Upper Tribunal (Immigration and asylum chamber), 2023-08-15, UI-2022-006108

Appeal NumberUI-2022-006108
Hearing Date09 June 2023
Date15 August 2023
Published date30 August 2023
CourtUpper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber)

Appeal Number: UI-2022-006108


Upper Tribunal

(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: UI-2022-006108



Decision & Reasons Issued:

On the 15 August 2023











For the Appellant: Anonymised (see below)

For the Respondent: Cathryn McGhahey KC instructed by Government Legal Department

Heard at Field House on 09 June 2023


  1. The appellant, who was born on 1st January 1969, appeals against a decision of the respondent dated 20th July 2020 to refuse his Human Rights claim. His appeal was dismissed by a panel of the First-tier Tribunal promulgated on 16th August 2022. This appeal was listed to be heard on 3rd April 2023 but that hearing had to be adjourned on account of issues in relation to the grant of the appellant’s legal aid. The hearing reconvened on 9th June 2023 and proceeded to a conclusion.

  2. Subsequent to the hearing we received further submissions in relation to the question of anonymising the appellant’s representatives. The details of counsel in the FtT were anonymised, and the continuation of this order was sought in these proceedings. We are unable to reach a concluded view in respect of these issues without a further hearing to enable both the appellant’s counsel and any interested third parties to make representations. We are concerned to ensure that the substance of our decision is known as soon as possible. The course we are adopting is therefore as follows. We are promulgating the substance of the decision now, but reserving the decision in relation to anonymity to a hearing on 17th November 2023. In the meantime, and without prejudice to any decision which we reach in relation to anonymity, we have withheld counsel’s details from this decision. If there are any interested parties who would like to participate in the hearing on the 17th November 2023, or provide written submissions to be considered at that hearing, we would be grateful if they would notify the Upper Tribunal of that intention within 28 days of the promulgation of this determination.

Factual Background

  1. The appellant was born in Pakistan and entered the United Kingdom as an adult. He was naturalised as a British Citizen on 16th November 2004.

  2. On 9th June 2012 he was sentenced for conspiracy to engage in sexual activity with a child and of trafficking for sexual exploitation a 15-year-old girl. The total sentence imposed was one of 6 years’ imprisonment coupled with being placed on the Sex Offenders Register for an indefinite period.

  3. On 31st July 2015 the respondent gave the appellant notice of intention to deprive the him of his British citizenship following which, on 2nd December 2015, he was served with notice of a decision to deprive him of his British Citizenship. On 18th December 2015 the appellant appealed to the FtT who dismissed that appeal on 27th April 2016. Ultimately, via an appeal to the Upper Tribunal, the matter progressed to the Court of Appeal who dismissed the appellant’s appeal on 8th August 2018. Prior to this on 17th July 2018 an order depriving the appellant of his British citizenship was signed; he was served with that deprivation order on 18th July 2018. On 12th September 2018 the respondent issued the appellant with a letter making a decision to deport him.

  4. On 24th September 2018 the appellant purported to renounce his Pakistani citizenship, and subsequently on 28th October 2019 attended an interview with Pakistan government officials. On 3rd March 2020 the respondent served a decision on the appellant to make a deportation order replacing her earlier decision of 12th September 2018. On 23rd March 2020 the appellant submitted representations on the basis of Article 8 to the respondent. Those representations were rejected by the respondent on 27th July 2020. This is the decision which is the subject matter of this appeal with the appellant contending that the decision was unlawful as a result of a breach of his Human Rights.

The proceedings before the FtT

  1. Following case management hearings an agreed list of issues was arrived at as follows:

(1) (a) Are the appellants stateless, and (b) if so, can they recover their Pakistani


(2) Is the decision of the respondent to refuse the appellants’ human rights claim

unlawful under s.6 HRA as being incompatible with their rights under Art 8 ECHR?

(3) In ruling on (2), does the Tribunal have jurisdiction to rule on

(a) whether the respondent will actually be able to remove the appellants; and/or

(b) if not, whether Art 8 ECHR requires the respondent to grant them leave to


(4) If the Tribunal does have such jurisdiction then,

(a) will the SSHD actually be able to remove the appellants to Pakistan; and

(b) if not, does Art 8 ECHR require the respondent to grant the appellants leave

to remain?”

  1. The reference to “appellants” arose because in addition to the appellant in these proceedings there were parallel proceedings in respect of another person called Adil Khan, and both of these individual appeals were heard and determined together. At the hearing the appellant gave no oral evidence. An application on his behalf was made to admit an additional witness statement but this was refused by the FtT. Subsequently an agreed set of facts was settled which assisted in relation to these matters. The agreed facts, so far as relevant to the appellant, were as follows:

Agreed Facts

1. On 17 July 2018 the Respondent signed deprivation orders in relation to AK and QR. At that point they ceased, as a matter of law, to be British citizens.

2. A hearing took place on 18 July 2018 in the Court of Appeal in relation to AK and QR’s appeal against the decision to make a deprivation order.

3. AK gave oral evidence that, at that hearing, (a) counsel for the SSHD informed the court about the deprivation orders that had been made; and (b) a judge said that those orders should be served on the Appellants.

4. On 18.07.18 the deprivation order relating to QR was posted, under cover of a letter, to QR [at his home address]. This letter was returned to sender.

5. At some point QR applied to renounce his citizenship. In order to make such an application he needed to provide various documents including: (i) Form X & Particulars (One Pager), typed in (not hand-written); and (ii) Application addressed to the Pakistan High Commission stating reasons for Renunciation of Pakistani Citizenship (see PDF and URL from PHC). The actual forms submitted by the As are not in evidence.

6. QR’s renunciation of Pakistani citizenship is dated 24 September 2018 [177]. It states at the top: ‘whereas he/she has been assured Citizenship of the United Kingdom upon renunciation

of Pakistan Citizenship’.

7. On 8 November 2018 the letter enclosing the deprivation order for Mr Rauf was re-posted to [to his home address]. This letter was not returned to sender.

8. The SSHD does not dispute the evidence, from the Appellants, that at the time each of them first submitted their Form X to the PHC, orders depriving them of their British nationality had not yet been signed. However, by the time the renunciation certificates were granted, such orders had been signed.

  1. The appellant also made an application to admit an addendum expert report addressing the status of the reported renunciation of Pakistani citizenship and the risk to him upon return to Pakistan. Again, the FtT refused this application as it had been made extremely late in the day.

  2. Finally in this connection the appellant made an application for the disclosure of the factual circumstances of Mr Aziz, who had also been a co-defendant in the criminal proceedings, who had been served notice of intention to deprive him of his British citizenship upon conviction, and who had been a participant in the deprivation appeals which proceeded ultimately to the Court of Appeal. It was submitted that this material was relevant as the appellant was in a similar position to Mr Aziz and should have been treated alike. The application was opposed by the respondent on the basis that Mr Aziz was not an appellant before the FtT. The FtT refused this application stating that the position regarding Mr Aziz was irrelevant, and the appellants who were before the FtT were the persons whose appeals and evidence were pertinent to the FtT decision. It appears that after this application was initially refused it was renewed when the appellants’ counsel received further information in the form of a document dated 31st October 2018 confirming to Mr Aziz that following his renunciation of his Pakistani citizenship the respondent would not be issuing a deprivation order. The FtT maintained its earlier ruling that the decision in relation to Mr Aziz was separate and irrelevant to the cases of the appellants before them.

  3. The FtT panel organised its consideration of the issues by starting with issue 1 and the question of whether the...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT