One child British, the other has been refused!

[JAJ]

How can a confirmation of nationality be issued by mistake? I've heard the HO is messy, but are they that messy that they issue confirmations of nationality by mistake??

It can happen (do you really think that government is incapable of making mistakes?). Untrained/overworked case officers not understanding the law, or a conclusion based on balance of probability that is later on overturned, incorrect information on the form, etc.

In this case it's absolutely clear that the child isn't a British citizen since EEA parents were not automatically considered "settled" between the relevant dates in 2000-06. If they manage to persuade the Home Office to issue a British nationality certificate in this case, it will by definition have been issued by mistake and therefore could be revoked anytime. NOT a good idea.

The Home Office Nationality Instructions make this clear:
http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/sitec ... iew=Binary

The purpose of a confirmation of British nationality status is to give a single-use citizenship document to those who are British citizens. And it should register their status on the Home Office database. It is not a way to bypass the need for a Certificate of Registration/Naturalisation if the law clearly requires it.

I guess the best confirmation of nationality is a certificate of naturalisation of a passport?

A passport isn't much good either - these are also issued by mistake, probably more often than nationality status certificates.

A Certificate of Naturalisation or Registration, on the other hand, is as close to conclusive evidence of British citizenship as you can get. It cannot be treated as null and void simply because it was issued by mistake. The Home Office have to go through deprivation procedures in order to revoke it, which is a much more significant process. This is discussed further in Chapter 55 of the Nationality Instructions.

Bottom line - for the daughter in this case, born in 2001, stop looking for an answer that isn't there and if you want her to be British, apply for her to be registered as a British citizen. Since she has passed the age of 10, and has lived in the U.K. throughout, it may be more straightforward to do a Form T application under section 1(4) of the British Nationality Act which does not require her parent's PR status to be evidenced.

It would be recommended to get a Confirmation of British nationality status for the son, born in 1997. This will make it a lot easier to renew his passport, especially if it is ever lost. It may not necessarily be easy for the son to find his parent's employment and residence records from the 1990s later on.

[Derivaz]

I understand that mistakes can happen, but I would think that it's extremely rare, since granting citizenship is a very serious matter.

If someone acquired citizenship using fake documents, I understand that if they HO finds out, they will revoke the decision, but once it's been granted; why would the HO go back and check again; especially in a few years? unless something strange happens, like someone who knows the applicant was using fake documents and has proof, etc... otherwise, I would think, once it's granted, that's it, no?

[JAJ]

I understand that mistakes can happen, but I would think that it's extremely rare, since granting citizenship is a very serious matter.

Rare - but not "extremely rare". And we're not talking about granting of citizenship. We are talking about giving evidence of citizenship (such as a passport) to a non-citizen.

If someone acquired citizenship using bad quality documents, I understand that if they HO finds out, they will revoke the decision, but once it's been granted; why would the HO go back and check again; especially in a few years? unless something strange happens, like someone who knows the applicant was using bad quality documents and has proof, etc... otherwise, I would think, once it's granted, that's it, no?

If a non-British citizen mistakenly acquires a British passport or nationality status letter, that person still does not become a British citizen.

For example, if the passport is lost, citizenship must be re-evidenced from scratch. And on occasion government may want to go back and look at a person's citizenship status again. For example, if someone is seeking a security clearance, has been convicted of a crime, or is running for political office, a spotlight may be cast on whether such a person is really a citizen. It is very difficult to revoke British citizenship, which means that it can be highly convenient to discover that such a person was never a British citizen in the first place.

[EUsmileWEallsmile]

...unless you were William Joyce and were hanged (completely off topic I know, but just to show that nothing is certain in life...or death for that matter).

[Derivaz]

I understand that mistakes can happen, but I would think that it's extremely rare, since granting citizenship is a very serious matter.

Rare - but not "extremely rare". And we're not talking about granting of citizenship. We are talking about giving evidence of citizenship (such as a passport) to a non-citizen.

If someone acquired citizenship using bad quality documents, I understand that if they HO finds out, they will revoke the decision, but once it's been granted; why would the HO go back and check again; especially in a few years? unless something strange happens, like someone who knows the applicant was using bad quality documents and has proof, etc... otherwise, I would think, once it's granted, that's it, no?

