Sleiman (deprivation of citizenship; conduct : Lebanon)

Factual and Procedural Background

The Appellant, a citizen of Lebanon born in 1985, claimed asylum in 2004 using his correct name but an incorrect date of birth, representing himself as younger. He was refused asylum but granted discretionary leave to remain ("DLR") as an unaccompanied minor until 2005. An application for further leave to remain was outstanding for five years, resulting in the grant of indefinite leave to remain ("ILR") under the 'Legacy' scheme in 2010. British Citizenship was granted in 2011.

In 2013, the Appellant was arrested abroad, leading to the discovery of his true date of birth. The Secretary of State decided to deprive the Appellant of British citizenship on the basis that it was obtained fraudulently due to the false date of birth. The Appellant appealed, and the First-tier Tribunal ("FtJ") dismissed the appeal in 2016. The appeal to the Upper Tribunal was adjourned to allow amendment of grounds to include reliance on a Home Office file note indicating the Appellant's age was irrelevant to the grant of ILR under the Legacy scheme. The Upper Tribunal Judge Kopieczek heard the appeal in 2017.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Appellant obtained British citizenship "by means of" fraud, false representation, or concealment of a material fact, specifically whether the false date of birth was directly material to the grant of citizenship.
2. Whether the First-tier Tribunal erred in law by concluding that the Appellant's deception was directly material to the grant of citizenship.
3. Whether the reasonably foreseeable consequences of deprivation of citizenship, including considerations under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, were properly assessed.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The deception as to age was not material to the grant of ILR or citizenship, as ILR was granted under the Legacy scheme due to Home Office delay, not age.
• The First-tier Tribunal failed to properly consider the reasonably foreseeable consequences of deprivation, particularly the relevance of removal directions and Article 8 rights.
• The appellant's misrepresentation only "bought" him a short period of leave and the Home Office delay "broke the chain of causation" linking the deception to citizenship.
• The respondent conceded that age was irrelevant to the grant of ILR.
• The level of deception was not severe enough to justify deprivation of citizenship.

Respondent's Arguments

• The Appellant deliberately misled the Secretary of State regarding his age to obtain discretionary leave to remain as a minor, which directly led to ILR and ultimately citizenship.
• Had the Appellant not misrepresented his age, he would have been liable to removal to Lebanon and would not have been able to apply for further leave or citizenship.
• The deception was directly material to the grant of citizenship, as confirmed by the Nationality Instructions and the decision letter.
• The original asylum claim did not engage the Refugee Convention and was refused as not credible.
• The First-tier Tribunal's decision was free from error of law and appropriate in its assessment of the facts and legal principles.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Upper Tribunal Judge Kopieczek carefully analyzed whether the Appellant's misrepresentation of his date of birth was directly material to the grant of British citizenship under section 40(3) of the British Nationality Act 1981. The court emphasized the necessity of a direct causative link between the fraudulent conduct and the acquisition of citizenship, consistent with the Nationality Instructions and relevant case law.

The tribunal acknowledged the respondent's position that the Appellant's deception led to the grant of discretionary leave to remain as a minor, which subsequently enabled the grant of ILR and citizenship. However, it was noted that the ILR was granted under the Legacy scheme due to Home Office delay and that the Appellant's age was stated to be irrelevant to that grant in official file notes.

Drawing on precedents such as Hysaj and Deliallisi, the court recognized the importance of a direct bearing of the fraud on citizenship acquisition. The Appellant's deception related to his age, but the evidence did not sufficiently establish that this deception had a direct bearing on the grant of citizenship, given the procedural context of the Legacy scheme and the Home Office delay.

The tribunal found that the First-tier Tribunal erred in law by concluding that the Appellant's citizenship was obtained "by means of" fraud or false representation. As the necessary direct causative link was not established, the deprivation decision could not stand.

Consequently, the court did not need to address the second ground concerning the reasonably foreseeable consequences of deprivation and Article 8 considerations.

Holding and Implications

The Upper Tribunal Judge Kopieczek ALLOWED the appeal and set aside the First-tier Tribunal's decision to dismiss the appeal. The deprivation of British citizenship decision was remade, with the appeal allowed on the basis that the respondent had not established that the Appellant's citizenship was obtained by means of fraud, false representation, or concealment of a material fact.

The direct effect of this decision is that the Appellant retains British citizenship. No broader precedent was established beyond clarifying the legal requirement that fraudulent conduct must be directly material to the grant of citizenship for deprivation action to be valid under section 40(3) of the 1981 Act.