Secretary of State for the Home Department v Betim Onuzi
[2024] UKUT 144 (IAC)
Syed Tahseen Ahmed v Secretary of State for the Home Department
28 September 2023
[2023] EWCA Civ 1087
Court of Appeal
Mr. Ahmed got British citizenship by hiding that he was still married to his wife in Pakistan. The government took his citizenship away, and the court said the government was right because he was dishonest.
Key Facts
- •Mr. Syed Tahseen Ahmed (Mr. Ahmed), a Pakistani national, obtained British citizenship in 2018.
- •He had previously submitted a divorce deed from his Pakistani wife, Ms. Farhat Sbuhi, to obtain residency in the UK, while maintaining a relationship with her and fathering a fourth child with her.
- •The Secretary of State deprived Mr. Ahmed of his British citizenship under section 40(3) of the British Nationality Act 1981 (the 1981 Act), alleging fraud, false representation, and concealment of a material fact.
- •Mr. Ahmed appealed to the First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) and then the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) (UTIAC).
- •The UTIAC upheld the Secretary of State's decision, finding Mr. Ahmed's explanation for the divorce deed and his ongoing relationship with Ms. Sbuhi unconvincing.
Legal Principles
The Secretary of State can deprive a person of citizenship obtained through fraud, false representation, or concealment of a material fact (section 40(3) of the 1981 Act).
British Nationality Act 1981
In appeals concerning section 40(3) of the 1981 Act, the Secretary of State must establish dishonest concealment of a material fact; the approach to dishonesty is that set out in *Ivey v Genting Casinos*.
British Nationality Act 1981; *Ivey v Genting Casinos* [2017] UKSC 67
Country guidance cases can be considered to assess the plausibility of accounts in light of societal norms.
Various Country Guidance cases, cited in judgment
The court considers whether the Secretary of State's decision was proportionate under Article 8 of the ECHR.
European Convention on Human Rights, Article 8
Outcomes
The Court of Appeal dismissed Mr. Ahmed's appeal.
The court found the UTIAC's factual findings were supported by the evidence and that there was no material error of law in its approach. The UTIAC judge correctly applied the legal principles and found Mr. Ahmed's actions constituted dishonest concealment of a material fact.
Similar Cases
Shyti v Secretary of State For The Home Department
[2023] EWCA Civ 770
Hafiz Aman Ullah v Secretary of State for the Home Department
[2024] EWCA Civ 201
Reine Chimi v The Secretary of State for the Home Department
[2023] UKUT 115 (IAC)
Gjelosh Kolicaj v Secretary of State for the Home Department
[2023] UKUT 294 (IAC)