Upper Tribunal (Immigration and asylum chamber), 2023-04-19, [2023] UKUT 00115 (IAC) (Chimi (deprivation appeals, scope and evidence))
| Judge | The Hon. Mr Justice Dove, President, Upper Tribunal Judge Blundell |
| Status | Reported |
| Published date | 19 May 2023 |
| Date | 19 April 2023 |
| Hearing Date | 22 February 2023 |
| Appeal Number | [2023] UKUT 00115 (IAC) |
| Court | Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) |
| Subject Matter | deprivation appeals, scope and evidence |
UT neutral citation number: [2023] UKUT 00115 (IAC)
Chimi (deprivation appeals; scope and evidence) Cameroon
Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber)
Heard at Coventry Combined Court & Field House
THE IMMIGRATION ACTS
Heard on 16th and 22nd February 2023
Promulgated on 19 April 2023
Before
THE HON. MR JUSTICE DOVE, PRESIDENT
UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE BLUNDELL
Between
rEINE CHIMI
Appellant
and
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent
Representation:
For the Appellant: Miss Rutherford, instructed by BHB Law
For the Respondent: Mr Clarke, Senior Presenting Officer
-
A Tribunal determining an appeal against a decision taken by the respondent under s40(2) or s40(3) of the British Nationality Act 1981 should consider the following questions:
-
Did the Secretary of State materially err in law when she decided that the condition precedent in s40(2) or s40(3) of the British Nationality Act 1981 was satisfied? If so, the appeal falls to be allowed. If not,
-
Did the Secretary of State materially err in law when she decided to exercise her discretion to deprive the appellant of British citizenship? If so, the appeal falls to be allowed. If not,
-
Weighing the lawfully determined deprivation decision against the reasonably foreseeable consequences for the appellant, is the decision unlawful under s6 of the Human Rights Act 1998? If so, the appeal falls to be allowed on human rights grounds. If not, the appeal falls to be dismissed.
-
In considering questions (1)(a) and (b), the Tribunal must only consider evidence which was before the Secretary of State or which is otherwise relevant to establishing a pleaded error of law in the decision under challenge. Insofar as Berdica [2022] UKUT 276 (IAC) suggests otherwise, it should not be followed.
-
In considering question (c), the Tribunal may consider evidence which was not before the Secretary of State but, in doing so, it may not revisit the conclusions it reached in respect of questions (1)(a) and (b).
DECISION AND REASONS
Introduction.
-
Whilst in this case it was the Secretary of State for the Home Department who appealed against a decision of the First-Tier Tribunal (“FTT”) promulgated on 12th January 2021, we propose to use the same nomenclature for the parties that was used before the FTT. Both members of the Panel have contributed to the drafting of this decision.
-
The appellant was born on 3rd September 1977 in Cameroon. She was naturalised as a British citizen on 7th September 2016. On 3rd March 2020 the respondent issued her with a notice of a decision depriving her of her British citizenship under section 40(3) of the British Nationality Act 1981. The history of the matter is fully set out below.
-
In a determination promulgated on 21st September 2021, Upper Tribunal Judge Owens concluded that there was an error of law in the decision of the FTT and that the FTT’s decision should be set aside with no findings preserved. The appeal was adjourned at this point for remaking in the Upper Tribunal Immigration and Asylum Chamber (“UTIAC”) and this is the decision following a hearing for that remaking.
-
The structure of the determination is that, having heard evidence from the appellant and her husband, we will set out the factual circumstances of this case and the evidence which was received so far as is necessary to our decision. Secondly, we shall address the correct approach in law to determining an appeal of this kind. Thirdly, we shall turn to our conclusions, measured against the established legal framework.
The Evidence.
