British Nationality could it be revoked -not free to marry.

Hi All,
I have been reviewing the posts on this forum. I have to say I am highly impressed on how everyone shares information based on their past experiences. This platform is really helpful for general public, and kudos to the moderator for bring everyone with similar circumstances under one platform.

I need urgent help. I am in a very complicated situation. I was hoping if someone can shed some light and pass on some suggestions.

I met my current Mrs (A naturalized British citizen) in Pakistan back in June 2005 and in October 2005 we decided to get married. I was happy in Pakistan running my Software/BPO company and did not want to move to UK. She happily moved to Pakistan as it was her first experience living abroad since her childhood.

I have been married to my Mrs for 10 + years. She sponsored me to come to UK, I arrived here in December 2009, got my ILR in 2012 and British Nationality in August 2013.

I was previously, married in USA but due to personal problems early in my marriage never applied for a divorce. I was deported from there (USA) in March 2005. Upon my arrival in Pakistan, I sent my previous wife a Pakistani divorce certificate (April 2005) at her residence address in USA. I was under the assumption (call it my naivety or stupidity as I was only 22 at the time) I thought that was enough for the divorce to be settled.

Unfortunately, that is not the case and marriage is still valid. I was not aware of that until 2012 hence never declared it on my initial application for the UK sponsorship. My wife was aware and knew my situation, she suggested not to mention my previous connection with USA in my UK application.

For past three years we have been having issues and My Mrs has decided to file for a divorce. She is also blackmailing me that she will report to Home Office about my initial application, how I did not declare about my previous marriage and deportation.

Will it effect my British Nationality, is it possible for it to be revoked?

I am very confused and would like you kind people to help me out. All comments will be highly appreciated.

It is possible for a citizenship acquired through deception, fraud or misrepresentation to be revoked.

Your leave to remain was based on your marriage to a British citizen, but given that you were already married, you were not "free to marry" during the entire period of your leave to remain. That being the basis of your citizenship, that likely would fail too.

Given that you (presumably) have dual citizenship, it is easier to revoke your British citizenship as you will not be rendered stateless.

But the caseworker will have to consider quite a few points when it comes to revoking citizenship. They are listed in the document below.

Further Reading: Chapter 55: Deprivation and Nullity of British citizenship

secret.simon wrote:It is possible for a citizenship acquired through deception, fraud or misrepresentation to be revoked.

Your leave to remain was based on your marriage to a British citizen, but given that you were already married, you were not "free to marry" during the entire period of your leave to remain. That being the basis of your citizenship, that likely would fail too.

Given that you (presumably) have dual citizenship, it is easier to revoke your British citizenship as you will not be rendered stateless.

But the caseworker will have to consider quite a few points when it comes to revoking citizenship. They are listed in the document below.

Further Reading: Chapter 55: Deprivation and Nullity of British citizenship

Hi Simon,

Thank you for your reply, if I was to revoke my foreign nationality (ie Pakistan). What are the chances of British Nationality being revoked and expected outcomes.

Kind Regards

Voluntary renunciation does not count.

Have you read the document that I linked to?

Recent changes now mean BC can now be revoked even if it leaves someone stateless.

ILR can ofcourse be revoked given serious grounds.

secret.simon wrote:Voluntary renunciation does not count.

Have you read the document that I linked to?

Hi Simon,

Thank you for your reply.

Yes I did read the link and it shed some light. The case studies are quite similar to my situation.

What options do I have in your opinion. If my BC is revoked, will it effect my ILR status as well.

Kind Regards

noajthan wrote:Recent changes now mean BC can now be revoked even if it leaves someone stateless.

ILR can ofcourse be revoked given serious grounds.

Hi noajthan

Thank you for your opinion.

In your view, and after understanding my circumstances, will my ILR be effected.

Kind Regards

asa777 wrote:Hi noajthan

Thank you for your opinion.

In your view, and after understanding my circumstances, will my ILR be effected.

Kind Regards

Well you have gotten in a bit of a pickle.
Without mincing words a HO caseworker is likely to see:
bigamy;
suppression of & misrepresentation of material facts;
false Declarations on applications;

Based on the guidance & regulations I'm aware of (some posted by simon above) both your citizenship & ILR appear to be at risk.

Be aware that false statements on such applications are offences under UK law.
That may apply to your wife as well as you.

Suggest you seek professional advice on this case.
Good luck.

