Using UK ILR Stamp

[Richard W]

I'm confused by some of the changes to the evidence of ILR. My wife has an ILR stamp in her first Thai passport, has never lost ILR, and now has a third Thai passport which has not yet been used. She has always renewed her passport prior to expiry. She does not have a Biometric Residence Permit (BRP).

On the basis of the above information, does my wife have a visa? https://www.gov.uk/change-circumstances-visa-brp/overview says that if she has a visa or a BRP, she must report a change of address. Does she have to report a change of address? I do not believe the change of address since receiving ILR has been formally reported. The immigration services should be aware of her present address.

Can she be taken on in a new employment in the UK? Can she be refused new employment on the basis that her first passport has expired and she has no other evidence of ILR besides the letter recording its grant?

When my wife next flies to Thailand and back on her Thai passport, what documents does she need for the return trip to (a) get a boarding pass and (b ) be readmitted to the UK.

I would hope that the answer was that her first and third Thai passports should suffice. If not, which of the following would suffice:

( a ) the second Thai passport

( b ) a recent pay slip from a UK company.

( c ) a recent bank statement addressed to her at a UK address.

( d ) a UK utility bill or similar with our names on it.

I fear my wife might have to obtain a BRP. I am worried as to how she will obtain or renew her BRP after I die if she has not retained all her passports. While utility bills with our names on may be supplied as evidence of residence in the UK since the grant of ILR (so long as she has not thrown my records out), I will not be able to grant permission for the utility companies etc. to confirm them if I am dead. Will such permission be required if I am dead? Page 17 of the BRP(RC) Application Form (Version 06/2014) requires such permission!

Edited August 17, 2014 by Richard W

[7by7]

Considering your claimed expertise on UK immigration and nationality matters in other topics, I am surprised that you have to ask these questions.

Do you really not know the answers; or are you for some reason known only to yourself trying, again, to worry others who are less knowledgeable?

The pages you have linked to and the information on them do not apply to ILR holders.

If your wife was granted ILR before the introduction of BRPs for ILR then her paper ILR is sufficient. So she shows that, whichever passport it is in, if she needs to prove her immigration status in the UK, e.g. for employment, and that and her current passport when entering the UK.

People like your wife who already have ILR and no BRP only need to apply for a BRP if they wish to transfer their ILR to a new passport (not necessary to do, unless the passport it is in has been lost or destroyed) or apply for certain Home Office travel documents; documents it is extremely unlikely that any member of this board or any one connected to a member of this board would ever require.

Of course, were she to apply for British citizenship as soon as she qualifies, then, once that has been granted, she can simply ignore ILR, BRPs etc.

You are once more making things appear far more complicated than they actually are; and I simply cannot understand why you repeatedly do so.

[Richard W]

Considering your claimed expertise on UK immigration and nationality matters in other topics, I am surprised that you have to ask these questions.

Do you really not know the answers; or are you for some reason known only to yourself trying, again, to worry others who are less knowledgeable?

Statute law is accessible - the government publishes consolidated versions with amendments applied. Consolidated regulations are not, so far as I am aware, available for free. One has to buy commercial consolidations or apply the amendments oneself.

I had trained myself to know that a visa and leave to enter/remain were different, but with ECOs issuing leave to enter rather than mere visas, the distinction has become muddied, and I now wondered if the ILR stamp was now a 'visa'.

The pages you have linked to and the information on them do not apply to ILR holders.

I don't see how you deduce that; one of the pages in the set, https://www.gov.uk/transfer-visa, explains how to 'transfer a visa' to a BRP if one has ILR.

If your wife was granted ILR before the introduction of BRPs for ILR then her paper ILR is sufficient. So she shows that, whichever passport it is in, if she needs to prove her immigration status in the UK, e.g. for employment, and that and her current passport when entering the UK.

That's the old system, which applied last year. However, an analyis of the Immigration Act 2014 also analyses the Immigration (Restrictions on Employment) (Codes of Practice and Amendment) Order 2014, SI 2014/1183. The analysis says, 'One change that may cause employers and prospective employees some difficulty is that from 16 May 2014, passports other than those held by a British citizen (or a citizen of the UK and Colonies having a right of abode in the UK) or a national of an EEA country or Switzerland must still be current in order to provide the employer with a statutory excuse against a civil penalty for illegal working'. Since I posted my questions, I have found a report of someone being denied new employment because her ILR was only evidenced by a stamp in an expired passport. There are hints that there may be a simple way round this, but I have not found out what it is. For continuing employment, the check made before 16 May now retains its validity. The government response in the consultation was basically that they want those on ILR to have a BRP. There had been an intention to compel those on ILR to apply for BRPs, but this seemed to have been dropped.

