History of the appeal
History of the appeal
The Secretary of State initiated citizenship deprivation proceedings, this dishonesty having come to light. The deprivation decision takes the view that the appellant’s life in the UK was built on deception. It was likely that he would have been refused settlement had the true facts been known, and he had against again been dishonest when applying for citizenship by ticking the box such as to indicate that he had not done anything that might cast doubt on his good character.
The appellant exercised his right of appeal. The First-tier Tribunal allowed his appeal, both in terms of the materiality of his dishonesty to the acquisition of citizenship, and on human rights grounds. As to the former, the Judge concluded that the appellant was granted ILR, and subsequently British citizenship, mainly on the basis of the delays and maladministration in his case, rather than due to the specifics of his nationality. As to the latter, the Judge found that the appellant’s long residence and family life in the UK rendered the decision disproportionate. Permission to appeal was granted to the Upper Tribunal where the matter came before Judge Canavan and myself.
- Heading
- Section 1
- Background
- Decision and reasons
- Good character in the context of deprivation: section 40(3) BNA 1981
- Sleiman considered
- Conclusion
- Error of law decision
- DIRECTIONS
- Notice of Decision
- THE IMMIGRATION ACTS
- Background facts
- History of the appeal
- Having considered the framework of statute, policy and case law, Judge Canavan and I directed ourselves to this effect
- Proceedings at the continuation hearing
- Decision and Reasons
- The decision of Sleiman (deprivation of citizenship; conduct) [2017] UKUT 00367 indicates a situation in which the chain of causation between the original dishonesty and the grant of naturalisation is
- I have not been referred to the Respondent’s family ILR policy, which Chapter 55 cites, but I understand it to be the concession cited in JS (Family ILR Exercise, near-miss argument) [2007] UKAIT 80 t
- Taking the approach in Chimi [2023] UKUT 115 (IAC) to the relevant issues, I should consider these questions
- Muslija [2022] UKUT 337 at headnote 4 holds that
- I am willing to assume that that period would involve some worry for the adults but there is no reason to think there would be any significant impact on the children, even if the parents choose to mak
- Conclusions
![[2024] UKUT 00144 (IAC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_AioYBzS.png)