MWH, appeal by
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judgment Date | 04 October 2017 |
| Case Outcome | Dismissed |
| Court | Special Immigration Appeals Commission |
| Appellant | MWH |
| Subject Matter | Naturalisation |
1
Appeal No: SN/57/2015
Hearing Dates: 24th April and 5th September2017
Date of Judgment: 4th October 2017
SPECIAL IMMIGRATION APPEALS COMMISSION
Before:
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE SINGH
UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE O’CONNOR
MRS J BATTLEY
MWH APPLICANT
and
SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
RESPONDENT
For the Applicant: Mr H Southey QC and Mr N Armstrong
Instructed by: Lawrence Lupins Solicitors
Special Advocate: Mr C Cory-Wright QC & Mr Z Ahmad
Instructed by: Special Advocates’ Support Office
For the Respondent: Mr D Mitchell
Instructed by: Government Legal Department
OPEN JUDGMENT
2
Introduction
1. This is an application brought under section 2D of the Special Immigration
Appeals Commission Act 1997 (“ the 1997 Act”). The decision under
challenge was taken on 29 November 2011. By that decision the Secretary
of State refused the applicant’s application for naturalisation as a British
citizen.
2. The applicant, who was born on 10 November 1977, is an Iraqi national of
Kurdish ethnic origins. He is also a Sunni Muslim. He first entered the
United Kingdom on 21 October 2002 and applied for asylum on the
following day. His application for asylum was refused but on 11 December
2002 he was granted exceptional leave to remain for a period of 4 years.
On 18 December 2006 he was granted indefinite leave to remain.
3. The applicant made an earlier application for naturalisation as a British
citizen, which does not directly concern the Commission in the present
proceedings but forms part of the background. He made that application on
31 March 2008. That application was refused by a letter dated 13 August
2009. The letter explained that the application had been refused on the
ground that the Secretary of State was not satisfied that the applicant could
meet the requirement to be of ‘good character’. The letter went on to state
that: ‘it would be contrary to the public interest to give reasons in this
case.’
To continue reading
Request your trial