If a non-British citizen mistakenly acquires a British passport or nationality status letter, that person still does not become a British citizen.

For example, if the passport is lost, citizenship must be re-evidenced from scratch. And on occasion government may want to go back and look at a person's citizenship status again. For example, if someone is seeking a security clearance, has been convicted of a crime, or is running for political office, a spotlight may be cast on whether such a person is really a citizen. It is very difficult to revoke British citizenship, which means that it can be highly convenient to discover that such a person was never a British citizen in the first place.

Ah ok, I see what you mean; so it would be someone who wasn't been granted citizenship, has a fake certificate of naturalisation and got a passport using that; if they lose that passport, i guess the passport office will ask them for the certificate of naturalisation again, but i guess if a spotlight challenges it, the HO could check their record and see that there is no record of their application... I take it that the HO keeps records of all grants for life?

bad quality = f.ake; it doesn't let me type that word for some reason

[EUsmileWEallsmile]

I've read that you are Italians. If so, you appear to have achieved PR five years after entering the UK. If prior to 2006, you had chosen to apply for IRL, it would have been granted.

What appears to be somewhat anomalous that between 2000 and 2006 parents of EU citizens had to do something special, like apply for a free, but probably unadvertised service, ie obtain ILR.

It is notable that Irish citizens did not have to anything in order to have been considered to be settled, but other EU citizens did. If this is the case, it may be that there could be a case in terms of discrimination between EU nationals. That said, nationality law is the prerogative of member states.

Is it essential that your child has a British passport? It is likely that they have PR already in their own right. This is pretty valuable.

[JAJ]

I've read that you are Italians. If so, you appear to have achieved PR five years after entering the UK. If prior to 2006, you had chosen to apply for IRL, it would have been granted.

What appears to be somewhat anomalous that between 2000 and 2006 parents of EU citizens had to do something special, like apply for a free, but probably unadvertised service, ie obtain ILR.

ILR was not free, although costs were a lot more reasonable in 2000.

It is notable that Irish citizens did not have to anything in order to have been considered to be settled, but other EU citizens did. If this is the case, it may be that there could be a case in terms of discrimination between EU nationals. That said, nationality law is the prerogative of member states.

That argument is going to go nowhere. The United Kingdom was acting in accordance with its Treaty obligations at the time. Giving additional benefits to Irish citizens is its own prerogative (and the Irish reciprocate). The Nordic nations have similar arrangements between themselves, going beyond Treaty entitlements.

Is it essential that your child has a British passport? It is likely that they have PR already in their own right. This is pretty valuable.

One should ask the question the other way - why would a child born in the United Kingdom, and grown up in the United Kingdom, wish to remain a foreigner?

PR is valuable but does not carry the right to a British passport, or certain public sector employment, or full voting rights. In addition, if she leaves the U.K. for more than 2 years (temporary residence in another country, for example), PR is subject to loss.

Although noting that a U.K. born child who lives in the U.K. until age 10 has a lifetime entitlement to register as a British citizen, this entitlement is subject to conditions such as good character and the entitlement could be restricted by future law changes. In addition, British citizenship is only acquired at the date of registration, not retroactively.

[Derivaz]

I've read that you are Italians. If so, you appear to have achieved PR five years after entering the UK. If prior to 2006, you had chosen to apply for IRL, it would have been granted.

What appears to be somewhat anomalous that between 2000 and 2006 parents of EU citizens had to do something special, like apply for a free, but probably unadvertised service, ie obtain ILR.

ILR was not free, although costs were a lot more reasonable in 2000.

It is notable that Irish citizens did not have to anything in order to have been considered to be settled, but other EU citizens did. If this is the case, it may be that there could be a case in terms of discrimination between EU nationals. That said, nationality law is the prerogative of member states.

That argument is going to go nowhere. The United Kingdom was acting in accordance with its Treaty obligations at the time. Giving additional benefits to Irish citizens is its own prerogative (and the Irish reciprocate). The Nordic nations have similar arrangements between themselves, going beyond Treaty entitlements.

Is it essential that your child has a British passport? It is likely that they have PR already in their own right. This is pretty valuable.

