Mohammed Said Sleiman v The Secretary of State for the Home Department

For deprivation under British Nationality Act 1981 s 40(3), fraud, false representation or concealment must be directly material to the decision granting citizenship. An earlier deception which merely forms part of the history leading to immigration status is insufficient where the evidence does not establish that citizenship was obtained by means of that deception. A speculative assertion that, without the deception, the person would have been removed cannot supply the required causal link.

The appellant had claimed asylum using an incorrect date of birth and was granted discretionary leave as an unaccompanied minor. He later obtained indefinite leave to remain under the Legacy scheme and was naturalised as a British citizen.

The Secretary of State decided to deprive him of citizenship, contending that the false date of birth had enabled his immigration history and eventual naturalisation. The First-tier Tribunal dismissed his appeal. The Upper Tribunal considered whether the deception was directly material to the grant of citizenship for the purposes of British Nationality Act 1981 s 40(3).

1. Appeal allowed. The First-tier Tribunal’s decision contained an error of law, was set aside, and the appeal against deprivation was remade and allowed.

2. Section 40(3) of the British Nationality Act 1981 requires a causal link between the impugned conduct and the acquisition of citizenship. The words “by means of” require the fraud, false representation or concealment to be directly material to the grant of citizenship. The Secretary of State’s Nationality Instructions were not determinative, but their requirement for a direct bearing was consistent with that construction.

3. The appellant had deliberately misrepresented his age when seeking asylum and had perpetuated that false information. Those findings were open to the First-tier Tribunal. They did not, however, establish the statutory causal link.

4. The appellant’s indefinite leave had been granted under the Legacy scheme because of the length of delay in determining his application, and the decision letter stated that age was irrelevant to that grant. The assertion that he would otherwise have been removed to Lebanon was speculative. The evidence therefore did not justify a finding that the age deception was directly material to citizenship or that citizenship had been obtained by means of conduct within s 40(3).

5. Having allowed the appeal on that ground, the Tribunal did not determine the separate challenge concerning the reasonably foreseeable consequences of deprivation and Article 8.

• Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber): Allowed the appeal, set aside the First-tier Tribunal’s dismissal, and remade the decision by allowing the appeal against deprivation of citizenship.
• First-tier Tribunal: Dismissed the appeal against the Secretary of State’s decision to deprive the appellant of British citizenship.