Proceedings at the continuation hearing
Proceedings at the continuation hearing
The appellant was unrepresented. He provided a document headed “Submission on resumed hearing”, which he explained at the continuation hearing before me, where he was unrepresented, was intended to represent the totality of his case. Those submissions essentially contend that
The relevant date for assessing good character was as stated at 55.7.1 of Chapter 55: “If the relevant facts, had they been known at the time the application for citizenship was considered, would have affected the decision to grant citizenship via naturalisation or registration the caseworker should consider deprivation.”
His case should be assessed against the “real world” backdrop, which here was an administrative error leading to ILR.
The rationale for the grant of ILR had been “the delays and mistakes already made on this case” which led the relevant caseworker to propose “on balance that the appellant should be granted ILR”. In the light of this rationale, it was unnecessary for the Upper Tribunal to consider “whether it was open to the respondent to find that the exercise of discretion to grant ILR might have been different had the full facts been known”.
Shyti [2023] EWCA Civ 770 was distinguishable from the present appeal because it turned on the old Immigration Rule 395 which expressly identified “good character” as part of the discretionary exercise.
Additionally, via cross-reference to the skeleton argument before the First-tier Tribunal, it was submitted vis-á-vis ECHR Art 8 that the withdrawal of British citizenship was not proportionate to the private and family life in play given the impact it would have on the Appellant's partner and their three British citizen children. The circumstances of his grant of indefinite leave to remain, plus the Appellant's long UK residence and lengthy possession of British citizenship together rendered the deprivation disproportionate.
- 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)