EU citizen wondering about UK right to remain

[badgersnotincluded]

I'm a dual national with one of my nationalities being within the EU, which has allowed me to live here since 2005. My other nationality is a commonwealth country.

I am married to a Brit.

I started a business here 4 years ago and haven't paid myself a wage. The business has grown slowly but I have reinvested all profits back into it. My husband has supported me during this time. I've never claimed any type of benefits.

What is the best route for me to apply for a right to remain here should I be caught up in some post-Brexit eviction? I understand the risk is small but I feel like I have lived here long enough and I'm happy to become a citizen. The only reason I haven't to this point is because it was a lot of money that I didn't need to spend.

I have lived here continuously with no gaps of longer than 4 weeks out of the UK.

Thanks for any advice.

Slight bump

To qualify for permanent residence you have to have five years of being a "qualified person" - broadly: worker, self-employed, self-sufficient or student.

In the last four years you have probably not earned enough from your business for the Home Office to count you as self-employed - although you may be able to challenge that in court. But your husband was supporting you so self-sufficient is more likely. Unfortunately to be a qualified person as self-sufficient or a student, you would also have needed comprehensive sickness insurance, which most people don't have.

If you did have it - brilliant. You've been a qualified person for 4 years and can apply for PR when you get to five.

If not - think back to 2005 - 2013. What were you doing during that time? PR is acquired automatically, so if (for example) you were employed from 2005 - 2010 then you acquired PR in 2010 and can apply for the card now.

You do now need PR before you apply for citizenship.

Thanks for your reply, Laura.

I was working full time from 2005-2014 and paying all the relevant taxes and NI. I stupidly threw away all of my p60s and things when we moved house in 2012 but I saw online that there is a way of getting this information back for this purpose.

Would it be easier to apply through the spousal route?

And I will get the ball rolling on PR pronto!

Do you mean British Citizenship?
Or LTR?

Artemis tbh whatever is simplest and gives me the right to live here permanently.

As I understand it, you legally have already the PR by being a qualified person from 2005 to 2014 when you were working.

The PR card you can apply for, as proof of your PR, but legally you have PR , even if you don't have the card.

But you do need the PR card to apply for British citizenship. So if hat is what you want, then its best to start gathering evidence and apply for the card.

Great. Thanks for the advice all.

Yes, just apply for PR. You acquired it in 2010 and haven't lost it - you can only lose it by being away from the UK for two years. You need to apply to HMRC for proof that you were working during that time.

Don't bother with the spouse route. Permanent residence is the same thing as indefinite leave to remain. A spouse visa is an extremely expensive pain in the tits and gets you 2.5 years leave to remain, then you have to reapply for another 2.5, then for indefinite leave, and it tips the dynamic of the relationship as you're dependent on your spouse for your visa. It is a last resort for those who can't get PR through the EEA route!

Laura, thank you!

Do you mean British Citizenship? Or LTR?

Whatever is simplest and gives me the right to live here permanently.

Citizenship, then. A future administration could quite happily revise rules on "indefinite" LTR and make it much more definite (cf. DLA "for life"). Even with citizenship, it's not impossible a future administration might "grade" citizens.

That's true, Lurking. I will most probably progress to citizenship as I feel like it's the right thing to do after 12 years. I consider the UK my home now so best make it official.

Lurking, that can't happen: they can revise rules so that in future people do not get ILR but they cannot deprive those who already hold it of a previous grant.

There's caselaw on these "transitional provisions" and the best example is that refugees used to get ILR but now get 5 years leave and then a reassessment. When that changed, they didn't go back and take away all the grants of ILR, it only affected those who made claims after the law changed. The same has been held for skilled migrants on a route to settlement.

Having said that, citizenship means there is no doubt left at all about entitlement to reside, and it doesn't matter if you go and live abroad for a while, so it is still worth doing.

Thanks for clarifying, Laura.

LauraMipsum

Generally the government can do what they damn well want - especially if they succeed in tricking people into giving up their rights.

Bear in mind that as Home Secretary, Theresa May tried her best to strip people of their British Citizenship, to make them stateless.

I refer you to the concept of "DLA for life" which it turns out is no such thing. I see no reason why the same mechanism could not be applied to ILR. Not explicitly. Or even in one hit. Just a creeping "clarification" of the criteria required to possess ILR.

Even with citizenship, it's worth noting there have been public discussions about the idea of "tiered citizenship" - so that people applying in the future only get a temporary version which expires after a while. How this might square with the UNs requirements preventing statelessness would be interesting.

Caselaw means squat when you have a government that can make a new law wiping it out. And once again, UK governments have form for passing laws which are retrospective.

The OP is correct in their caution - I really wouldn't trust any future government.

I have fifteen years' specialist immigration law experience, so I'm familiar with what TM did as Home Sec (and Blunkett, and Clarke, and Reid, and Smith...)

Caselaw does not "mean squat" because the govt still has to behave in a way that is lawful. The court can make a declaration of incompatibility which requires the law to be repealed or redrafted. There are half a dozen cases on legitimate expectation in immigration and it is clear that if the HO were to try retrospectively to remove ILR from those who hold it, it would be unlawful and subject to a judicial review which could only succeed.

It is unhelpful to the EEA citizens who find themselves in this position to be subject to fearmongering about the UK government retrospectively removing their rights. Quite apart from the illegality of it, the govt doesn't have the administrative resources to go back and remove PR from every EEA national who acquired it over the last thirty years!

Quite apart from the illegality of it, the govt doesn't have the administrative resources to go back and remove PR from every EEA national who acquired it over the last thirty years!

Agreed that. They also don't have the records to start with ...