Thousands Of Individuals Who Genuinely Believed They Were British To Lose Their Citizenship !!

Following a ruling by the UK’s High Court, confusion has developed regarding how the British government itself interprets its citizenship rules. In a ruling handed down on January 20, in the case of Roehrig vs Secretary of State for the Home Department, Justice Eyre determined that the restrictive approach applied by the Home Office since 2000 to how the children of European Union nationals automatically acquire citizenship is the correct interpretation of the law.

The case in dispute relates to Antoine Lucas Roehrig’s nationality. He was born in the UK on October 20, 2000. His mother is a French citizen who spent the five years prior to his birth living and working in the UK under the rules of the European Union. Roehrig asserted that because his mother was a resident of the UK when he was born, he was granted British citizenship at birth in accordance with section 1(1)(b) of the British Nationality Act 1981. His application for a British passport was denied by the Home Office, which disputed that his mother fulfilled the requirements for being settled under the act.

The government’s interpretation of how the legal concept of being settled in the UK extended to citizens of the European Union is what led Eyre to rule in favor of the Home Office. Thousands of individuals whose sense of identity has always been British may have their lives completely turned upside down.

Definitive departure

Anyone born in the UK attained British citizenship by default prior to 1983. Following that, those born in the UK were only regarded as British citizens if at least one of their parents was either a British citizen themselves or settled in the UK at the time of the child’s birth, as defined by the British Nationality Act 1981.

For 17 years, the Home Office considered European Union citizens who used their right of free movement in the UK to be established and their children who were born in the UK to be British. However, the Home Office modified the guidelines on October 2, 2000. European Union citizens were now required to apply for and be granted indefinite leave to stay in order to be considered settled.

The issue is that a large number of citizens of the European Union did not request extended leave to remain because they were already in the UK and did not require it. Why register for something that you do not seem to need?

Therefore, the issue raised by the Roehrig case is whether individuals from the European Union who do not possess indefinite leave to stay could be regarded as settled. The High Court had to decide whether European Union nationals fit the definition of someone residing in the UK without any immigration law limitations on the length of their stay, as stated in section 50 of the British Nationality Act, in order to respond to this query.

The European Union law, which had a direct effect in the UK until Brexit, effectively established a conditional residence for EU citizens, who could live in the UK for as long as they remained a qualified person. The majority of the time, these residence rights were given based on employment. In some cases, a person may qualify if they are dependent on a family member or are unable to work due to sickness or a loss of employment. They may also qualify if they are living off of their own savings.

Eyre discovered that this conditional residence had the same impact as a limitation on immigration law regarding the duration of time that citizens of the European Union could stay in the UK. In other words, he determined that merely being a qualified person under the free movement laws of the European Union did not automatically qualify one as having settled in the country.

This reading of the law is unexpected. Many European Union citizens were allowed to live in the UK for decades on the basis of EU law without requesting indefinite leave to remain before Brexit and the ensuing requirement to apply for the EU settlement scheme. Their offspring were treated as British, and they were regarded as established.

The potential effect

It is important to note that new regulations, like those the Home Office unveiled on October 2, 2000, do not alter the legislation. They merely change how the legislation is applied and how it is interpreted.

Eyre has determined that the British Nationality Act should be interpreted in accordance with the Home Office’s limited approach to British citizenship, which has been in effect since October 2, 2000. Therefore, the prior interpretation that was put into practice between 1983 and October 2, 2000, was wrong. This implies that many people who were born during this time period to parents who, like Roehrig’s mother, were qualified persons under the European Union free movement law, will have been mistakenly awarded British citizenship by the Home Office.

On the other hand, if Roehrig succeeds in his challenge of the ruling, the Home Office’s stringent policy since 2000 will be deemed illegal. The legal understanding that was put into effect prior to October 2000 will have been accurate. In this case, the Home Office will have mistakenly refused British citizenship to a large number of individuals born after 2000 to citizens of the European Union who ought to have been regarded as being settled in the UK.

Given that the government grossly underestimated the number of EU citizens residing in the UK prior to Brexit, it is reasonable to assume that there will be tens of thousands of individuals who could be impacted in either direction.

The Home Office has acknowledged that the affected children born before October 2, 2000, are British, as a matter of policy and justice, according to the secretary of state’s submissions to the high court. But this is just an economic issue. It does not offer any formal assurance.

Colin Yeo, an immigration attorney, cautions that the Home Office has in the past declared citizenship useless and void if it was obtained unintentionally or through Home Office error. The strategy to recognize British citizenship for those born prior to October 2, 2000, is currently on hold.

What about those who believed they had passed on their British status but went on to have their own children? Legislation that recognizes the affected group’s acquisition of British citizenship in the past could guarantee security for them. However, thousands of possibly British individuals with parents who are citizens of the EU are currently living in a state of considerable uncertainty.

News Mania Desk