23 replies to this topic

[ali5890]

Does this mean that one no longer has to wait for the 5 years to lapse after being convicted for traffic offenses (Fines) or otherwise?
Obviously it states that the Act would only kick in in Spring 2013. But still, for someone like me it's better than waiting until 2015.
Any input will be appreciated particularly from the experts who contribute here.

Thanks

Sorry link here : http://www.legislati...ontents/enacted

Edited by ali5890, 30 May 2012 - 06:27 AM.

[Victoria]

The problem is the chapter which states there is no rehabilitation for those applying under the 1981 Act and others.

[ali5890]

Victoria, on 30 May 2012 - 06:32 AM, said:

The problem is the chapter which states there is no rehabilitation for those applying under the 1981 Act and others.

I misssed this one   
140No rehabilitation for certain immigration or nationality purposes -

It still says "certain" and not "ALL"   - All very confusing for a layman.

[Victoria]

Confusing for me too!

I read it as meaning that no one with a criminal record can naturalise, but that ILR is not ruled out and that the new rehabilitation times will apply in those cases. But I should stress that I have only just scanned it. We should get explanatory notes published soon, so don't panic yet.

[mrlookforward]

It doesn't mean that someone with a conviction cannot naturalise. Section 141 exempts ukba from the act. ie UKBA can act totally outside laspo which means they can set their own guidance (or their own rehabilitation period if you want to call it that). LASPO doesn't force them to make a decision one way or another.

eg
They can say that someone with 6 months prison has to wait 10 years.
or
Someone with more than one drug posession will have to wait 12 years.

etc etc

Actually, just like USA. They do not have rehabilitation. They have to decalre everything, even arrest for the rest of their lives, but for all aspects of life, including naturalisation they have "clear" periods.

[ali5890]

I think for " no one with a criminal record can naturalise" they need to ammend the UK border ACT and/or British Nationality act itself.  From my understanding this act traslate as, nothing has changed in terms of applying this act to immigration decisions. And under European Communities Act 1972, The officer acting on behalf of home secretary has the descretion to apply Home office Rules and Regulation where appropriate.

But as you've mentioned we've all got to wait and see.

It will also be interesting to see what guidelines the Home office will follow once LASPO kicks in next spring, Surely they cannot follow the 1974 act anymore.

Edited by ali5890, 30 May 2012 - 08:38 AM.

[mrlookforward]

The act hasn't "commenced" yet, apart from 2 or 3 sections.
It seems they are planning to commence it in spring 2013, but who really knows for sure.
Its upto government when and which sections of the act they commence.

Right now, nothing has changed. Practical immigration/nationality implications will not be known  until section 139, 140,141 are commenced and UKBA announces policy/guidance.

Edited by mrlookforward, 30 May 2012 - 08:38 AM.

[Victoria]

The point is that this *allows* UKBA to take the measure of refusing naturalisation to those with criminal records, regardless of being 'spent'. It doesn't mean they will do so.

[mrlookforward]

Well, you can look at it and interpret it that way.

Actually, even at this moment in time, UKBA is not strictly bound by rehabilitation of offenders act 1974.
Neither ROA 1974 act has any mention of BNA, nor does BNA 1981 has any mention of rehabilitation periods.
Even for someone without any conviction, UKBA can still come to a conclusion that applicant is not of good character. (offcourse based on many factors)

[Victoria]

The immigration rules and the nationality guidance are pretty clear on these things. But this really affects those who have minor convictions in areas that only issue fines, as this is the main change and these people wouldn't find themselves refused under the good character requirement.