The Court of Appeal (CoA) strengthens the executive's power to deprive a naturalised British citizen of status where that citizenship was obtained by means of a material fraud, even if such a deception has run for decades.
Facts:
Betim Onuzi, who is originally from Albania, entered the UK illegally in November 1999. He immediately claimed asylum under the false identity of Betim Jonuzi, claiming to be a Kosovo Albanian fleeing persecution. This initial claim and identity transpired to be entirely false.
Due to a Home Office administrative error, a record was created suggesting he had been granted Exceptional Leave to Remain (ELR) until 16 August 2004. The Home Office clarified that this incorrect record was transmitted to social services in error. On 24 May 2001, a Special Adjudicator concluded that, following an administrative error, the Secretary of State for the Home Department (SSHD) was effectively estopped from denying that the appellant had been granted ELR for a period of four years up to 16 August 2004.
It appears that no formal decision was made to grant ELR.
On 9 July 2004, the appellant made an application for Indefinite Leave to Remain (ILR). Internal Home Office notes from March 2006 show the decision to grant him ILR was made not on merit, but rather due to the accumulated delays and maladministration resulting from the original error, stating that "we should grant ILR" to resolve this "mistake-ridden case". He was granted ILR in May 2006.
In April 2007, Mr. Onuzi applied to naturalise as a British citizen, again using the false identity. Crucially, in the "Good Character Requirement" Section, he ticked "no" when asked if he had engaged in any other activities relevant to good character. He also signed a declaration confirming the information was correct and that he understood citizenship could be withdrawn if obtained by fraud.
The fraud was discovered following investigations in 2020. Mr. Onuzi admitted lying to avoid return to Albania and expressed remorse, citing his over 20 years of residence and his wife and three British citizen children. The SSHD decided to deprive him of citizenship under Section 40(3) of the British Nationality Act (BNA) 1981, concluding that his residence was built on deception and that he would have been refused citizenship on good character grounds had the truth been known.
The First-tier Tribunal (FTT) initially allowed the appeal, finding that the deception was not material because he was granted ILR based on a "concession due to the delays and mistakes," and not on the specifics of his nationality. The Upper Tribunal (UT) set aside the FTT's decision, ruling that the Judge had erred in law by relying on the concept that administrative errors broke the chain of causation.
Decision:
The CoA dismissed the appeal, upholding the SSHD’s right to deprive Mr. Onuzi of his British citizenship under Section 40(3) of the BNA 1981.
The primary issue was the materiality of the deception to the statutory requirement that an applicant for naturalisation be of good character. During the citizenship application, he explicitly denied any activities that might be relevant to his good character, which was a false representation and concealment of his entire fraudulent immigration history.
Thus there was no broken chain of causation, as administrative decision-makers who granted ILR were never in full possession of the facts.
Implications:
The ruling reinforces the principle that any negative behaviour that casts doubt on an applicant's character, regardless of when it occurred, is likely to be material to the naturalisation decision. Maintaining a deception of many years constitutes a fundamental failure of good character and is highly material to the grant of citizenship.
The case confirms the Home Office's ability to revoke citizenship years after it was granted, provided the statutory basis (i.e., it having been obtained by fraud) can be proven. The fact that the deception spanned over two decades does not shield the party.
The administrative errors and delays by the Home Office that benefited Mr. Onuzi did not break the causative link between his original fraud and the grant of citizenship. The chain of causation is only likely to be considered broken if the applicant had made a full and honest disclosure of the deception to the Home Office, and the Home Office still chose to grant leave or citizenship while in full knowledge of the facts.
