Hashi vThe Secretary of State for the Home Department

Factual and Procedural Background

This opinion concerns an appeal from a decision of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission ("SIAC") refusing to extend the Appellant's time for appealing a decision of the Secretary of State for the Home Department ("SS") dated 18th June 2012. The SS had decided to deprive the Appellant of his United Kingdom citizenship on grounds that it was "conducive to the public good" due to his involvement in Islamist extremism and risk to national security. The Appellant, who had been granted UK citizenship in 2004 after arriving from Somalia as a child, submitted a notice of appeal outside the 28-day limit. SIAC refused the extension primarily because it rejected the argument that deprivation would render the Appellant stateless, concluding that he retained Somali citizenship. The appeal challenges SIAC's refusal to extend time for appeal and its findings on Somali citizenship law and statelessness.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether SIAC was correct to refuse an extension of time for appealing the deprivation of UK citizenship.
2. Whether the Appellant would be rendered stateless by deprivation of UK citizenship, considering Somali citizenship law.
3. The proper interpretation and application of Somali citizenship law, including the status and force of Somali transitional charters and constitution.
4. The burden of proof regarding statelessness in citizenship deprivation cases.
5. Whether SIAC properly considered human rights issues under the European Convention on Human Rights (noting this issue was later withdrawn).

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• SIAC wrongly applied a subjective test of the Appellant's state of mind, unfairly concluding indifference to the deprivation decision without oral evidence, despite delays caused by family circumstances.
• SIAC failed to consider the Appellant's human rights under the European Convention on Human Rights, particularly risks of ill-treatment (Article 3) and unfair trial (Article 6), though this was later withdrawn.
• SIAC's conclusion that deprivation would not cause statelessness was incorrect, based on expert evidence on Somali law.
• The burden of proof should lie with the SS to show the Appellant would not be stateless, not on the Appellant to prove statelessness.
• The 1962 Somali Citizenship Law remained operative until 2012; transitional charters and governments lacked legitimacy, functioning legal system, or effective territorial reach during 2004-2012.
• SIAC misapplied the legal recognition criteria from Republic of Somalia v Woodhouse Carey, which if correctly applied would show no Somali government or law between 2004 and 2012.
• Article 10(4) of the 2004 Transitional Federal Charter (TFC) did not change the 1962 Law but provided a mechanism for retaining citizenship after acquiring another citizenship.
• SIAC improperly relied on Somali custom and practice, which should not inform legal status.

Respondent's Arguments (Secretary of State for the Home Department)

• Presented expert evidence supporting that the 2004 Transitional Federal Charter (TFC) became law in February 2004 and governed Somali citizenship thereafter.
• Asserted that the Appellant retained Somali citizenship by operation of the TFC and thus would not be stateless upon deprivation of UK citizenship.
• Argued that the burden of proof was on the Appellant to show statelessness on the balance of probabilities.
• Maintained that the transitional charters and constitution progressively established a legal framework for citizenship despite Somalia's political instability.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court focused primarily on the crucial question of whether the Appellant would be stateless if deprived of UK citizenship. It accepted SIAC's finding that the 2004 Transitional Federal Charter (TFC) became the supreme law of Somalia as of February 2004, based on expert evidence and prior case law, rejecting contrary evidence from the Appellant's expert due to inconsistencies with earlier sworn testimony.

The court emphasized that foreign law is a question of fact, and SIAC was entitled and bound to assess expert evidence and credibility. It found no basis to interfere with SIAC's conclusion that the Appellant retained Somali citizenship by operation of Article 10 of the TFC, which entitles persons of Somali origin to citizenship regardless of acquisition of other citizenships.

The court rejected the Appellant’s submissions that no functioning legal system existed or that the 1962 Law remained operative until 2012, noting that the Appellant conceded the TFC had legal force at least from August 2004 and that the narrow question was whether it was effective from February 2004. The court found the evidence supported the earlier date.

The court distinguished the application of state recognition principles from the question of whether a legal charter had force domestically, noting SIAC did not misapply the Woodhouse criteria. It also clarified that SIAC’s reference to custom and practice was incidental and did not form a basis for the decision.

On the burden of proof, the court confirmed that the SS must show satisfaction that deprivation would not cause statelessness, which is a comparatively light burden, but the Appellant must prove statelessness on the balance of probabilities if contesting that satisfaction. The court found no doubt remained that the Appellant was not stateless.

The court further rejected arguments that SIAC failed to properly consider human rights issues, as these were withdrawn following binding precedent.

Holding and Implications

The court held that the Appellant was not stateless at the time of deprivation of UK citizenship and that SIAC was correct to refuse an extension of time for appeal.

The direct effect of this decision is the dismissal of the Appellant's appeal and the upholding of the deprivation order. The court noted that no special circumstances justified extending time, and that any appeal would be pointless given the finding on statelessness. The decision does not establish new precedent beyond affirming the proper application of existing legal principles on citizenship deprivation, burden of proof, and foreign law assessment.