Upper Tribunal (Immigration and asylum chamber), 2022-10-04, DC/00062/2020 & Ors.
| Appeal Number | DC/00062/2020 & Ors. |
| Hearing Date | 13 September 2022 |
| Published date | 20 October 2022 |
| Date | 04 October 2022 |
| Status | Unreported |
| Court | Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) |
Appeal Numbers:
UI-2021-000421, DC/00061/2020
UI-2021-000420, DC/00062/2020
UI-2021-000422, DC/00064/2020
Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Numbers:
UI-2021-000421, DC/00061/2020
UI-2021-000420, DC/00062/2020
UI-2021-000422, DC/00064/2020
THE IMMIGRATION ACTS
|
Heard at : Manchester Civil Justice Centre |
Decision & Reasons Promulgated |
|
On the 13 September 2022 |
On the 04 October 2022 |
|
|
|
Before
UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE KEBEDE
Between
SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Appellant
and
naima sharif
mohsin nawaz
zain nawaz
Respondents
Representation:
For the Appellant: Mr A Tan, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer
For the Respondents: Mr Z Raza, instructed by Bukhari Chambers Solicitors
DECISION AND REASONS
-
This is an appeal by the Secretary of State for the Home Department against the decision of the First-tier Tribunal allowing the appeals of Naima Sharif and her two sons Mohsin and Zain Nawaz against the respondent’s decisions to deprive them of their British nationality under section 40(3) of the British Nationality Act 1981.
-
For the purposes of this decision, I shall hereinafter refer to the Secretary of State as the respondent and Naima Sharif and her two sons Mohsin and Zain Nawaz as the appellants, reflecting their positions as they were in the appeal before the First-tier Tribunal.
Background and Immigration History
-
The first appellant’s date of birth is recorded as 15 May 1964, the second appellant’s as 16 May 1987 and the third appellant’s as 27 September 1989. They are all currently British citizens, originally of Pakistani nationality. Their immigration history is complicated but is material to the relevant issues.
-
The appellants arrived in the United Kingdom in 2003 on a six month visit visa which had been issued to all three together with the first appellant’s husband (the second and third appellants’ father) in Dubai, although he did not travel with the appellants. The visit visas were issued in the appellants’ original names, Naghma Shareef, Muhammad Mohsin Khalid and Muhammad Zain Khalid, and the first appellant’s husband’s name Raja Khalid Hussain. A visa was also issued in 2004 to the first appellant’s daughter whose name was given as Heena Khalid.
-
On 11 August 2003 the first appellant applied for asylum in the UK under the name Naima Sharif, together with her sons whose names were given as Mohsin and Zain Nawaz. Alternative dates of birth were given. The first appellant’s asylum claim was made on the basis that she had suffered domestic abuse at the hands of her husband in Pakistan and was seeking to escape from him. She now claims that she had been advised to change her name and her sons’ names and dates of birth to prevent her husband being able to trace them. The appellant was invited to attend an asylum interview, but she did not attend and her asylum claim was refused on 24 September 2003. An appeal was lodged on 2 October 2003 and an appeal hearing was listed for 28 November 2003, but neither the appellant nor her representative attended, and the appeal was dismissed. The reason now given by the appellant for her non-attendance was that, due to difficult circumstances experienced in the UK, she and her children had returned to her husband in Dubai in September 2003, but that due to ongoing abuse from him she and her children re-entered the UK in November 2004. A two-year visit visa had previously been issued to the whole family including her husband in May 2004, in their original names, but it was claimed that they had not entered the UK at that time.
-
On 1 May 2008 the appellants applied for indefinite leave to remain (ILR) in the UK under the legacy scheme and they were granted ILR on 18 October 2010. On 2 December 2011 they applied for naturalisation as British citizens and they were issued with certificates of naturalisation: for the first appellant, on 7 April 2012; for the second appellant, on 23 July 2012; and for the third appellant, on 16 May 2012.
-
Following that, the first appellant reconciled with her husband, and he made an application from Pakistan for entry clearance and for leave to remain as a spouse on 1 July 2019. He applied in the name of Muhammad Khalid Nawaz. The respondent refused the application on 30 July 2019 because the names for the family did not match and commenced an investigation into the appellants. On 4 November 2019 the respondent served on the appellants a notice of intention to deprive them of their British citizenship.
-
The appellants responded, through their legal representatives, on 30 January 2020, confirming their real names and explaining the circumstances of the change of name, namely owing to the domestic abuse suffered by the first appellant and her need to escape from him. It was asserted on their behalf that there had been no intention to deceive and that their assumed names had, in any event, no bearing on the decision to award them ILR under the legacy exercise.
Respondent’s Decisions
-
The respondent, in decisions dated 8 June 2020 for the first appellant, 15 June 2020 for the second appellant and 22 June 2020 for the third appellant, did not accept the explanation as a justification for the deception. The respondent noted that the appellants had entered the UK using their genuine names legally on two occasions without informing the Home Office, at a time when their asylum claim was being progressed in other names. The respondent noted that the first appellant had attended a screening interview and completed a Statement of Evidence Form in which she confirmed that she had entered the UK on 10 August 2003 on a false passport with an agent, having never held a Pakistani passport, and that she was claiming asylum because she feared her husband who beat her, and that she had signed forms to confirm that the information was correct for herself and her children. The respondent referred to the fact that the appellant had failed to attend her asylum interview and her appeal hearing and had next communicated with the Home Office on 1 May 2008 when she had applied for ILR under the legacy exercise, giving the same details as her asylum claim and confirming that she had been continuously resident in the UK since 2003. The respondent noted that the information had been confirmed by further letters from the appellant’s representatives on 9 October 2008, 16 June 2010 and 8 October 2010, leading to the grant of ILR on 18 October 2010. The respondent noted further that the appellant had confirmed the details again in her application for naturalisation as a British citizen on 2 December 2011, where she also confirmed that she had never engaged in any activity which may indicate that she was not of good character and that all the information she had given was correct. The respondent also noted that the appellant’s husband, when applying for entry clearance to join her in the UK on 1 July 2019, had claimed to have come to the UK in 2005 with his family, that his family had then claimed asylum under false names to escape him, and that he had given up looking for them in 2011 and had then left the UK. However, investigations had revealed that he had been given six months entry clearance in 2003 in another name and had been issued with a two-year entry clearance in 2004 in another name, together with the appellants under their original names, and his entry clearance application was therefore refused.
-
The respondent considered that the appellant’s husband, having admitted to having come to the UK with the appellants in 2005, would have been fully aware that they were claiming asylum and as such did not accept that the appellants were hiding from him and did not accept that they maintained a false identity because they feared him. The respondent considered that, even if the appellant had provided false names to escape her husband, she had continued the deception long after her original asylum claim and after she said they had reconciled and considered that she had repeatedly claimed not to have left the UK since 2003 so that she would be awarded ILR under the legacy exercise. The respondent considered that the appellant had provided no evidence to demonstrate that she was given instructions to provide false information after her original asylum claim or that she was under threat if she failed to do so and therefore concluded that she had knowingly and willingly provided a false name, date of birth, place of birth and nationality to attempt to secure asylum in the UK and British citizenship. The respondent considered that, had it been known that the appellant was not only in the UK using a false identity but that she had not been continuously resident in the UK at the time of the application, this would have had a direct bearing on the outcome of her application. The grant of ILR would not have been applicable and her removal to Dubai would have been appropriate. Had she not been granted ILR she would not have acquired the length of residence required to enable her to apply for and obtain British citizenship. Further, her application for British citizenship...
To continue reading
Request your trial