Najlaa Rushdy Mohammed Alaian v Secretary of State for the Home Department
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | O'Connor |
| Judgment Date | 30 November 2022 |
| Neutral Citation | [2022] EWHC 3012 (Admin) |
| Docket Number | Case No: CO/1502/2022 |
| Court | King's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
The King On the application of
[2022] EWHC 3012 (Admin)
JUDGE O'Connor
(sitting as a Judge of the High Court)
Case No: CO/1502/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
KING'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Michael West & Mansoor Fazli (instructed by Gulbenkian Andonian Solicitors) for the Claimants
Julie Anderson (instructed by Government Legal Department) for the Defendant
Hearing date: 16 November 2022
Approved Judgment
This judgment was handed down remotely at 10am on 30 November 2022 by circulation to the parties or their representatives by e-mail and by release to the National Archives.
Introduction
This is an application for judicial review of the Secretary of State's decisions of 24 January 2022 (“the Decision”), contained in a single document, to refuse the claimants' applications for naturalisation on the ground that the Secretary of State was not satisfied that either claimant is of good character.
Factual Background – A Summary
The claimants are wife and husband. The first claimant is a stateless person born in Iraq on 15 August 1972, of an Egyptian mother and Palestinian father. The second claimant is a national of Iraq, born on 23 December 1961. The claimants were married in 2001, and there are three children of the marriage. Both claimants have indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom.
In her ‘asylum appeal’ before the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal (“AIT”) in 2008, the first claimant stated that she joined the Ba'ath party in Iraq in 1989 as a sympathiser, was later promoted to ‘Supporter’, and in 1992 to ‘Advanced Supporter’. In 1998, she took an intensive course on Ba'ath party principles and objectives lasting three months and was then promoted to the rank of ‘Udo’. The first claimant states that she was employed as a university lecturer in Baghdad. She described how, during the reign of Saddam Hussein's regime, her family had comfortable lives with privileges and concessions.
In her asylum interview, the first claimant explained that the main reason she joined the Ba'ath party in 1989 was the desire of the party to liberate Palestine. The branch of the party to which she was recruited was primarily for Arabs (the national branch). They were not part of and did not meet with the Iraqi branch (the political branch), which comprised of Iraqi nationals, like her husband. The first claimant also described her rise in status and responsibility from mere attendance at meetings to the giving of lectures to members. She was made a ‘Friend of the President’ upon attaining the rank of Active Udo in 1998. It was not well known that she was a high-ranking member of the Ba'ath Party as all of her activities were carried out away from Iraqi Ba'ath Party members and related only with the Palestinian people. The first claimant's presence in Iraq became illegal after the fall of Saddam Hussein. In February 2006, threats against Palestinians significantly increased, and the first claimant and her children were subjected to these threats. The AIT found, to the lower standard of reasonable likelihood, that the first claimant had provided credible evidence.
During the asylum application process the first claimant also stated that the second claimant had reached the higher rank of Udw Firqa, that he would give lectures to low-ranking Ba'ath party members about the party's aims and objectives, and that he was in charge of recruitment of new members within their local headquarters.
In her Nationality Interview of 25 January 2017, the first claimant confirmed that she joined the Ba'ath party as a supporter at around the time that she started university. Persons were required to be a supporter of the Ba'ath party in order to attend university and were also required to be a Ba'ath party member to work at a university, as the first claimant subsequently did. A person would move up a rank in the party after a certain number of years. The first claimant further stated that she received accommodation based on the fact that she was a lecturer at the university. The aim of the section of the Ba'ath party of which the first claimant joined, was to free Palestine and all Arab countries. The first claimant stated that she had never met the Iraqi President and that being a ‘Friend of the President’ was a card you could apply for once reaching the rank of Udw.
In September 2006, the first claimant left Iraq with the children of the marriage and sought international protection in the United Kingdom, a status she was granted following appeal proceedings which ended in May 2008.
