![[2024] UKUT 00144 (IAC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_AioYBzS.png){kind=logo}
Muslija [2022] UKUT 337 at headnote 4 holds that
Muslija [2022] UKUT 337 at headnote 4 holds that:
“Exposure to the "limbo period", without more, cannot possibly tip the proportionality balance in favour of an individual retaining fraudulently obtained citizenship. That means there are limits to the utility of an assessment of the length of the limbo period; in the absence of some other factor (c.f. "without more"), the mere fact of exposure to even a potentially lengthy period of limbo is a factor unlikely to be of dispositive relevance.”
- 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