THE IMMIGRATION ACTS
THE IMMIGRATION ACTS
Decision & Reasons Issued:
On 16th of April 2024
Before
DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE SYMES
Between
SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Appellant
and
BETIM ONUZI
(NO ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Respondent
Representation:
For the Appellant: Mr D Clarke, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer
For the Respondent: Himself
Heard at Field House on 07 February 2024
DECISION AND REASONS
CONTINUATION HEARING
Introduction
A decision on this appeal was previously issued by UTJ Canavan and DUTJ Symes considering the relevance of the ‘good character’ requirement contained in section 6 and Schedule 1 of the British Nationality Act 1981 (‘BNA 1981’), which must be considered before a person can be naturalised as a British citizen, in the context of an appeal brought under section 40(A) against a decision to deprive a person of citizenship status with reference to section 40(3) (fraud, false representation, or concealment of a material fact). Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge Symes now determines the appeal having sat on the continuation hearing alone.
For the sake of continuity, I will continue to refer to the parties as they were before the First-tier Tribunal although technically the Secretary of State is the appellant in the appeal before the Upper Tribunal, as I have recorded above.
- 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)