mfesharne

As I see it, there's a very simple explanation in that she failed to supply the correct required original photo ID to prove who she was & what she was entitled to.

In other words she expected the Government officials to simply take he word that what she claimed was true............ why would they simply take the word of the applicant without the required proof?

If you started to do that then every illegal immigrant & refused asylum seeker would be doing the same thing.

The rules are there for a reason.

Naaling

Are you trying to say that after living in England for 24 years, the British government didn't know who she was?

mfesharne

I'm trying to say that the Government has stipulated criteria for what she was applying for & she failed to meet that criteria by not supplying the original ID they required.

Therefore it's entirely reasonable they refused her application.

Note the statements of the Government spokesman:

" her application was rejected because she failed to submit an original ID and that it had also launched an express passport check-in service in 58 councils, including one 10 miles from her home in the London borough of Sutton"

And further stating: ""The rights of EU nationals living in the UK remain unchanged while we are a member of the European Union. EU nationals do not require any additional documents to prove their status"

Especially note the last few words of the 2nd statement.

She failed to prove her status & was therefore refused.

Simple & perfectly reasonable really.

DaveLovesDee

She supplied an accepted alternative.

mfesharne

Not according to the Government spokesman which suggests that whilst she thought the alternative she chose to supply was acceptable, they obviously thought differently & it's them not her who decides what is & isn't acceptable.

Either you supply the correct documentation or you don't & in this case if what is reported is correct, she didn't so it's not unreasonable that her application was refused.

I really don't understand why she expected to be treated differently to anyone else.

Naaling

You're missing the point.
The real problem is not that application failed, but the fact that she was told to leave the country.
How can a failed citizenship application lead directly to a requirement to leave the country? There is the whole question of residency in between!
And in this case there is absolutely no doubt that the requirement to leave was completely wrong.
This is not an honest mistake, but indicates a deliberate policy on the part of the British Government to deny people their rights under EU law. When you give public servants the right to make decisions like this, there is always the chance that someone will go too far and expose the whole situation.

macliam

I am not sure what worries me more, the fact that this occurred, or the fact that some people are turning themselves inside out to justify what is obviously a stupid bureaucratic blunder - made worse by the fact that the recipient was actually unable to contact anyone for further information or discussion and the Home Office are now trying to play hardball to justify their cock-up.

If you actually look at the document concerned https://www.gov.uk/government/upload..._PR__03-16.pdf, in section 18 of the 85 pages it asks for the provision of "Proof of identity and nationality (sections 1-2) – e.g. valid passport, travel document or national identity card for you, any family members applying with you, and your sponsor (if applicable).
If you can’t provide any of these documents you must explain why and provide alternative evidence of your/their identity and nationality. " Since earlier in the form it requires the passport/document number, the document can be accessed online by the relevant agencies - plus she supplied the reason why her passport could not be surrendered at that time AND a photocopy of the document signed and attested to by her solicitor (who, presumably, is so stupid that he supplied an unacceptable document?). What part of that suggests that "She failed to prove her status & was therefore refused"??

Then we come to the ridiculous instruction to leave, ridiculous because, as an EEA citizen she does not have to do so and ridiculous because there is a right to appeal any rejection. On what planet does her "application failed to meet the required criteria....... and that would also explain the instruction to leave........" make sense? Unless this was the outpouring of some bureaucratic nightmare state, stuck in the dark ages.

The customer is always wrong, eh?

mfesharne

I don't think I am missing the point...... rather, I think you & some others are misunderstanding the statements of the Government spokesman.

As I understand it, she failed to provide her original passport. Therefore, she failed to prove that she was an EU citizen (for want of a better term) & thereby failed to prove she had a right to reside.

Therefore the Government had no choice but to tell her that as the documents she did supply failed to prove she had a right to reside she had to leave.

However, that said, I'm sure that as soon as she does supply her passport & prove she has a right to reside she'll be allowed to stay.

mfesharne

I certainly agree with Macliam that it's largely a "stupid bureaucratic blunder" probably caused by some civil servant misinterpreting the rules but hey, that happens all the time here in Portugal so it's hardly surprising it also happens elsewhere from time to time.

As I see it, all she has to do is supply the right documents with another application & this storm in a teacup will quickly subside.

DaveLovesDee

As macliam clearly explains below (and I pointed out at least twice to you), a legally acceptable alternative to her passport was supplied according to the rules.

And the requirement to leave because the application was wrongfully refused was itself wrong as well. Even after a Citizenship application is refused for whatever reason other than fraud, the applicant still has the right of Permanant Residence in the UK.

This is not the first time a Home Office case worker has made mistakes in processing applications, and immigration tribunals see lots of such cases Warning of huge backlog of immigration cases in UK

And then the Home Office appeals Tribunal decisions to drag the process out even longer Upper Tribunal criticises Home Office for unfair and unrealistic appeals

The Home Office never admits it's mistakes. Like many government departments.

Naaling

Sorry your arguement doesn't make any sense.

Regardless of whether the certified copy her passport was good enough for the citizenship application, it should have at least indicated to the public servant handling the case that she was an EU citizen and therefore can't be asked to leave.
Furthermore, all they had to do was type her name into their computer and they would have realised that she was a long term resident.
I think its time to stop trying to justify the actions of these officious twats?

P.S.
Under EU law, she cannot be asked to leave without being given an opportunity to produce the required documents.

Red Eric

How so?

DaveLovesDee

She'd probably previously applied for (and issued with) a 5yr Residence Certificate withing 6 months of arrival, and subsequently a Permanent Residence document after those 5yrs.

Red Eric

Hmmmm - speculative, as it's not a requirement and lots and lots of people apparently haven't therefore bothered.

mfesharne

Hey, everyone makes mistakes. That's why there are so many divorces & why even things like space shuttles blow up.

If the Govt did make a mistake she needs to prove it or provide the documents they required in the first place & that she has so far failed to produce