People like your wife who already have ILR and no BRP only need to apply for a BRP if they wish to transfer their ILR to a new passport (not necessary to do, unless the passport it is in has been lost or destroyed) or apply for certain Home Office travel documents; documents it is extremely unlikely that any member of this board or any one connected to a member of this board would ever require.

Of course, were she to apply for British citizenship as soon as she qualifies, then, once that has been granted, she can simply ignore ILR, BRPs etc.

The wording on immigration officers checking that ILR has not lapsed seems less friendly than it used to be. Perhaps the wording has not changed; I do not have a record of the older wording. It feels that the presumption is now that ILR has lapsed, unless evidence to the contrary is supplied. When my wife was using her first two passports, taken together they indicated that she has not been out of the UK for a period of two years. If she shows her first and third passports, it is not obvious that she did not leave the UK on her second passport over two years ago and never return to the UK.

Documentation appears to be checked more thoroughly at check-in than at actual entry - I can see check-in demanding better evidence than an immigration officer does.

Our own past experience is also less helpful. Until now, my wife has always re-entered the UK accompanied by her minor British daughter, whose presence may have made the IO less likely to challenge the retention of ILR. She may be on her own on her next return.

If my wife obtained a BRP, she would have to obtain a new one every ten years. It seems that persistent refusal to apply for replacement of a lost, damaged or expired BRP can lead to loss of ILR. The guidelines for penalties imply that the Home Office should always know a BRP holder's address. The current application form asks for evidence of continuous residence since ILR was granted. I don't like the idea of her having to do that when she is in her nineties.

[7by7]

Richard, I am not going to be drawn into a useless argument with you.

Instead I will simply say two words:

'Storm'

'Teacup'

When your wife is time qualified (i,e, meets the residential requirement) and meets the other requirements, advise her to become naturalised as British and obtain a British passport; then your worries about this non issue will be over.

[wooloomooloo]

I assume your wife is time qualified if she's on her third Thai passport since gaining ILR, Richard?

Your wife would then only require LitUK and B1 qualifications for a citizenship application. Has she taken these?

My wife became time qualified in November 2013 and we should have applied for her citizenship then. But it's very easy to sit back with ILR and my wife knows many UK-based Thais who have been here for years on ILR, which is their prerogative, of course.

After the citizenship fee went up again in April it was the catalyst to finish the job. We used the Nationality Checking Service two weeks ago (only because my wife's passport was photocopied and returned to her), the fee was cashed last week and she received confirmation of receipt from the Home Office on Friday.

Anything less than full citizenship for my wife always felt half-cocked.

In the meantime we have booked to go to Thailand in November with the distinct possibility that my wife will be departing and returning on a British passport. There will be a sense of fulfilment for us both due to the reduced amount of hassle travelling on a Thai passport in and out of the UK.

I'll echo 7by7 and advise to apply for naturalisation and to finally get your wife's hands on the holy grail.

[Richard W]

I assume your wife is time qualified if she's on her third Thai passport since gaining ILR, Richard?

Your wife would then only require LitUK and B1 qualifications for a citizenship application. Has she taken these?

It's LitUK which is the sticking point; I'm assuming B1 will then not be a problem. My wife had to give up her English studies at the local college when they conflicted with her work. I'm not sure she wants to swear allegiance to the Queen. Naturalisation is not just a change of immigration status. If that's not a sticking point, it's tempting to wait until my wife's 65 and therefore exempt.

Part of the problem with the BRP is the questions that go with applying for it. I always have trouble with questions on 'terrorism' because of past support, both in thought and by deed, for HMG. I have to read the applicable definition very carefully. My wife may not have such qualms - but the documentation requirements are worrying. While I am enough of a hoarder not to worry, my wife isn't.

But it's very easy to sit back with ILR and my wife knows many UK-based Thais who have been here for years on ILR, which is their prerogative, of course.

And there are many nationalities which would be lost on naturalisation as British, e.g. Indian and Japanese.

[wooloomooloo]

Okay. Let's just say LitUK is the sticking point and leave it at that. I'm struggling to understand what you mean otherwise. Though, please bear in mind that it's your wife's application.