One should ask the question the other way - why would a child born in the United Kingdom, and grown up in the United Kingdom, wish to remain a foreigner?

PR is valuable but does not carry the right to a British passport, or certain public sector employment, or full voting rights. In addition, if she leaves the U.K. for more than 2 years (temporary residence in another country, for example), PR is subject to loss.

Although noting that a U.K. born child who lives in the U.K. until age 10 has a lifetime entitlement to register as a British citizen, this entitlement is subject to conditions such as good character and the entitlement could be restricted by future law changes. In addition, British citizenship is only acquired at the date of registration, not retroactively.

I think the easiest solutions to the case of the Italian couple's child are:

1) To show that they were exercising treaty rights between 2000 ane 2006; that might suffice
2) To apply for PR now and then they will be considered settled and I suppose they can then apply for the kid's BC

[JAJ]

I think the easiest solutions to the case of the Italian couple's child are:

1) To show that they were exercising treaty rights between 2000 ane 2006; that might suffice
2) To apply for PR now and then they will be considered settled and I suppose they can then apply for the kid's BC

1. It has already been made clear that exercising treaty rights between 2000-06 (except in the few cases where there was an unconditional right of residence) is not sufficient to be settled for nationality purposes at that time. So this idea will not work and will only waste time and energy.

2. It appears that they already have PR since 30.04.2006.
There is no need for them to apply for anything, although they may wish to apply for evidence of PR. And it has already been pointed out that the child is eligible for section 1(4) registration as well (Form T) which does not require that a parent be PR.

[Derivaz]

I think the easiest solutions to the case of the Italian couple's child are:

1) To show that they were exercising treaty rights between 2000 ane 2006; that might suffice
2) To apply for PR now and then they will be considered settled and I suppose they can then apply for the kid's BC

1. It has already been made clear that exercising treaty rights between 2000-06 (except in the few cases where there was an unconditional right of residence) is not sufficient to be settled for nationality purposes at that time. So this idea will not work and will only waste time and energy.

2. It appears that they already have PR since 30.04.2006.
There is no need for them to apply for anything, although they may wish to apply for evidence of PR. And it has already been pointed out that the child is eligible for section 1(4) registration as well (Form T) which does not require that a parent be PR.

1. Sorry, I meant before 2000, it seems like before 2000, exercising treaty rights was enough to be settled; so I was thinking that maybe the HO didn't know that they were already settled before 2000 and that's why it didn't consider them settled
2. If they have PR, they can also prove it using P60s or letters of employment, but I thought it would be good to have the PR card, because that makes it easier to apply, I think; although, they have to wait a year if they use the PR card.

[JAJ]

1. Sorry, I meant before 2000, it seems like before 2000, exercising treaty rights was enough to be settled; so I was thinking that maybe the HO didn't know that they were already settled before 2000 and that's why it didn't consider them settled

Once again - this won't work.

It is clear that the change in the law in October 2000 did not "grandfather" those who were exercising treaty rights prior to that date. Anyone who wanted British citizenship in that time period, or to have U.K. born children automatically British, had to apply for ILR.

[Derivaz]

1. Sorry, I meant before 2000, it seems like before 2000, exercising treaty rights was enough to be settled; so I was thinking that maybe the HO didn't know that they were already settled before 2000 and that's why it didn't consider them settled

Once again - this won't work.

It is clear that the change in the law in October 2000 did not "grandfather" those who were exercising treaty rights prior to that date. Anyone who wanted British citizenship in that time period, or to have U.K. born children automatically British, had to apply for ILR.

OK, I thought it might be an idea; I guess the best way for them now is to prove 5 years exercising treat rights ending after 2006; which is not hard if they've been working....

[JAJ]

OK, I thought it might be an idea; I guess the best way for them now is to prove 5 years exercising treat rights ending after 2006; which is not hard if they've been working....

Not necessary if they want to register their child as British, they can use Form T which does not require anything regarding parents immigration status.

[Derivaz]

OK, I thought it might be an idea; I guess the best way for them now is to prove 5 years exercising treat rights ending after 2006; which is not hard if they've been working....

Not necessary if they want to register their child as British, they can use Form T which does not require anything regarding parents immigration status.

ah ok, that sounds like an easy way then; if you can say that with the HO