news and updates

Registration for British citizenship as a Chagossian descendant

1st December 2022 By Imogen Simpson

During the 1960s and 70s, the UK government removed all inhabitants of the Chagos Islands from their land, creating what is known as the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT). This allowed the islands to become a US military base. The majority of Chagossians were removed to Mauritius and Seychelles.

In 2002, the UK government made the decision to grant British citizenship to all British Overseas Territories citizens, which included Chagossians. However, this applied only to those born on the Chagos Islands and their children. Citizenship was not extended to subsequent generations such as grandchildren or great-grandchildren.

The UK government has finally addressed this issue. The Nationality and Borders Act 2022 amends the British Nationality Act 1981 to create an entitlement for the direct descendants of Chagossians to be registered as British citizens and/or British Overseas Territories citizens (BOTC).

Applicants can apply for British citizenship and BOTC at the same time as part of one application and, if eligible, can obtain both forms of citizenship.

Requirements

The requirements for the application are relatively straightforward, at least in theory. Applicants will need to evidence that they are a direct descendant of someone born in the Chagos Islands. The Home Office published caseworker guidance on these citizenship applications in which they define ‘direct descendant’ as:

‘Direct descendants are the biological children and grandchildren of an ancestor. For example, you are a direct descendant of your mother, your grandmother, your greatgrandmother, and so on. This also applies to the paternal side and includes your father, your grandfather, your great grandfather and so on. Direct descendants do not refer to aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews, brothers, sisters, cousins, and so on.’

Evidence of direct descent will typically include birth certificates and birth records, but can also include:

medical or dental records;
marriage or civil partnership certificates;
change of name deed polls; and
factual records including court proceedings.

The Home Office has confirmed that the BIOT administration is in the process of digitalising the birth records it holds for those born on the Chagos Islands. This means that where an applicant does not have access to a copy of their ancestor’s birth certificate, the BIOT should be able to help with verifying the applicant’s Chagossian ancestry.

Applicants will also need to provide a form of ID, and two referees to verify their identity. There is no good character requirement for these applications.

You are not eligible to apply if you have ever previously been a BOTC or British Dependent Territories citizen.

Applications are open as of 23 November 2022. You can apply online here: Apply for British citizenship as a person of Chagossian descent – GOV.UK (www.gov.uk). There is no application fee.

The Home Office has set a time limit on these applications. Those who are already 18 or over will have five years from 23 November 2022 to apply. The deadline for those under the age of 18 as at 23 November 2022 is the person’s 23^rd birthday. Under the guidance those born between 23 November 2022 and 23 November 2027 may also be eligible to apply up to their 23^rd birthday.

While this does not fully rectify the situation, the introduction of this entitlement to register is good news for Chagossian descendants who have previously been excluded from becoming British citizens or BOTCs.

If you require advice in relation to the above, we would be happy to help. Please contact us on 020 7401 6887 or by email at contact@gryklaw.com.

Landmark High Court Case on Transnational Marriage Abandonment

4th November 2022 By Andrew Jones

Migrants who are in the United Kingdom as the partner of a British citizen can apply for indefinite leave to remain if that relationship breaks down permanently because of domestic abuse.

However, if that migrant is outside of the United Kingdom, they cannot apply for indefinite leave. That is because the wording of the Rules makes clear that the application can only be made from inside the United Kingdom.

This becomes a particular problem for migrants (usually women) who are victims of transnational marriage abandonment. This is a phenomenon whereby an abusive partner deliberately removes their partner from the United Kingdom, often by deception, and then leaves them stranded abroad. Common features of transnational marriage abandonment include taking away the woman’s visa and travel documents and the abusive partner contacting the Home Office to declare that the relationship has ended so that the woman’s visa is curtailed. These women have no recourse under the Immigration Rules to return to the United Kingdom, whereas if they were still in the United Kingdom, they would be eligible for indefinite leave to remain. This is the case even though transnational marriage abandonment has been recognised in the Family Courts as a form of domestic violence.

