UI2023002854

       In essence, the grounds make one challenge to the judge's decision, namely that the judge failed to provide adequate reasons for her decision. I was assisted at the initial hearing by both advocates. Mr Jones had filed a detailed and helpful Rule 24 response to which I shall refer below.

       The Upper Tribunal should hesitate before finding that a decision of the First-tier Tribunal is inadequately reasoned. It is the task of the First-tier Tribunal to carry out a robust fact-finding on the evidence; it is generally unnecessary for the Upper Tribunal to interfere with the decision of the fact finder who had the benefit of hearing oral evidence. In this instance, however, the judge has, despite writing a detailed and thoughtful decision, fallen into error.

       Thirdly, I agree with the Secretary of State that the judge's treatment of the public interest in her Article 8 ECHR analysis is flawed. At [59], the judge writes:

I have considered the case of KV (Sri Lanka) v SSHD [2018] EWCA Civ 2483 in which it was stated:

Where, as in the present case, it is established not only that deception was used but that, without it, an application for naturalisation as a citizen would not have been granted, it seems to me that it will be an unusual case in which the applicant can legitimately complain of the withdrawal of the rights that he acquired as a result of naturalisation. That is because the withdrawal of those rights does no more than place the person concerned in the same position as if he had not been fraudulent and had acted honestly in making the application.