Bibi & Ors v Entry Clearance Officer, Dhaka

Registration as a citizen obtained under a false identity is a nullity where the registration was intended for another person. The person who used that identity acquires no citizenship, so statutory deprivation provisions do not apply and cannot validate the registration. This remains so even if the person might otherwise have met a residence requirement. For nationality purposes, ordinarily resident means lawfully ordinarily resident; residence in breach of immigration law does not qualify. The position differs where citizenship is granted to the applicant in his or her own identity on the basis of a false representation about a qualifying relationship or circumstance: that citizenship exists unless and until deprivation is ordered.

The appellants were the widow and four children of a Bangladeshi man who had entered the United Kingdom using another person’s identity and employment voucher. He later obtained registration as a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies in that assumed identity. The Entry Clearance Officer refused the appellants’ applications for Certificates of Entitlement to the Right of Abode. Although an Immigration Judge accepted the evidence establishing their relationship with the deceased, the refusal was upheld on the basis of the circumstances of his entry and registration. The Asylum and Immigration Tribunal dismissed the subsequent appeals. The central issue was whether the deceased had acquired citizenship by registration and, alternatively, whether his residence could satisfy the applicable statutory requirement.

1. Appeal dismissed. The appellants’ claimed rights of abode depended on the deceased having become a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies. He had entered the United Kingdom using another person’s employment voucher and passport and had later applied for registration in that person’s name. This was adoption of a false identity, not merely use of a pseudonym.
2. The Court of Appeal followed R v SSHD ex p Sultan Mahmood [1981] QB 59 and R v SSHD ex p Parvaz Akhtar [1981] QB 46. Where the person seeking registration is not the person identified in the application and supporting documents, the purported registration is a nullity. No citizenship was granted to the person who assumed the identity. The fact that the applicant might otherwise have satisfied the residence criterion did not alter that conclusion.
3. R v SSHD ex p Naheed Ejaz [1994] QB 496 marked a different situation. A person who received a naturalisation certificate in his or her own identity could possess citizenship despite a false representation concerning a qualifying relationship, subject to the statutory power of deprivation. That reasoning did not assist the deceased because no registration had been made in his own identity.
4. The alternative residence argument also failed. Under Immigration Act 1971, section 33(2), replicated in section 50(5) of the British Nationality Act 1981, a person in breach of immigration law is not treated as ordinarily resident unless the legislation provides otherwise. Following In re Abdul Manan [1971] 1 WLR 859, and the same conclusion in R v SSHD ex p Margueritte [1983] QB 180, ordinary residence meant lawful ordinary residence.
5. The Court noted that deprivation would not operate retrospectively and considered it highly unlikely that the power survived the deceased’s death. Those issues did not arise for decision because the deceased had never acquired citizenship. The refusals were therefore correct.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): dismissed the appellants’ appeals.
2. Asylum and Immigration Tribunal: dismissed the appeals and upheld the Entry Clearance Officer’s refusal.
3. Immigration Judge: accepted the evidence that the appellants were the deceased’s widow and children but concluded that the refusal was nevertheless correct.
4. Entry Clearance Officer, Dhaka: refused the applications for Certificates of Entitlement to the Right of Abode.