The LitUK test does require a fair amount of application and revision. If your wife can pass the LitUK test and has half decent grasp of conversational English then she should be fine with B1.

Why make it so difficult?

[bobrussell]

If swearing allegiance to the Queen is such a problem then clearly your wife should remain with ILR. As long as she does not go out of the country for two years or longer then she has pretty much the same rights as a British citizen. ILR can be removed following criminal conviction but anyone on ILR and keeping their noses clean should be fine!

Most Thais fully appreciate the idea of swearing allegiance to a monarch and are happy to do so to our Queen just as to the Thai King. Comes more naturally than for many born British.

Her choice, one red passport or two? My wife holds two passports with pride and keeps them pristine (unlike my moth-eaten passport!)

[roath]

When your wife was granted ILR, she should have been provided with a letter confirming ILR. This letter can also be used as proof of ILR. If lost, you should be able to apply for a replacement (or get the Home Office to write to confirm ILR which would then become proof of ILR). Provided that your wife has not lost ILR through being outside of the UK for an extended period of time (as stated above), ILR continues until death effectively. You only need the visa stamp if you leave the country but it would retain validity in an old passport (although you may wish to transfer to a new passport for convenience). Many nationalities need to keep their ILR stamps if their "home" country forbids dual nationality (e.g. China) so it is far from uncommon for people to hold onto their ILR stamp in their "home" country passport even if they acquire British citizenship. Generally, the Home Office tend to be very tolerant of this. I am not familiar with the new requirements, but law is not retrospective in the UK so whatever changes are wrought would only be applicable going forwards (and if not, would be open to an application for judicial review, and have been done so in the past)

[Richard W]

So, does anyone have experience of a Thai returning to the UK using an old Thai passport evidencing ILR plus a much younger Thai passport with no British stamps? I understand that this combination is adequate for airline check-in.

My worry arises because I don't how the Immigration Officer (IO) will know whether ILR lapsed during the validity of an intermediate passport. Will the IO simply consult a database to pull up my wife's immigration history?

I tried looking up the immigration instructions at Chapter 1, section 3: returning residents and British passport holders (dated 2013) and it directed me to Chapter 1 Section 3 Returning Residents . This wasn't any help. Moreover, my eye was caught by the following line in the section on new passports - 'If the passenger has been issued with a new

passport, that passport should be endorsed with indefinite leave to enter.' I then checked the date on the instructions - August '03!

I've had similar problems with working out whether my wife can be sacked because she can't provide her employer with a fresh statutory defence for the offence of employing an illegal worker. I think one can just about prove that she is a legal worker by displaying all her passports, but the last 'visa in previous passport' (vipp) annotation is well over two years old. It might be necessary to show a scattering of pay slips to preclude a two year absence followed by an illegal entry. The code of practice on preventing illegal working isn't entirely clear on whether employers should accept proof that one may work legally.

[7by7]

Whilst the UK only stamps arrivals, most countries, including Thailand, stamp arrivals and departures; so one can very easily work out, if necessary, how long an ILR holder has spent outside the UK.

Of course, the simplest way to erase any doubt, and to allow your wife to spend longer than two years out of the UK with no need for a new visa should she wish to return, would be for her to naturalise as British when she is qualified.

But you wont let her do that as she once watched Braveheart and so you're afraid she'll be viewed as a terrorist!

[theoldgit]

Whilst the UK only stamps arrivals, most countries, including Thailand, stamp arrivals and departures; so one can very easily work out, if necessary, how long an ILR holder has spent outside the UK.

It's worth noting that not all Thai passports are stamped when leaving Thailand, Thais using the automatic passport scanner exit gates don't, or at least didn't when we used them, get an exit stamp.

[Richard W]

Whilst the UK only stamps arrivals, most countries, including Thailand, stamp arrivals and departures; so one can very easily work out, if necessary, how long an ILR holder has spent outside the UK.

I've invented the dates, so they may not match the visa regimes at the precise dates, but this is a representative summary of the passport stamps at the time of arrival in the UK:

Passport 1:

Settlement visa applied 5 Jan 2000

Exit Thailand: 10 Jan 2000

Enter UK as wife: 11 Jan 2000

ILR 'stamp': 14 Feb 2001

Enter Thailand: 15 Apr 2003

Exit Thailand: 13 May 2003

Enter UK: 14 May 2003

Passport 3:

Enter Thailand: 10 Nov 2014

Exit Thailand: 25 Nov 2014

As far as I can see, there is nothing inconsistent with Passport 2 having been used for a 3-year stay in the United States prior to entering Thailand on 10 Nov 2014. (As far as I am aware, the US does not stamp passports on exit.) Please explain how it is inconsistent. Another hypothetical possibility would be that Passport 2 bore witness to ILR being converted to time-limited leave to remain. (This has happened to visa nationals.)

