Shyti v Secretary of State For The Home Department
[2023] EWCA Civ 770
Secretary of State for the Home Department v Betim Onuzi
16 April 2024
[2024] UKUT 144 (IAC)
Upper Tribunal
A man got British citizenship by lying about who he was. A lower court said it didn't matter because of mistakes by the government. A higher court disagreed, saying his lies were important and he should lose his citizenship, even though it would affect his family.
Key Facts
- •Betim Onuzi arrived in the UK illegally in 1999 and made a false asylum claim.
- •He was granted ILR in 2006 due to administrative errors, despite the false claim.
- •He applied for and obtained British citizenship in 2007, concealing his previous deception.
- •The Home Office discovered the fraud in 2020 and initiated deprivation proceedings.
- •The First-tier Tribunal allowed Onuzi's appeal, finding the deception immaterial and citing Article 8 ECHR.
- •The Upper Tribunal found errors of law in the First-tier Tribunal's decision.
Legal Principles
In the absence of a statutory definition of 'good character', the Secretary of State decides whether an applicant is of good character for citizenship under section 6(1) and Schedule 1 BNA 1981, subject to administrative law principles.
Sections 6(1) and Schedule 1 BNA 1981
Negative behaviour casting doubt on good character is material, regardless of whether it relates to the naturalisation application or occurred earlier.
Section 40(3) BNA 1981
Dishonestly concealing negative behaviour from the Secretary of State is usually material under section 40(3) BNA 1981, even if not directly relevant to earlier leave grants.
Section 40(3) BNA 1981
Omitting facts casting doubt on good character during a naturalisation application is material to whether citizenship was 'obtained' by dishonest concealment under section 40(3) BNA 1981.
Section 40(3) BNA 1981
A broken chain of causation is relevant only when there was full disclosure and the Secretary of State granted leave with full knowledge of the facts.
Section 40(3) BNA 1981
The decision in *Sleiman* is limited and should be considered within the statutory scheme and other relevant case law.
*Sleiman (deprivation of citizenship; conduct) [2017] UKUT 00367 (IAC)*
Deprivation decisions are within the Secretary of State's discretion, subject to administrative law principles.
Various cases, including *Al-Fayed (No.2)* and *SK (Sri Lanka)*
The Secretary of State can deprive citizenship under section 40(3) BNA 1981 for fraud, false representation, or concealing material facts.
Section 40(3) BNA 1981
Article 8 ECHR considerations (private and family life) must be balanced against public interest considerations in deprivation cases.
Article 8 ECHR
Outcomes
First-tier Tribunal allowed the appeal.
The judge found the deception immaterial due to administrative errors and cited Article 8 ECHR.
Upper Tribunal set aside the First-tier Tribunal's decision.
The Upper Tribunal found errors of law in the First-tier Tribunal's application of *Sleiman* and its failure to consider public interest in relation to Article 8.
Appeal dismissed at the continuation hearing.
The Upper Tribunal found that Onuzi's deception was material to the grant of citizenship, and the deprivation was proportionate despite Article 8 considerations.
Similar Cases
Syed Tahseen Ahmed v Secretary of State for the Home Department
[2023] EWCA Civ 1087
Reine Chimi v The Secretary of State for the Home Department
[2023] UKUT 115 (IAC)
Hafiz Aman Ullah v Secretary of State for the Home Department
[2024] EWCA Civ 201
Gjelosh Kolicaj v Secretary of State for the Home Department
[2023] UKUT 294 (IAC)