Nath Gbikpi set out this issue in further detail in an earlier blog.

On 14 October 2022, the High Court found that by treating victims of domestic violence differently depending on whether or not they are in the United Kingdom, victims of transnational marriage abandonment are being unlawfully discriminated against. The Home Office will now have to introduce new Rules and guidance to ensure that victims of transnational marriage abandonment are treated the same as victim of domestic violence who are in the United Kingdom. This should mean that they will be able to apply for indefinite leave to enter.

In the meantime, however, many women will have been excluded from indefinite leave on the basis of this discriminatory treatment. Some may have returned to the United Kingdom on different visas. It remains to be seen whether the Home Office will allow them to apply for indefinite leave to remain, too.

Our Diana Baxter wrote a detailed analysis on this issue on Lexis Nexis.

If you require advice in relation to the above, we would be happy to help. Please contact us on 020 7401 6887 or by email at contact@gryklaw.com.

The new International Sportsperson visa

22nd October 2021 By Imogen Simpson

As of 11 October 2021, the Home Office have introduced a new visa route for professional sportspeople and coaches entitled the International Sportsperson visa. This will be replacing the previous Tier 2 Sportsperson and Tier 5 Sporting and Creative Worker categories for sportspeople, and combining them into one category to make applications more straightforward.

The key requirements an individual will need to meet to obtain a visa under this category are as follows:

they must be 16 years of age or older;
they must have an endorsement from their Governing Body confirming that they are internationally established at the highest level and will make a significant contribution to the development of their sport at the highest level in the UK (the list of approved sporting bodies can be found under Appendix Sports Governing Bodies: Immigration Rules Appendix Sports Governing Bodies – Immigration Rules – Guidance – GOV.UK (www.gov.uk));
they must have been assigned a valid Certificate of Sponsorship by their sponsor;
they must satisfy the financial requirement; and
they must meet the English language requirement if applying for a period of leave that is longer than 12 months.

This will be a route to settlement, and dependants will be able to apply under this visa category in line with the main applicant.

This visa allows the visa-holder to undertake work for their national team, should their national team be in the UK for a competition, as well as provide expert guest commentary for sporting events.

The introduction of this singular visa route for professional sportspeople and coaches is a welcome simplification of the application process and guidance for those in the sporting profession. Furthermore, it will allow for Creative Workers to fall under its own distinct route, in recognition of how different the two sectors are.

For more information on the requirements for this visa category please see the Home Office’s guidance: Immigration Rules Appendix International Sportsperson – Immigration Rules – Guidance – GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)

If you require immigration advice in relation to the above, we can help. Please contact us on 020 7401 6887 or by email at contact@gryklaw.com.

Ambitious roadmap to streamlined sponsorship

2nd September 2021 By Rachael Ockenden

The Home Office has recently set out a roadmap for a sponsorship system that will enable employers to have an overseas worker ready to start work in the UK faster than in any other G20 country. The Home Office is looking to streamline the process for companies and universities becoming sponsors, and for workers and students to obtain immigration permission for the UK.

Substantial changes had already been made to the Skilled Worker category in response to Brexit, which significantly reduced the length of the process to recruit a worker from overseas eg by removing the resident labour market test.

The Home Office is now planning a series of changes to further overhaul the sponsorship system.

The next set of changes include:

a review of the documentation required for a sponsor licence application (with the intent of making it easier for a company to register as a sponsor);
the establishment of a service that supports small and micro businesses (the Home Office currently provides individual support to sponsors, but at a fee of £25,000 per year);
a review of the fees the sponsorship system entails (the Home Office has acknowledged the current fees disproportionately affect smaller sponsors);
the introduction of an enhanced Skilled Worker eligibility checking tool; and
piloting a new salary check feature with HMRC to check employees are being paid the amount a sponsor has confirmed.