[7by7]

Inconsistent? What are you on about?

If passport 2 shows that the ILR holder had spent a continuous period of two or more years outside the UK, you say three years in the US, then their ILR would have lapsed.

If this was the case and the person was actually allowed back into the UK on that ILR; good for them, they slipped through the net.

I fail to see what point you are trying to make.

One simple solution to your hypothesis is to keep all expired passports and show when necessary.

Even simpler, naturalise as British when qualified.

[Richard W]

One simple solution to your hypothesis is to keep all expired passports and show when necessary.

That was a possibility I suggested in the opening post of this thread. What I have to conclude is that this forum has no actual knowledge about or experience of using such an old ILR stamp. Ah well, gaps happen. It looks like we'll have to take all three of my wife's passports and prepare a pack of evidence of continued residence. While Passport 2 gives the number of Passport 1, Passport 3 says nothing of any predecessor. The (extended) dates of validity overlap. Passport 1 records the change from maiden name to married name.

[7by7]

What I have to conclude is that this forum has no actual knowledge about or experience of using such an old ILR stamp.

I think on this point you are probably right; as most people do the sensible thing and naturalise as British once qualified.

Which means, like my wife and step daughter, they only need their current passports; Thai for Thailand, British for the UK and whichever is the most suitable for other countries.

Maybe you should allow your wife to do the same.

[Richard W]

Maybe you should allow your wife to do the same.

What makes you think I have forbidden her to naturalise?

[7by7]

So are you saying that, despite your many posts in various topics you have started about what you see as the perils of dual nationality and attempts to scare people into not taking out British citizenship, your wife has naturalised as British?

If so, I am even more bewildered by your attempts to put others off from doing the same than before.

[Richard W]

So are you saying that, despite your many posts in various topics you have started about what you see as the perils of dual nationality and attempts to scare people into not taking out British citizenship, your wife has naturalised as British?

If so, I am even more bewildered by your attempts to put others off from doing the same than before.

Your lack of comprehension appals me. Where I have been trying to scare people off taking out British citizenship? What I have been saying is that it is not a good idea for a British citizen to alert the British government to his possession of another nationality. Unfortunately, there are situations where it cannot be avoided.

This thread is a response to a potential problem for my wife. There are reports of people being denied jobs because their ILR is evidenced by an expired passport and I saw logical holes in trying to demonstrate its retention by displaying that passport and its latest replacement. If my wife had British citizenship, we would have avoided the problems by use of a British passport.

[7by7]

Where I have been trying to scare people off taking out British citizenship? What I have been saying is that it is not a good idea for a British citizen to alert the British government to his possession of another nationality.

Scaremongering designed to put people off from naturalising. Ordinary people who are dual nationals wont have a problem, for the reasons gone over ad nauseum.

This thread is a response to a potential problem for my wife. There are reports of people being denied jobs because their ILR is evidenced by an expired passport

Yes, there have been; due to the ignorance of some employers, usually those with a small workforce and no proper personnel department, not knowing the rules. Solution; show them the rules.

If my wife had British citizenship, we would have avoided the problems by use of a British passport.

Indeed, so maybe you should cure your paranoia and allow her to naturalise as British!

[Richard W]

This thread is a response to a potential problem for my wife. There are reports of people being denied jobs because their ILR is evidenced by an expired passport

Yes, there have been; due to the ignorance of some employers, usually those with a small workforce and no proper personnel department, not knowing the rules. Solution; show them the rules.

I don't think you understand the problem. Which rules?

Show them the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006 Section 15(1), and they might correctly agree that my wife may work legally.

However, they might notice Section 21(1) and then twig that they would be liable to a hefty fine if my wife is not actually the holder of the passport she presents and would instead be an illegal worker. They then get interested in the prescribed requirements mentioned by Section 15(3). They then find the UKVI page about employers' illegal working penalties. There are two obvious sets of rules:

1) The quick answer tool, and

2) the code of practice for employers, which Bobrussell mentioned yesterday. (To be precise, drill down from my link - Bobrussell's URL may be to a specific version.)

