[2024] UKUT 00144 (IAC)

Applying those findings to the facts here, I can determine the appeal shortly. The Appellant perpetrated a fraud as to his nationality and identity over an extended period, through his applications for asylum, in his dealings with the Respondent as to any entitlement to leave to remain on other grounds, and in his application for naturalisation as a British citizen. There is no doubt that his stay in the UK was significantly extended by this fraud, given that he chose not to pursue any immigration application to which his true citizenship might have entitled him. He was a mature man, aged thirty when he was granted ILR in a false identity, and thirty-one when he chose to continue to perpetrate the fraud by applying for naturalisation in the false identity that he had used since arriving in the UK. There is no evidence of any external influence on him that might lessen his personal responsibility for this fraud.

The first question to be determined is whether his deception was material to the grant of naturalisation given the intermediate eventuality by which the Respondent granted him indefinite leave to remain based on his immigration history.