UI2023004781

              The Respondent concluded that the deprivation of the Appellant's citizenship would be reasonable and proportionate taking into account his representations, Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the best interests of his children pursuant to section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009 and whether the Appellant would be stateless further to the deprivation decision.

              The Respondent expressly stated that once deprived of his British citizenship, the Appellant would become subject to immigration control and may be removed from the United Kingdom; however, a further decision would follow on any decision to grant a period of leave or to remove the Appellant. An indication was given that a deprivation order would be made within four weeks of the Appellant's appeal rights being exhausted and a further decision on his status in the United Kingdom within a further eight weeks.

          The Appellant did not attend the appeal nor did he make any written submissions in relation not it; as such there were no further submissions in support of his appeal beyond the brief statements in his original appeal set out above.

          So far as relevant to this appeal, pursuant to section 40(3) of the British Nationality Act 1981, the Secretary of State may by order deprive a person of a citizenship status which results from his registration or naturalisation if she is satisfied if that was obtained by means of (a) fraud, (b) false representation, or (c) concealment of a material fact.

          In Chimi (deprivation appeals, scope and evidence) [2023] UKUT 115 , the Upper Tribunal set out the questions to be addressed by a Tribunal considering an appeal against a decision under section 40(2) or 40(3) of the British Nationality Act 1981 as follows: