

¬ has higher precedence than ∧, ∧ higher than ∨, and ∨ higher than →

Where

¬ is “not”

∧ is “and”

∨ is “or”

→ is “implies”

In their example,

P or Q and R

is equivalent to

(P or (Q and R))

[secret.simon]

In their example,

P or Q and R

is equivalent to

(P or (Q and R))

But that does not factor in that line structure can imply an alternate interpretation.

In this case, it is

P or Q and
R

in which case, I suggest that the only logical interpretation is ((P or Q) and R).

[vinny]

Yes, indeed.

I completely agree with your interpretation. But it was unclear in the Guidance.

Line structure in the rules helps to clarify.