[2025] UKUT 00230 (IAC)

Laci (Deprivation; fraud; procedure)

Heard at Field House

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Promulgated on23 June 2025

Before

THE HON. MR JUSTICE DOVE, PRESIDENT

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE O’BRIEN

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE HIRST

Between

THEODOR LACI

a.k.a. THEODHORI LAÇI

(NO ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)

Appellant

and

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT

Respondent

Representation:

For the Appellant: Mr Lee of counsel, instructed by Cranbrook Legal

For the Respondent: Mr Wain, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer

Following the decision of the Court of Appeal in Chaudhry v SSHD [2025] EWCA Civ 16; [2025] KB 395, the correct approach to appeals against decisions depriving a person of their British citizenship using section 40(3) of the British Nationality Act 1981 is as follows:

(a) First, in cases where it is disputed, the First-tier Tribunal is required to find as a fact whether there has been fraud, false representation or concealment of a material fact, which is the statutory precondition for the making of a deprivation order under s40(3) (‘the precedent fact issue’);

(b) Second, if the statutory precondition is met by proof of the precedent facts, the First-tier Tribunal is required to review on public law grounds whether the citizenship was obtained by the impermissible means (‘the causation issue’);

(c) Third, the First-tier Tribunal is required to review on public law grounds the Secretary of State’s exercise of her discretion to make a deprivation order (‘the discretion issue’);

(d) Lastly, the First-tier Tribunal must consider whether the Secretary of State has acted in breach of other relevant legal obligations, including section 6 Human Rights Act 1998. The First-tier Tribunal is required to resolve that question for itself whilst giving due weight to the findings, evaluations and policies of the Secretary of State.

DECISION AND REASONS