Recently we’ve come across an interesting case of a British national, Dana Trippe who was born in Ireland and now has dual citizenship. At one time Dana was working in the publishing industry in New York City when she met an older man from Trinidad and Tobago who were offering her an opportunity to immigrate to the Caribbean nation. It is true that Ms. Trippe did express interest in taking a break from her job, but this man had also been living in the USA for many years, had been married, and above all had citizenship in the Bahamas. The question we’re interested in is: Did this man’s citizenship entitle him to be given a UK passport by the Home Office to his having lived in another country for several years?
We understand the Home Office’s view on dual citizenship and its obligations to past international law and its external relations. Nevertheless, it appears that Ms. Trippe may have inadvertently stymied the Immigration Rules and as a result of this found herself not able to take advantage of the privilege to live in the UK while pursuing a permanent home in the Colonies. It is not clear from the information provided by the Home Office whether the applicant was granted leave to remain in the UK or whether the decision was revoked due to the fact that he had dual citizenship. He could therefore have been removed from the UK, even though he remained a citizen of the USA at the time. Had this been the case, the applicant would have had to apply for leave to remain in the USA once his application for immigration status in the UK was successful.
We are not suggesting that this is the ideal situation, but it is important to recognize that there are some circumstances where a dual citizenship could be seen as a benefit, rather than a disadvantage. In this particular case, it appears that Dana may have benefitted from being a dual citizen. We suggest however that it may not have been her intention to mislead the migration authorities when filling out forms. If this is the situation, and if she had been aware that the age of the partners was not consistent with immigration age requirements, we think that the correct solution would have been to correct this rather than leaving the relationship open indefinitely. Had this been the case, the immigration authorities may well have been alert to the age difference and could have declined to allow the couple to stay together.