Pathfynder Solicitors

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on LinkedIn

About us

Our blog

Our team

Our services

Contact us

free immigration advice Client feedback

© Pathfynder Limited 2018. Pathfynder Solicitors is a trading name of Pathfynder Limited, a company registered in England and Wales with company registration number 10170947. The registered address is King House, 5-11 Westbourne Grove, London, W2 4UA. Authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority, SRA No. 629672.


Deprivation of British citizenship - 6 Apr 2017

Deprivation of citizenshipAs we start to see more instances of British citizens facing the possibility of losing their citizenship status, the Upper Immigration Tribunal handed down judgement on 10 February 2017 which helps to clarify the legal position.

The case of Ahmed and Others (deprivation of citizenship) [2017] UKUT 00118 (IAC) considered the fate of four men who were convicted of serious offences resulting in long sentences.

Each of the four men was given significant prison sentences totalling 57.5 years, 16 years, 12 years and 18 years which shows the severity of their offending.

The legal position

The Secretary of State can deprive someone of British citizenship under section 40(2) of the British Nationality Act 1981 (the ‘1981 Act’) where it would be conducive to the public good. There is a wide margin of discretion to make a decision on whether a deprivation order would be in the public interest. However, once the Secretary of State has decided to make an order she must notify the person that she has decided to make an order, provide the reasons for the order and notify them of their right of appeal.

The four men in Ahmed and Others were given such a notice and they pursued an appeal in the First Tier Immigration Tribunal where they were unsuccessful. The four men subsequently pursued an appeal in the Upper Immigration Tribunal on the grounds that:

- The Secretary of State failed to meet her duty under Section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009 (the ‘2009 Act’), namely having regard to the best interests of the four men’s children;

- The First Tier Immigration Tribunal did not acknowledge the four men’s EU rights;

- The First Tier Immigration Tribunal did not take enough notice of government policy when assessing the Secretary of State’s decision;

- The First Tier Immigration Tribunal erred in its application of  Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights; and

- The First Tier Immigration Tribunal should not have included an analysis of Part 5A of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 as part of their decision.

Court’s decision

The Upper Immigration Tribunal rejected all five grounds put forward by the 4 men noting in particular that, in relation to the best interests of their children, the Secretary of State has no proactive duty to ask for evidence. The burden on proving their defence lies on the Appellants.

The next step is for the Secretary of State to make the order to deprive the 4 men of their British citizenship status after which they will face deportation proceeding. Although, the Upper Immigration Tribunal has asked the Secretary of State to consider making both decisions jointly.

Impact of the judgement

From a practical point of view, what this case tells us is that people who have received a notice under Section 40(2) of the 1981 Act should seek appropriate legal representation at the earliest opportunity and prepare robust evidence to support their defence.

Written by Darren Chin

Please note that this article is for information only and should not be taken as legal and/or financial advice. Immigration law changes regularly and it may be the case that this page has not been updated to take into account the latest changes. If you would like advice on your personal circumstances, please feel free to contact us.