Your ILR automatically ceased when you became a citizen. You do not have ILR any more.

If you lose citizenship, either voluntarily or involuntarily, your ILR does not revive.

secret.simon wrote:Given that you (presumably) have dual citizenship, it is easier to revoke your British citizenship as you will not be rendered stateless.

British nationality obtained by fraud can be, and is, revoked regardless of whether it would leave someone stateless. Germany has the same principle.

noajthan wrote:Recent changes now mean BC can now be revoked even if it leaves someone stateless.

For reasons other than fraud?

Obie wrote:

noajthan wrote:Recent changes now mean BC can now be revoked even if it leaves someone stateless.

For reasons other than fraud?

Yes. British Nationality Act 2014 Section 66 allows a naturalised citizen to be deprived of British nationality if the Secretary of State is satisfied that the deprivation is conducive to the public good because the person, while having that citizenship status, has conducted him or herself in a manner which is seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the United Kingdom, any of the Islands, or any British overseas territory, and the Secretary of State has reasonable grounds for believing that the person is able, under the law of a country or territory outside the United Kingdom, to become a national of such a country or territory.

For example, a naturalised Jew caught spying for Israel might possibly be deprived of British citizenship.

Well the link you provided does not answer the question I was seeking to ask.

Mr Question to the moderator is whether the Secretary of State can invoke that provision in circumstances where there was no fraud and where the consequences is that a person will be rendered stateless.

The UK is a signatory to the 1961 convention on prevention of statelessNess. I had a bit of difficulty with a post that appear to suggest that such action could be initiated even if it leads to stateless .

The UK has gone far in removing citizenship , but under their international obligations, they cannot lawfully do so if the effect is that a person will be rendered stateless.

Here we go again.....

66(1)(c) is apparently shifting the burden of Statelessness to a foreign country; based on the Secretary of State's interpretation of the foreign country's nationality laws.

If a person is subsequently unable to resume the foreign nationality, then it's too bad. The U.K. didn't make him/her stateless. The foreign country did.

Obie wrote:Well the link you provided does not answer the question I was seeking to ask.

My Question to the moderator is whether the Secretary of State can invoke that provision in circumstances where there was no fraud and where the consequences is that a person will be rendered stateless.

The UK is a signatory to the 1961 convention on prevention of statelessNess. I had a bit of difficulty with a post that appear to suggest that such action could be initiated even if it leads to stateless .

The UK has gone far in removing citizenship , but under their international obligations, they cannot lawfully do so if the effect is that a person will be rendered stateless.

I'm not sure if the question is about removal in relation to fraud or apart from cases of fraud.

However I am happy to share the source of information I had in mind in the hope it provides a glimmer of illumination.

Ref: http://eudo-citizenship.eu/news/citizen ... -in-the-uk

The Immigration Act 2014, which received the Royal Assent on 14 May 2014, permits the UK government to remove citizenship from British nationals in some cases where the result will be statelessness. The powers it contains are now part of UK law but will not be implemented until ordered by the Secretary of State.

The British Nationality Act 1981, S.40(2) already permits the Secretary of State to deprive a person of citizenship if she is satisfied that deprivation is conducive to the public good.

...

Section 66 of the 2014 Act removes this protection from some groups of citizens. It inserts a new provision permitting the removal of citizenship acquired by naturalisation if the Secretary of State is satisfied that it would be conducive to the public good because the person has acted in a manner which is seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the UK.

The provision caused immense controversy when first proposed. It relies on a reservation to the 1961 UN Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness made by the UK government when it ratified the Convention and which was superseded in 2002 by changes to domestic law. The legality of reviving the reservation and the provision’s compatibility with norms of international law were questioned (see, for example, the opinion of the Open Society Justice Initiative and the opinion of Professor Guy Goodwin-Gill to the Joint Committee on Human Rights).

...

There are now several categories of British citizens whose status is more or less secure depending on their situation.
(1) Those who are British citizens by birth and do not have another nationality cannot have their citizenship removed.

(2) Those who are British citizens by birth or naturalisation and are dual nationals. They may have their citizenship removed if that is considered conducive to the public good.

(3) Those who obtained their citizenship by naturalisation who are not dual nationals so that deprivation will leave them stateless.
Their British citizenship may be revoked if:
1. It was obtained by fraud, false representation, or concealment of a material fact;
or
2. They are considered to have acted in a way which is seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the UK and there are reasonable grounds for believing that the person is able to acquire another nationality.

vinny wrote:66(1)(c) is apparently shifting the burden of Statelessness to a foreign country; based on the Secretary of State's interpretation of the foreign country's nationality laws.