-
The appellant gave evidence before us with the benefit of an interpreter, with whom we were satisfied she could communicate successfully. She adopted her witness statement dated 26th September 2020 (subject to a small amendment). The appellant’s account of the relevant circumstances in relation to this case is as follows. As set out above the appellant was born and lived in Cameroon as a national of that country before moving to France on 7th February 2000. In France she met Jean-Pierre Perry (“JPP”) who was a French national and with whom she formed a relationship. In 2006, whilst still in a relationship with JPP, she applied for French nationality to the French authorities at Mulhouse. She submitted her Cameroonian birth certificate to the French authorities and was issued with a copy of a French birth certificate. Two weeks later an appointment was made at the passport office to enrol for biometric data, and after two weeks she returned to collect her French passport as proof of her entitlement to French citizenship. Shortly afterwards her relationship with JPP finished, and the appellant decided to relocate to the UK. She initially arrived in the UK in 2006, but returned to France before travelling back to the UK in 2007.
-
On arrival in the UK, she settled in Coventry and met her husband. In 2009 they had a child, Jodie, and at this time she travelled through France to Cameroon and back to the UK without encountering any difficulties using her French passport. Subsequent to this she travelled regularly on her French passport without problems.
-
On 3rd July 2013 the appellant made an application for a permanent residence card in the UK, but that application was rejected on 31st July 2013 owing to the absence of a fee. She subsequently made a further application for a permanent residence card on 1st April 2015, which was issued on 6th September 2015. On 12th May 2016 she made an application to naturalise, and she was naturalised as a British Citizen on 7th September 2016.
-
On 30th July 2019 the appellant made an application to renew her French passport. This prompted enquiries by the French authorities, and it appears that on 9th September 2019 the respondent’s Status Review Unit were provided with information from the French authorities revealing that the appellant’s French passport had been obtained fraudulently. This was on the basis that the birth certificate provided when applying for the passport initially had been false.
-
In the papers before us this proposition is evidenced firstly, in the form of a letter sent to the appellant by the French Consulate dated 21st August 2019 in which the appellant was informed that the passport had been wrongly issued to her, and that she no longer could be granted the right to French nationality. The letter went on to request that she come to the French Consulate on 3rd September 2019 between 1100 hours and 1200 hours to return the passport with which she had been issued on 16th August 2006 in Mulhouse. The letter offered the opportunity for the appellant to make written submissions or request an interview in respect of this decision.
-
In a witness statement dated 27th August 2019 from M Pascal Lefebvre dated 27th August 2019 M Lefebvre explains that he is a French Immigration Liaison Officer in the UK. He attests as follows:
“The French passport 06AP29633X issued in 2006 with the name of Reine Chimi DOB 03.09.1977 has been fraudulently obtained. The investigation conducted by the French authorities have proven that the birth certificate provided when applying for the document was a false certificate consequently the document has been cancelled since the 30.07.2007.”
-
As a consequence of receiving this information, on 8th October 2019 the respondent wrote to the appellant explaining that there was reason to believe that the appellant had obtained her status as a British Citizen as a result of fraud. The matter was specified in the following terms:
“The Secretary of State has received information that indicates that evidence you have previously presented in support of your applications for a Residence Card and Permanent Residence such as your French passport, were acquired with the submission of a counterfeit French birth certificate. The French authorities have examined the birth certificate and found that it is counterfeit”.
-
The appellant was afforded the opportunity to provide an explanation, and she wrote to the respondent on 22nd October 2019 explaining that she had been helped and advised and had acted under the guidance of JPP in the whole process of applying for and obtaining her French passport. She had, in short, no reason to suppose that the French passport was anything other than entirely valid. She had been shocked to discover the allegation made, and would never have returned to the French embassy to renew her French passport had she known that false documents had been used in order to procure it.
-
In her evidence before us she explained that she had been travelling in France when the letter of 8th October 2019 had arrived, and her husband and the appellant thought they should return the passport. Her husband returned it to the French Embassy as instructed. When the appellant returned to the UK she contacted the French Embassy for more information but was told by the person to whom she spoke that there was nothing else to say and that the file had been closed.
Having...
To continue reading
Request your trial