Let us consider 4 possible employees and the limited set of documents they're prepared to show:

Mrs A (for awkward), who's naturalised British, born in Thailand, presenting a legalised Thai birth certificate and a NI card.

Mrs B (for bad), who's a divorced Thai, born in Britain and present on a fiancée visa, but previously worked legally during a failed marriage in the UK. She also presents a legalised Thai birth certificate and a NI card, and lies that she's British.

Mrs N (for native), who was born in Britain, presenting a full British birth certificate and a NI card.

Mrs W, presenting an expired Thai passport containing an ILR vignette plus an overlapping, current Thai passport, showing comings and goings between Britain and Thailand up until recently and no other visas. (I've simplified here.)

Mrs B would be an illegal worker: the others would not.

Mr Q (for quick) applies the quick answer tool, accepting the Thai birth certificates as full birth certificates because they match the description. Mrs A, Mrs B and Mrs N all pass the check in the same way. Mrs W passes because the passport endorsement has no expiry date. When Mr Q employs Mrs B, he becomes liable to a hefty fine.

Mr C (for codes) works through the code of practice, comparing the documents against List A and List B. (The code appears to have the up-to-date lists from the relevant regulations.) He rejects the Thai birth certificates because they were not issued in the British Isles. Mrs N's documents are accepted - they don't seem to be fakes. Mrs W's ILR vignette is rejected because it is not in a current passport and therefore does not furnish a statutory excuse.

Mr C then turns to the statutory code of practice on discrimination. That says:

... we recommend that you, as an employer, obtain a statutory excuse for all prospective workers as this will protect you from liability for a civil penalty if the person in question is an illegal worker, whilst also demonstrating consistent, transparent and non-discriminatory recruitment practices.

There is a later, somewhat contradictory paragraph:

If a person is not able to produce acceptable documents, you should not assume that they are living or working in the UK illegally. You should try to keep the job open for as long as possible in order to provide them with the opportunity to demonstrate their right to work, but you are not obliged to do so if you need to recruit someone urgently. It is ultimately the decision of the employer whether or not to employ an individual.

Now, if Mrs A and Mrs B are as they claim to be, they should have naturalisation certificates, and if they are presented along with the NI cards, then Mr C will have a statutory defence. (Mrs B does not have such a certificate - she was lying when she said she was British.) Now, if Mr C employs Mrs W, he has not followed the recommendation, for he has not obtained a statutory excuse. If he refuses to employs her, can he argue that 'demonstrate their right to work' means to furnish him with a statutory excuse, or that is is unreasonable to require him to take on employees for whom he has no statutory excuse against the civil offence of employing an illegal worker?

Edited September 6, 2014 by Richard W

[steady]

Never seen a thread quite like this one! Richard W it's obvious that your wife has been in the UK long enough to go for citizenship. Why hasn't she gone for it yet?

The other issue is that you are obviously having problems with the UK legislation and your understanding of it. Is it not the right time for you to consider other options if these problems are insurmountable? (UK legislation is not going to change much.) Either get your wife citizenship or consider relocating to Thailand.

It seems to me that your issues won't go away so these are the only two ways to put the worries to bed.

[7by7]

Richard, you are only confusing yourself; and others.

Maybe you should talk to someone who actually knows and understands the regulations, such as your personnel department if your employer has one, because you obviously refuse to believe anything anyone here says which conflicts with your many misunderstandings.

[Richard W]

Maybe you should talk to someone who actually knows and understands the regulations,...

There is hope that member bobrussel might be such a person - he works with them at the sharp end.

... such as your personnel department if your employer has one,...

I doubt they have much experience, especially since the immediately relevant issue only arose in May. They have been known to publish that only British nationals will be offered jobs. (Ancillary jobs are mostly contracted out.)

because you obviously refuse to believe anything anyone here says which conflicts with your many misunderstandings.

What have I said on this thread that is wrong? The worst I can think of is writing 'statutory defence' when I should have written 'statutory excuse'.

On the work front, the basic facts are simple, although 7by7 overconfidently applied common sense and disagreed in Post #2.

1. An ILR stamp in one's expired passport is prima facie evidence of the right to work.

2. Up until 16 May 2014, an ILR stamp in one's expired passport provided an employer with a statutory excuse against a civil penalty for employing an illegal worker.

3. From that date, an ILR stamp in one's expired passport does not provide an employer with a statutory excuse against a civil penalty for employing an illegal worker. The change is that the passport must be current.