The Home Office’s digitalisation plans (Digitalisation of the Immigration System (gryklaw.com)) will also serve the sponsorship system, allowing for automated checks and more knowledge sharing between the Home Office and HMRC. This automatic data sharing will in turn be used to further monitor compliance among sponsors.

One of the most welcome changes will be the updating of the Sponsor Management System, which has not changed since it’s introduction in 2008, though we will have to wait until the end of 2022 at the earliest for this.

Please do not hesitate to contact us at contact@gryklaw.com or on 020 7401 6887 if you need any advice on the above.

High Court rules in favour of Windrush victim in landmark ruling

20th May 2021 By wesleygryk

While the Windrush Scheme was designed to remedy the historic injustices suffered by Windrush victims as a result of the failings of past administrations, the cracks in the present Scheme continue to be unveiled. In less than one month, the High Court has ruled against the Home Office twice in cases concerning Windrush. On 23 April 2021, in Hubert Howard v Secretary of State for the Home Department CO/979/2019, the High Court held that the Home Office’s practice of denying Windrush victims with minor criminal convictions citizenship as a result of them failing the restrictive “good character” requirement was irrational and unlawful. This judgment should encourage Windrush victims in a similar situation to re-apply.

The Windrush Scheme most recently came under the spotlight before the High Court on 6 May 2021 in R (Mahabir) v the Secretary of State for the Home Department [2021] EWHC 1177. This case concerned a Windrush victim, Mahabir, who was born in Trinidad and came to the UK at 3 months old. She lived in the UK for 8 years before returning to Trinidad in 1977. By virtue of the Immigration Act 1971, Mahabir became entitled to indefinite leave to remain (“ILR”) in the UK on 1 January 1973. However, this was lost when Mahabir returned to Trinidad and she was unaware of her right to regain her ILR by returning to the UK before 1 August 1988. It was not until 2018, when stories of the Windrush scandal had circulated widely that Mahabir was granted entry clearance for six months to allow her to collect the documentation confirming that her ILR had been restored.

Mahabir entered the UK alone, with her family (including her five children) remaining in Trinidad. In order for Mahabir’s family to join her in the UK, they had to pay application fees amounting to £22,909—an unaffordable fee for Mahabir and her family. Notably, the Windrush Scheme permits fee-free applications for leave to remain for a child of a Windrush victim if they live in the UK but a child living overseas must pay a full application fee.

Mahabir and her family challenged the Home Office’s refusal to allow them to make fee-free applications for leave to enter or remain under the Windrush Scheme. They argued that such refusal led to their family being separated for over 2 years, which was in breach of their right to respect for private and family life under article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and their right not to be discriminated against under article 14 ECHR.

The Court held that Mahabir’s article 8 rights had been breached by the unaffordable application fee which rendered the procedure effectively inaccessible and disproportionately interfered with her family life. The Court opined that a criterion of affordability should be introduced as a safeguard, rather than fee-free applications.

While the Court accepted that the benefits of the Windrush Scheme had deliberately been extended only to direct victims of the Windrush scandal, this policy rationale did not justify an interference with Mahabir’s article 8 rights. Ultimately, Mahabir was faced with what Mr Justice Smith described as a “thankless choice”: Mahabir either had to dispense with the remedies the Home Office had granted in order to remedy the injustice suffered by her and other Windrush victims, or she had to break up her family.

The Court held that the Home Office’s failure to treat family members of a Windrush victim preferentially in respect of application fees was indirect discrimination and in breach of article 14 ECHR. The Court also found that distinguishing between applications made from outside the UK and those made from within, when calculating fees, was both an arbitrary distinction and unjustifiable on the facts.

It is hoped that this case will assist many other Windrush victims in bringing their family to the UK.

If you require immigration advice in relation to the issues above, we can help. Please contact us on 020 7401 6887 or by email at contact@gryklaw.com