CA-2024-001138 - [2025] EWCA Civ 1337

The Appellant exercised his right of appeal. An oral hearing was held before First-tier Tribunal Judge (“FTTJ”) S. Taylor at which Mr Bahja represented the Appellant. FTTJ Taylor allowed the appeal in a decision sent on 15 July 2022. The judge accepted that the Appellant had made false representations about his asylum claim and found that this was one of the grounds upon which the Respondent could deprive the Appellant of citizenship status.

The judge went on to say that ‘a further test in an appeal of this nature is materiality’. He considered the decision in Sleiman (deprivation of citizenship; conduct) [2017] UKUT 00367 (IAC) and paragraph 55.7 of the Home Office’s Nationality Instructions to caseworkers. He noted that paragraph 55.7.3 stated that if the fraud, false representation or concealment of a material fact did not have a direct bearing on the grant of citizenship, it will not be appropriate to take deprivation action. He added that: “paragraph 55.7.4 provides that where a person acquires ILR under a concession, the fact that the respondent can demonstrate that he had previously lied in an asylum claim may be irrelevant.”

The judge outlined what he considered to be ‘the key evidence of causation’, which was the file note dated 10 March 2006. The judge went on to make the following findings:

“12.

Applying the guidance in the case of Sleiman and in particular the Nationality Guidance at paragraph 55.7.4, I am satisfied that the appellant was granted ILR, and subsequently British citizenship, mainly on the basis of the delays and maladministration in his case, rather than the specifics of his nationality. The 2006 minutes, which explain the appellant’s grant of ILR, make no mention of the appellant’s nationality and identity, and refer only to the appellant have (sic) completed four years of his ELR, as well as the delays and mistakes in the processing of his application. On the basis of the material evidence of the internal minutes, there is no suggestion that the respondent was induced to grant the appellant ILR, which was the forerunner of his citizenship, due to his false nationality and identity. I find no evidence that the deception motivated the appellant’s grant of citizenship. Applying paragraph 55.74, the appellant was granted ILR, and subsequently British citizenship, on the basis of a concession due to the delays and mistakes, so the previous deception may be considered to be irrelevant.’”

In the alternative, the judge went on to consider whether the decision to deprive the appellant of citizenship status would breach his right to respect for private and family life under Article 8 of the ECHR. He noted that the Appellant had not prepared a witness statement and did not give evidence. Nevertheless, he found in the Appellant’s favour on the basis of family life in the UK over a 22 year period, holding that “while materiality is the main reason for allowing this appeal, the appellant’s established family life stands as a secondary reason for allowing the appeal.”