AM, appeal by
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judgment Date | 13 April 2016 |
| Case Outcome | Dismissed |
| Court | Special Immigration Appeals Commission |
| Appellant | AM |
| Subject Matter | Naturalisation |
Page 1
Appeal No: SN/1/2014
Hearing Date: 9th and 10th February 2016
Date of Judgment: 13th April 2016
SPECIAL IMMIGRATION APPEALS COMMISSION
Before:
SIR STEPHEN SILBER
UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE ALLEN
MR PHILLIP NELSON
AM APPELLANT
and
SECRETARY OF STATE
FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT RESPONDENT
OPEN JUDGMENT
For the Appellant Hugh Southey QC and Nick Armstrong of Counsel
Instructed by: Wilson Solicitors LLP
For the Respondent: Catherine Callaghan QC and Claire Palmer
Instructed by: Government Legal Department
Special Advocate Representative: Martin Goudie
Instructed by: Special Advocate’s Support Office
Page 2
Sir Stephen Silber
Introduction
1. AM (“the Appellant”) applies pursuant to s.2D of the Special
Immigration Appeals Commission Act 1997 (“SIAC Act”) to set aside
the decision of the Secretary of State for the Home Department (“the
Secretary of State”) made on 12 May 2010 to refuse to grant him
naturalisation under section 6 of the British Nationality Act 1981
(“BNA”).
2. The letter setting out this refusal decision does not set out any reasons
as it explained that:
“Your application for British citizenship has been refused on
the ground that the Home Secretary is not satisfied that you can
meet the statutory requirement to be of good character. It would
be contrary to the public interest to give reasons in this case.”
3. Mr. Hugh Southey QC, counsel for the Appellant, also contends that
there are factual errors in the decision to refuse the application for
naturalisation as either the Appellant is not the person who the
Secretary of State thinks he is, or alternatively, he has not done what
must have been alleged against him. This is disputed by Ms Catherine
Callaghan, counsel for the Secretary of State, but it is common ground
that this issue can only be dealt with in Closed proceedings. A Closed
hearing was held with a Special Advocate and it was held for reasons
set out in the closed judgment, in this case that the Secretary of State
was entitled to refuse to grant the Appellant’s application for
naturalisation. Therefore, we need not deal with this issue further in
this judgment, save to set out the legal principles which we used to
reach that decision on the Closed judgment in the Appendix to this
judgment.
4. Mr. Southey’s main contentions are that the decision should be
quashed as:
(a) The decision infringes the Appellant’s Article 8 rights;
(b) It was unfair not to permit the Appellant to make
representations before the decision was made to refuse his
application, and then not to permit him to rely on evidence
post-dating the decision; and that
(c) There should be a full merits review of the decision to refuse to
grant the Appellant naturalisation as he is making a claim for
damages and this will show that there were no grounds for
refusing the Appellant’s application for naturalisation.
To continue reading
Request your trial