Acestry Visas will fall under Long Residence Rules

I am looking into the status of children. My hope is that I can get ILR before the scrap it for Probationary Citizenship. I am up for FLR in June 2009 and then ILR in June 2010. My son will be just under 18 when I make that ILR application. I hope to be able to give him that at least.
We shall see.

Council Directive 2003/109/EC is the most recent upgrade of the original directive.  The UK has no choice but to implement it.

But take CAREFUL note that the government put on their thinking caps and whittled their pencils in the interpretation of  Residence should be both legal and continuous in order to show that the person has put down roots in the country. Provision should be made for a degree of flexibility so that account can be taken of circumstances in which a person might have to leave the territory on a temporary basis.

This sort of application needs to be represented by a skilled practitioner of the first water or it will fail.  We're talking on the order of a specialist like Peter Moss of Bates, Wells & Braithwaite. 

In 2007 or 2008 (I can't remember which), there were no successful applictions.  It's the trickiest application in the whole spectrum of UK immigration. 

Eyes wide.

Hey! sorry to bother you again... but i have found this website with a summary of the directive and apparently the UK is not bound by it....

http://eumovement.wordpress.com/directive-2003109ec/

If this is the case, then there is surely no guarantee they will not get rid of the 10 year rule, right?

Thanks

It wouldn't be beyond what the Government to consider it, but like we have been talking about, we suspect the Government is going to embrace it, with their strange intreptations and try to move anyone who isn't clearly economic or family onto that track, like UK Ancestry, Single Mother and anyone else they want to force into an excruciating 10 year wait.

They can't fully eliminate a path to Citizenship as that would easily contravene Article 8 and Article 12 of the ECHR.

Hey! sorry to bother you again... but i have found this website with a summary of the directive and apparently the UK is not bound by it....
http://eumovement.wordpress.com/directive-2003109ec/
If this is the case, then there is surely no guarantee they will not get rid of the 10 year rule, right?

Either you read it wrong, or read inaccurate information and believed it, or read case profiles that did not relate to you, such as entry clearance or partners of EU nationals or etc.  Additionally, it looks like you read a mish-mash mumbo-jumbo of something that got vectored from the Metock decision (UK, Ireland, and Denmark).

If you have doubts about the rule and it's important to your life, then trying to study it based upon random hits from Google is a very reckless strategy. 

I'd like to write to my MP (who is a Lib Dem) and to a Lord who lives locally and is a friend of a friend, but how do I describe the derivation of this information?  That a member of this forum heard it at an ILPA meeting with -- whom?  I'd prefer to put it in such a way that it doesn't sound like mere rumour ...

Well, I have been put on to you guys by a friend.  I am a bit worried about this ancestry visa thing.  I got married in Australia to a British Citizen, and came over on an Ancestry visa..so how does this affect me? what steps should I be taking?

You may want to consider switching to a spousal visa.

Vicky

In addition to Vicky's idea (which I endorse by the way), remember that the transition arrangements for ancestry and single parent have not yet reached the exposure draft stage.

You may want to consider switching to a spousal visa.

Vicky

This is a good idea of course in terms of shortening the process. Not to be a wet blanket or anything though, but do note that a spousal visa is dependent upon the continuing subsistence of your relationship. Your ancestry visa is based on your own "merits", as it were.

Just something to keep in mind.

This is a good idea of course in terms of shortening the process. Not to be a wet blanket or anything though, but do note that a spousal visa is dependent upon the continuing subsistence of your relationship. Your ancestry visa is based on your own "merits", as it were.

Yes, but do you roll the dice...  In a lot of ways, most people really need to consider the first past the post route.  If you intend to stay in the UK, it is really in everyone's best interest to get to full Citizenship as soon as possible.  There are multiple reasons for this now, but the Government is making it clear, either become a Citizen or leave.

Children have some other routes.  You might want to consider solidifying a child's status before the reach the age of majority.  It may be difficult if neither of the parents have received their Citizenship yet, but, I suspect if you got the right solicitor or practitioner, you might have a fighting change before they start wandering all over the world.

I would think that abercroft would want look into this too for her son.

How would we go about this?  and could we really do this even if we don't have ILR/Citizenship?

This is a good idea of course in terms of shortening the process. Not to be a wet blanket or anything though, but do note that a spousal visa is dependent upon the continuing subsistence of your relationship. Your ancestry visa is based on your own "merits", as it were.

Just something to keep in mind.

A very very minor nitpick with your interpretation of the new bill.  Well, not so minor in fact.

The new bill says a relationship to a "relevant person" is needed.  I note that nowhere does it call for the "relevant person" to be *same* "relevant person".   

It just says "relevant person".      Under that, the subsisting relationship could have been started last week with somebody completely new.  Read it and see for yourself.

I suspect this is an accidental oversight by the drafters, but if it gets passed with the current wording, we'll be in for some interesting cases! 

A very very minor nitpick with your interpretation of the new bill.  Well, not so minor in fact.

Fair enough. And it will make for some interesting situations, as least until the HO "wises" up.

But I must say fortunate be the migrant who has a string of available "relevant" persons arrayed before him/her!

 

"Applicants coming to the UK under the ancestry provisions must have leave in this capacity
for 5 years in order to qualify for settlement. The previous Statement of Changes provided for
leave to be granted in the following pattern: 2 years’ leave to enter, followed by 3 years’ leave
to remain, rather than allowing one single period all the way up to the settlement qualifying
period. This Statement of Changes allows for one single period to be granted all the way up
to the settlement qualifying period. So, leave to enter and leave to remain under the ancestry provisions may now be granted for up to 5 years at a time."

I found this document on the government site. It is the explanation the government published regarding the changes that happened in 2006. (HC 1016)

Don't the first few words imply applications in the future? ("coming to the UK")
(coming= future tense?)
Also the last line contains a time reference, ( "may NOW be granted")Now has to equal the date this document was published. That would be 2006.
It sounds to me as if these changes are not intended for those already in the UK on
this visa.
Am I crazy? How do they justify requiring those already here when this was published, when the rules were changed; how do they justify NOT honouring the original rules?

I just wanted to let you know that I have posted the letter that I wrote to my MP on this issue in UK-Yankee's "Advocacy" section. I didn't want to double post it, but if there is subsequent demand from those who can't access that forum, I guess I can post it here as well.