Case No. UKUT-00118-(IAC)

) Adil Khan, Qari Abdul Rauf and Abdul Aziz: Mr Z Jafferji, of Counsel Instructed by Burton & Burton Solicitors For the Respondent: Ms C McGahey QC and Mr V Mandalia, of counsel, instructed by The Government Legal Department (i) While the two fold duties enshrined in section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009 are imposed on the Secretary of State, the onus of making representations and providing relevant evidence relating to a child’s best interests rests on the appropriate parental figure. (ii) A failure to discharge this onus may well defeat any argument that there was a proactive duty of enquiry on the Secretary of State in a given context. (iii) In deprivation of citizenship cases, section 55 issues arise at two stages: at the deprivation of citizen stage and at the later stage of proposed removal or deportation. (iv) As the subject of national citizenship lies exclusively within the competence of Member States, EU law has no role to play in deprivation cases: G1 v SSHD [2012] EWCA Civ 867 applied. (v) The Secretary of State’s deprivation of citizenship policy confers a wide margin of appreciation on the decision maker. (vi) Part 5A of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 does not apply to deprivation of citizenship decisions as such decisions are not made under the Immigration Acts. (vii) There would be a considerable saving of human and financial resources with consequential reduced delay if deprivation of citizenship and deportation or removal decisions were to be made jointly. DECISION Introduction 1. This is the decision of the panel to which both members have contributed. 2. All of the Appellants are of Pakistani nationality and have acquired British citizenship by