Moving on to the second claimant, the relevant factual matrix is largely found in his Nationality Interview of 25 January 2017, although the AIT also made findings in relation to the second claimant when considering the first claimant's asylum appeal.
The second claimant joined the Ba'ath party in the mid 1980's, as it was necessary to do so in order to become approved as a teacher, his chosen career. When he joined the party, he held the rank of Mu'ayyid, and attended weekly Ba'ath party meetings. After three years he was entitled to, and was, promoted to the rank of Nasir. He continued to attend weekly meetings. Three years later he was promoted to the rank of Advanced Nasir, and then to the rank Candidate Member. His only role was to ‘guide students to serve their country’. The privileges he and the first claimant received were as a consequence of the first claimant's work as a lecturer.
The second claimant entered the United Kingdom on 12 May 2009.
The claimants point to the following features of their time in the UK, as positive evidence of their good character (set out in more detail at paragraph 26 of the grounds supporting the application for permission). The first claimant worked as a volunteer Maths lecturer teaching adults in 2010, and subsequently obtained a post-graduate teaching qualification in the UK. She has taught Maths, Science, and physics to a variety of age groups since, including at secondary school level, which is her current employment. The first claimant is now a STEM teacher, which brings with it additional responsibilities such as running school trips. Additionally, she is a trained as a Mental Health Champion and is, also, qualified to train teachers on how to teach physics.
The second claimant has, since 2013, worked as an Arabic language teacher, and is currently working at a primary school. The claimants' three children are British Citizens of impeccable character, two of whom are currently engaged in higher studies, with the youngest child currently studying for her GCSEs.
History of the naturalisation applications
On 22 July 2014, the claimants applied for naturalisation. The claimants' applications were refused on 31 January 2019. In the case of both claimants, an application was made for reconsideration by letter dated 1 August 2019. The applications were refused again on 23 March 2020.
The claimants brought judicial review proceedings ( CO/3558/2020) against the decisions of 23 March 2020. Permission was granted on 4 February 2021 at an oral hearing before Clive Sheldon QC, sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court ( [2021] EWHC 744 (Admin)). Those proceedings were settled by way of a Consent Order dated 27 September 2021, with the Secretary of State agreeing to reconsider the claimants' applications.
That reconsideration process culminated in the decisions now under challenge. Permission to challenge the decisions of 24 January 2022 was granted by His Honour Judge Dight CBE, sitting as a Judge of the High Court, in a decision dated 4 July 2022. I observe that although the decision letter of 24 January 2022 expressly states on its face that it did not constitute a re-opening of the claimants' applications and instead just sought to answer the question of whether the correct procedures were followed and correct decisions were taken in the earlier decisions, Mr West indicated that he did not seek to take issue with this.
Decision under challenge
It is necessary to set out the Decision in some detail. As identified above, the document of 24 January 2022, which is the decision under challenge, provides a response to both claimants' applications for naturalisation.
Prior to summarising aspects of the claimants' Nationality Interviews and the first claimant's evidence as provided during the asylum application and appeal process, the Secretary of State directed herself as follows:
“Serious doubts will also be cast if applicants have supported the commission of war crimes, crimes against humanity or genocide or have supported groups whose main purpose or mode of operation consisted of the commission of these crimes even if that support did not make any direct contribution to the commission of the international crimes in question.
A precautionary approach is applied given the importance attached to the grant of nationality and given that it is very difficult to revoke nationality once granted. In making a decision on an application, all relevant information already held by the Home Office relating to the applicant will be taken into account when determining the application in question along with that provided by an applicant. Also, consideration is given to the relevant jurisprudence in nationality cases, which includes that set out below.”
The Decision thereafter identifies that “research shows” that membership of the Ba'ath party was essential for career advancement within branches of government, and that students who refused to join the party were expelled from colleges and universities. The membership structure of the party is subsequently set...
To continue reading
Request your trial