Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
             The appellant appealed, against the decision of First Tier Tribunal Judge Rodger promulgated on 18 March 2022 dismissing the appellant's appeal. That appeal was against the Respondent's decision dated 21 May 2021 to deprive him of his British citizenship. That decision was made on the grounds that British Nationality was obtained by means of fraud, pursuant to section 40(3) of the British Nationality Act 1981. In that the appellant was in fact an Albanian national and not as he claimed from Kosovo.
"Following KV (Sri Lanka) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2018] EWCA Civ 2483 , Aziz v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2018] EWCA Civ 1884 , Hysaj (deprivation of citizenship: delay) [2020] UKUT 128 (IAC) , R (Begum) v Special Immigration Appeals Commission [2021] UKSC 7 and Laci v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2021] EWCA Civ 769 the legal principles regarding appeals under section 40A of the British Nationality Act 1981 against decisions to deprive a person of British citizenship are as follows:
(2) If the relevant condition precedent is established, the Tribunal must determine whether the rights of the appellant or any other relevant person under the ECHR are engaged (usually ECHR Article 8). If they are, the Tribunal must decide for itself whether depriving the appellant of British citizenship would constitute a violation of those rights, contrary to the obligation under section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 not to act in a way that is incompatible with the ECHR.
(a) the Tribunal must determine the reasonably foreseeable consequences of deprivation; but it will not be necessary or appropriate for the Tribunal (at least in the usual case) to conduct a proleptic assessment of the likelihood of the appellant being lawfully removed from the United Kingdom ; and
(b) any relevant assessment of proportionality is for the Tribunal to make, on the evidence before it (which may not be the same as the evidence considered by the Secretary of State).
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.