I am no sure it is shifted. The Secretary of state has to have reasonable believe that the person will be able to regain his previous citizenship.

Therefore under 66 (1)(c) the burden appear to be on her.

Only if she provides sufficient or shows reasonable believe will the person then be required to rebuttal it.

Similar to a marriage of convenience situation.

Obie wrote:

vinny wrote:66(1)(c) is apparently shifting the burden of Statelessness to a foreign country; based on the Secretary of State's interpretation of the foreign country's nationality laws.

I am no sure it is shifted. The Secretary of state has to have reasonable believe that the person will be able to regain his previous citizenship.

There's nothing in the law about it being a previous citizenship. I'm not even sure that an analogue of British Overseas Citizenship is excluded. Imagine 'Eritrean Overseas Citizenship' with no residence rights but worldwide income tax and open to all who could prove identity and would swear allegiance.

section 40A (c) of the British Nationality Act 1981 states:

(C)the Secretary of State has reasonable grounds for believing that the person is able, under the law of a country or territory outside the United Kingdom, to become a national of such a country or territory

I interpret that law to cover a person is a dual citizen or as a result of Acquiring his British citizenship has not lost his or her citizenship.

That is the only sensible reading that could be made of that provision.

The subsubsection number in Obie's quote is garbled; it is Section 40(4A)(c).

Obie wrote:section 40A (c) of the British Nationality Act 1981 states:

(C)the Secretary of State has reasonable grounds for believing that the person is able, under the law of a country or territory outside the United Kingdom, to become a national of such a country or territory

I interpret that law to cover a person is a dual citizen or as a result of Acquiring his British citizenship has not lost his or her citizenship.

That is the only sensible reading that could be made of that provision.

No, for it is an exception to

(4)The Secretary of State may not make an order under subsection (2) if he is satisfied that the order would make a person stateless.

Under your reading, Section 40(4A) would confer no powers not granted by the rest of Section 40.

I am confused by your position.

Thanks for mentioning the ommission 40 (4A)(c)

I read 40 (4A)(c) as a precondition , before the Secretary of State can revoke a certificate .

My argument is very straightforward, if there is no reasonable believe on the part of the Secretary of State that the person may acquire or has another nationality, then that provision cannot be invoked.

The burden is on her to prove that on a balance of probabilities, that such is the case.

I really don't understand your position.

Obie wrote:My argument is very straightforward, if there is no reasonable believe on the part of the Secretary of State that the person may acquire or has another nationality, then that provision cannot be invoked.

That's a fair statement of the usual interpretation of the law. However, 'or has another nationality' seems to me to be redundant, as it is covered by the previous clause.

Obie wrote:The burden is on her to prove that on a balance of probabilities, that such is the case.

Again, that seems to be the interpretation.

However, Section 40(4) is worded bizarrely:

(4)The Secretary of State may not make an order under subsection (2) if he is satisfied that the order would make a person stateless.

That seems to reverse the burden of proof, and, even more bizarrely, permits the Secretary of State not to make any investigation. For example, if he has not considered whether the person is a Russian citizen, then he cannot be satisfied that the person will become stateless, and so may proceed! I think the law (if we must have it) ought to read

The Secretary of State may not make an order under subsection (2) unless he is satisfied that the order would not make a person stateless.

I believe this is how the courts are interpreting it.

I accept the provision you cited requires a transfer of the burden. However the fact remain that under 40 (4a)(C), the burden will be on the Secretary .

The burden or the initial burden cannot be on the applicant, as it is the Secretary of State who is seeking to with withdraw a certificate of naturalisation on the basis that the individual in question will not be stateless on the basis of the withdrawal.

Obie wrote:... the Secretary of State who is seeking to with withdraw a certificate of naturalisation ...

A quibble, but the certificate is not withdrawn. The miscreant will still have been British, and children born while he was British will remain British.

Back to the initial question as we seem to have gone astray. The OP can have his British Citizenship taken away if he used deception in his application. The material question would be, at the time he made the application did he reasonably believe that he was still married? There is also the issue the he failed to mention a previous marriage, even if legally divorced.

Also consider that his wife may be committing an offence by trying to blackmail him under s21 of the Theft Act 1968.