Hi Christophe
Of course I will keep this forum informed of the results!
- FAQ
- Login
- Register
- Call Workpermit.com for a paid service +44 (0)344-991-9222
Immigration, work visa and work permit discussion board
ESC
Welcome to immigrationboards.com!
Moderators: Casa, John, ChetanOjha, archigabe, CR001, push, JAJ, ca.funke, Amber, zimba, vinny, Obie, EUsmileWEallsmile, batleykhan, meself2, geriatrix, Administrator
My Passport is currently with the Right of Abode Department at IND because I had sent it there two weeks ago to apply for the Certificate of Entitlement to the Right of Abode. I had applied for the certificate because I had no idea when I would receive the 'Status letter' and because the UKPS insisted that I needed the Certificate to prove that I had the Right of Abode before they would consider my application for a British Passport. The letter from the passport people raises the question of where they draw the line between making an assessment of someone's right to British citizenship. Certainly your case was not ordinary (particularly these days), but after all someone has to make a decision about the claim to British nationality of every first time passport applicant. So, as I say, I wonder where the line is drawn, after which a decision becomes too complex for the pasport people to deal with.Bakuli wrote: As for the IPS, I also received a letter today with the finding of their investigation following my complaint. Basically, what they're saying is it is not within their remit to establish my right to British Citizenship and that a Certificate to ROA or a status letter from IND is required before a British Passport could be issued to me.
The Passport Office should be asked to state exactly where the line is drawn.Christophe wrote: The letter from the passport people raises the question of where they draw the line between making an assessment of someone's right to British citizenship. Certainly your case was not ordinary (particularly these days), but after all someone has to make a decision about the claim to British nationality of every first time passport applicant. So, as I say, I wonder where the line is drawn, after which a decision becomes too complex for the pasport people to deal with.
If these attitudes are typical in the Passport Office then it's hardly surprising that there is a steady supply of passport "horror stories" where people whose British citizenship claim is slightly complicated just get a passport refusal and a brush-off.ppron747 wrote: I cannot believe the nerve of the person concerned, refusing to bother to work out your claim to ROA the first time around, and then having the bare-faced cheek to query it after you've paid for the Home Office to work it out for them...
JAJ wrote:....it's hardly surprising that there is a steady supply of passport "horror stories" where people whose British citizenship claim is slightly complicated just get a passport refusal and a brush-off.
These three, for starters:ppron747 wrote:JAJ wrote:....it's hardly surprising that there is a steady supply of passport "horror stories" where people whose British citizenship claim is slightly complicated just get a passport refusal and a brush-off.
I can't remember hearing any others, lately - do tell.....
Not the first time this mistake has been made. This is a similar case (two children involved) except that the mother is Irish:ppron747 wrote: Happy to concede that, in the case of the UK-born child child with the Dutch mother, they do seem to have cocked it up - and the Home Office seem to have made the same mistake...
Perhaps the problem is that among the general public, the impression is that the Passport Office and IND are one and the same.They certainly had no hesitation in (incorrectly, IMO) passing the buck to IND when Bakuli went in. I wouldn't be at all surprised if they (correctly, this time) did the same thing with these two cases.
I must add that the person who queried my claim to ROA was not the same person who dealt with me the first time. She did not approach me this time after the counter staff referred my case to her. After I was asked to return back to the waiting area, my application was handed to a senior case worker. Apparently she was the same person who supplied the Customer Service Manager all the information in response to my complaint (she admitted to this when I mentioned about the complaint letter). In that letter, the Customer Service Manager wrote (as advised by this senior case worker) that a certificate of entitlement to the ROA or a status letter would be required for a British Citizen passport to be issued to me. So, really I should have queried her action because I had also supplied a British Citizenship status letter from IND which alone by itself was enough evidence to issue me with a passport (as advised by this lady herself!). For some reason (unbeknown to me) I kept my mouth shut and just waited quite patiently.I cannot believe the nerve of the person concerned, refusing to bother to work out your claim to ROA the first time around, and then having the bare-faced cheek to query it after you've paid for the Home Office to work it out for them...
A bit too late for the original question, but for anyone still interested, I found the following:ppron747 wrote:I believe the absence of a loss provision was actually agreed following representations from the people of Penang and Malacca. What I'd be interested in knowing is why these representations were accepted. Was it something to do with ethnicity?penanglad wrote:The reason is that the 1957 independence Acts (Ghana and Malaya) were the first ones to come after the 1948 BNA and the idea of depriving people of CUKC on independence was novel.ppron747 wrote:Because (and I don't understand why this was the case) the Federation of Malaya Independence Act 1957 contained no provision for loss of CUKC, you continued to be a CUKC after independence. Most people in this position, lacking the right of abode in the UK, went on to become BOCs.
For some reason Ghana was retrospectively covered by the 1958 BNA, but not Malaya. Maybe Penang and Malacca were too insignificant and could be seen as a special case. Or the 1958 Act may have been specifically requested by the Ghanaian government.
