Ombudsman Reports - Inmigration requirements

REPORT ON CASE NO. 1281 

Complaint 

The complaint concerned the Civil Status and Registration Office (“CSRO”) and the Complainant’s application for an exemption from immigration requirements (“Exemption”). The Complainant complained that her application had not been processed because of an inefficient system. She had been waiting approximately eight years for a decision. A successful Exemption application would have allowed her to proceed to the next stage of her application for British nationality.  

Background 

The Complainant was a French national who owned property in Gibraltar. She and her four children had been granted permanent residency in Gibraltar in May 2015 under the Immigration, Asylum and Refugee Act (“IARA”) 1955. 

In March 2016, she applied for an Exemption, which was the first stage in her naturalisation process. Despite making numerous telephone calls, sending emails and attending meetings over the following years, she received no final decision. She believed that the system operated by CSRO, whereby applications were progressed in “batches”, was responsible for the delay. 

The Complainant was particularly concerned because she was aware of other applicants who had submitted their applications after hers but whose Exemptions had apparently been granted before hers. She therefore believed that her application had not been dealt with fairly or efficiently. 

The matter became particularly problematic because her application file appeared to have been misplaced by CSRO in approximately 2019. When the necessary information was subsequently resubmitted, she was told that everything was in order and that she should hear from CSRO shortly. However, a further four years passed without a decision. 

During this period, CSRO repeatedly informed the Complainant that her application remained active and under consideration. She was nevertheless unable to obtain a definite indication of when a decision would be made. CSRO explained that other pressing matters, including the COVID-19 pandemic and Brexit Treaty negotiations, had affected its workstreams.  

Investigation 

The Ombudsman reviewed the chronology of the application and considered the Complainant’s circumstances. It appeared that some important information required for consideration of the application had initially been omitted, including information concerning her tax status and evidence of self-sufficiency. 

However, the Ombudsman also established that the Complainant’s file had subsequently been lost by CSRO. This had contributed to the considerable delay. 

In February 2024, the Ombudsman met with the new Head of CSRO and raised the concerns about the prolonged delay. The Head accepted that the delay was unacceptable and explained that applications were indeed sent to the decision-makers in batches. The Ombudsman did not consider the use of batches to be inherently unreasonable. She considered that such a system could operate effectively provided that applications were subsequently considered and decisions communicated diligently. 

The new Head took a proactive approach. He proposed that the Complainant submit refreshed documentation so that her application could be properly reconsidered, while taking account of the history and length of time that had elapsed. He also indicated that she would be kept informed and that the process would now be handled properly. 

The application was subsequently resubmitted to HM Government of Gibraltar for consideration. However, even after this intervention, a further eight months passed without a decision. The Ombudsman recognised that the matter was then outside CSRO’s direct remit because the final decision rested with HM Government of Gibraltar.  

Conclusions 

The Ombudsman was highly critical of the length of time the Complainant had been required to wait. Although the application itself involved matters that had to be considered carefully, the Ombudsman considered the overall delay to be unacceptable. 

The fact that an application was being considered in batches was not itself considered maladministration. However, the system could only be regarded as effective if applications were processed and decisions communicated within a reasonable period. 

The Ombudsman also identified specific failings by CSRO. The Complainant’s file had been misplaced, which had contributed directly to the delay. In addition, CSRO had failed to provide sufficiently clear and useful written answers to her repeated requests for information. 

The Ombudsman nevertheless recognised the efforts made by the new Head of CSRO. He had acknowledged the problems, apologised and attempted to move the application forward within the limits of his authority. 

The wider concern, however, was that this was not an isolated problem. The Ombudsman noted that similar delays in Exemption applications had been raised by previous Ombudsmen over many years. The persistence of the problem suggested that there was a systemic issue rather than simply an isolated administrative error. 

The Ombudsman considered that it was unfair for an applicant to remain indefinitely in a state of uncertainty. A decision might be a refusal, and such a refusal could be challenged or dealt with through whatever mechanisms were available. But leaving an applicant without any decision or meaningful explanation for years was considered particularly problematic. 

She stressed that applicants should be told what was happening with their applications and, where an application was deferred, why it had been deferred and what, if anything, the applicant could do to improve the prospects of a successful outcome. 

Classification 

Sustained 

The Ombudsman sustained the complaint concerning the failure to process the Complainant’s Exemption application as a result of an inefficient system. 

She nevertheless made an important distinction. She did not consider that the entire immigration system could simply be described as inefficient. Rather, CSRO had failed the Complainant in specific respects, particularly through losing her file and failing to provide clear written responses to her queries. The ultimate delay in making the decision was also attributable to HM Government of Gibraltar. 

Recommendation 

The Ombudsman recommended that decisions on Exemption applications should be processed, determined and communicated within a reasonable timeframe. 

Where an application was deferred, reasons should be provided. The Ombudsman considered that this was necessary in the interests of fairness, transparency and administrative justice. 

The case therefore illustrates that applicants do not merely require a decision; they require a properly administered process in which their applications are dealt with diligently, their correspondence is answered and unreasonable delays are avoided. Eight years of uncertainty was considered wholly inconsistent with the standards of good administration expected from a modern public service.