In an unusually dramatic move, the Presenting Officer in the recent case of KB (para: 320(7A): “false representations”) Albania [2009] UKAIT 00043 served a section 40 notice on a witness in the case, thereby depriving him of his British citizenship. There is a right of appeal to the tribunal against such a decision and the tribunal records that it advised the unrepresented man to seek legal advice.
This was a case where the witness, who was sponsoring his wife to enter the UK from Albania, had claimed on arrival in the UK in 1999 to be a Kosovar. However, the tribunal records in the determination that the man was a national of Albania, although it is not clear how this was established. The Home Office accused him of lying about his nationality on entry and then continuing with the lie to obtain Exceptional Leave to Remain, then Indefinite Leave to Remain and then finally full British citizenship.
The tribunal, chaired by Mr Ockelton, found that a document obtained through falsehood and relied on in an immigration application does amount to a ‘false representation’ under immigration rule 320(7A) and therefore mandates refusal of the application and appeal. The tribunal goes on to comment that sometimes leave and even citizenship is appears to be granted when it should not have been, as well as the more usual complaint of not being granted when it should have been, before ending by observing that the Presenting Officer in court served the witness with a notice under s.40 of the British Nationality Act 1981:
Before us, Ms Tanner served on the sponsor a Notice of Decision under s40 of the British Nationality Act 1981, depriving the sponsor of his citizenship. We advised the sponsor to seek legal assistance in connection with it.
The case serves as a warning to any Albanian/Kosovans that should they by their actions cast doubt upon the basis on which they were granted ILR or citizenship — such as by sponsoring an Albanian spouse to enter the UK and presenting an Albanian passport — they are opening themselves to potential curtailment or deprivation proceedings.
Filed under: Asylum, Cases, Immigration rules, No return rule
RSS - Posts
Ouch.
I wonder if the day will come when a HOPO is found being so fabricating in their submissions that their own naturalisation as a British citizen is revoked.
Somehow I think “birds of a feather flock together” as far as the UK immigration system is concerned.
Sorry
I had intended to say that the Tribunal had allowed the occasion for the HOPO to serve an exective order.
Was the HOPO acting as a delegate of the Secretary of State?
It is strange that the tribunal should have allowed the proceedings before it turned into a venue for the Home Office to exercise an executive order- that is what it was.
Once a HOPO tried to rectify an omission in the notice of deportation served by the Home Office by getting the Adj as he was then to fill in the omission saying that she had called the Home Office official for instructions and that he had authorised the Adj to do so. I had to politely tell the Adj that none of those present in the hearing room was a delegate of the Home Office and that he could not do that.
There are deeper issues that needs to be examined.
I have to admit this is a surprise, as the several times I have wanted to do this to people of various nationalities I have been told that there is no process in place to do this.
It seems someone has finally put the processes in place and there is every chance that a lot more people are going to be getting these notices in future.