The basic question is then whether, when presented with an ILR stamp in an expired passport, an employer is allowed to say, "No statutory excuse, no job", and how to dissuade him if he takes that view.

I am not sure that this is an easy question to answer. The example of a British citizen by descent generally having to present a passport comes to mind, though an expired passport should be accepted. (Mind you, a passport held as a child might reasonably be rejected.) The inconvenience (and cost) of a BRP as opposed to an old ILR stamp is one justification for not getting a BRP. Now 7by7 may counter that the inconvenience may be removed by naturalisation, which might be reasonable for a Thai, but not for someone who would lose his original nationality (e.g. Japanese, Indian, Malaysian).

Two depressing possibilities (though 7by7 may dismiss them as paranoia) is that the change to the regulations was also made to (i) encourage the replacement of ILR endorsements in expired passports by BRPs and (ii) to encourage holders of ILR to take out citizenship. UKVI does not like the use of ILR endorsements in expired passports. The primary reason for the changes is to simplify checking and reduce fraud.

[apetley]

If it helps my wifes ILR was issued 2003. She is now on her fourth Thai passport. Carries all four when entering UK and has never had a problem.

[Richard W]

If it helps my wifes ILR was issued 2003. She is now on her fourth Thai passport. Carries all four when entering UK and has never had a problem.

Thank you, it does. How many does she initially present?

[apetley]

The one with ILR and her current one.

Last time Immigration at LHR asked if she had the other 2 with her but didn't ask to see them.

[Seekingasylum]

For immigration purposes the expired document holding the ILR endorsement is sufficient to gain entry. If employment is a feature of residence then she should pay to have a BRP.

Is that a problem?

[Richard W]

For immigration purposes the expired document holding the ILR endorsement is sufficient to gain entry.

It does seem that it is enough to be able to board a flight to the UK.

For entry, it would not be a problem if the immigration officer could check a database to see whether one still had ILR. It seems to be taking the government a long time to integrate its databases, or at least those that are legal. However, a later passport could hold the evidence that ILR had lapsed.

If employment is a feature of residence then she should pay to have a BRP.

Is that a problem?

My first thought was that it was like the inconvenience resulting from changing an all-paper driving licence to a photo-ID card. The former lasts until you are old, while the latter has to be renewed and a fee paid every 10 years. However, as currently set up, there seem to be all sorts of pitfalls associated with renewing a BRP. If you don't drive, you don't need to renew your UK driving license (except possibly if you move house), and doing so is not difficult if you can walk into a large post office. However, if you don't work or travel, you still need to renew your BRP. If you don't renew it, it looks as though one will incur a slew of large fines and then, if you still haven't, though this is not clear, be deported. There also seem to be a slew of non-obvious reporting requirements. It looks as though you have to report if you

• Change address
• Get a new passport
• Incur a county court judgement
• Incur a court penalty (possibly except a fixed penalty notice)
• Get a police caution

Every time you replace the BRP, you are supposed to provide evidence of continuous residence since last receiving ILR. If you use utility bills, you need permission from anyone else whose name appears on them. That could be awkward if your late husband's name also appears on them.

Like a driving license, a BRP can only be replaced in the UK. While there is a BRP replacement visa (£72) for use when one is abroad when one ceases to have a valid BRP, it looks as though the visa is only valid for one month. It seems that if one's BRP expires at the start of a temporary absence overseas of uncertain length but many months, one must return using a returning resident visa (£289). It seems that one cannot simply renew one's BRP before such a trip even if it is planned in advance.

In short, moving from an ILR endorsement to a BRP stamp does seem to be storing up problems. I feel sorry for the Japanese on ILR evidenced by a BRP - they can't naturalise without losing Japanese citizenship.

If you can refute my worries, I suggest you start a new thread on BRP v. ILR endorsement for a discussion of the pros and cons.

[South]

Mrs South got her ILR touching 25 years ago (she is on her 5th Thai passport now) and when asked, she'll produce the passport first used and her present document. The others, she also carries but has never been asked to show them. When asked years ago if she wanted to go for British citizenship, her response was, "No, I am Thai and proud to be Thai."

To this day she still travels on a Thai passport with no problems at all. She comes with me through the UK (Euro or whatever it is now) lane, has travelled throughout the UK, Africa, Asia and Australia and has never had a problem. In fact some years back we drove into Swaziland from South Africa and the border guard there shook her hand as it was the first Thai passport he had seen/stamped! Never had a problem ... anywhere.