why no reasons are given for refusal of citizenship

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Adm ... /1426.html


Please scroll down to the paragraph number 37.

37. AM, who has been told nothing of the reason for the refusal of naturalisation beyond that the SSHD is not satisfied that he meets the "good character " requirements, is a Pakistani national granted indefinite leave to remain in 2008. He is married with two children; they and his wife are British citizens. He works for a security firm, which required him to have police checks, and an SIA licence. He studied for a PhD at a UK University. He has been a part-time lecturer there. He has strong bond with the local community in Ilford, Essex. He too fears the damage to his reputation which would flow were the refusal to become known to his friends and neighbours, and to his referees. He has no criminal convictions. The refusal has caused fear to himself and to his wife. There is, contends Mr Southey, the potential for separation from his family. It was also impossible to know, though not impossible in fact, that other rights as well as Article 8 were engaged.

In the above case of AM the applicant was refused and its a really scary refusal of citizenship as no reasons are given as to why the applicant was refused and NO grounds are explained to contest the decision further.....any comments on the above case............

very interesting read. and very shocking as well.

innocentdevil wrote:very interesting read. and very shocking as well.

Indeed really shocking and unbelievable

Very scary!!

It means they can get away with anything. 'I don't like you so I will not give you and will not allow you to appeal either!!'

After reading the case seems like AM the applicant(and all other claimants in the same case) was a refugee at sometime but was granted ILR as a spouse of BC and then applied for naturalization on the same bases but prior to his marriage with the Brit he must have said or done something in his earlier applications for asylum or whatever which might have cast a doubt over his character and hence the refusal subsequently for citizenship.

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2009/287.html

3. All the claimants came to this country as refugees and have indefinite leave to remain as refugees. They have all been refused British citizenship on the sole ground that the Secretary of State is not satisfied that they are of "good character" as required by section 6 and Schedule 1 of the British Nationality Act 1981 ('the BNA'). Attached to this judgment as Annex A is a schedule which summarises both the stated reasons for that refusal and the immigration status of the claimant in each case, except FM.

I was convicted for 2 count of common assault in march 2010 (one conviction) and was given a community order and a fine thus a non-custodial sentence. I also have fixed penalty driving offences in 2005 and 2008 (the points have been removed from my licence). CCJ in 2012 but the CCJ has been settled and paid off in full. Every other areas of my application is solid except for the above. Do you think that i should declare the driving offences and CCJ. and do you think that my application is likely to be approved?

MattSule Please continue in your other post

Is it normal for no reason to be given for refusal or is this an isolated case of the HO simply keeping silent?

nionlight wrote:Very scary!!

It means they can get away with anything. 'I don't like you so I will not give you and will not allow you to appeal either!!'

That's not exactly true, is it?

This is a HC decision with leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal - and onward to the SC. Perhaps a referral to the ECJ somewhere in there as well.

Citizenship is discretionary. It is not a right and is fully at the discretion of the secretary of state. They can deny a person citizenship and wont have to explain it. There are other cases like this as well. I don't know if you know of Mohammed AL Fayed but his case is similar. He took the secretary of state to court for a reason and he still lost.

That's not entirely accurate.

Citizenship is not a right.

However, there are laws the govern the power, in this case discretion, exercised by the State and government. This is why this case has gone to court - because there is an argument that the law has been breached. The breach is not only statutory requirement but also that the power was exercised incorrectly, and therefore there was an application for judicial review.

Mohamed Al Fayed had two cases - one which he won, and the other which he lost. The first case, the court held in not giving the Al Fayed brothers reasons as to why their application was refused that the Secretary of State's decision was not fair. The court ordered the Secretary of State's first decision was quashed and the decisions retaken in a manner that was fair. The second case led from the first, where the decision was retaken. The Secretary of State raised concerns over Al Fayed's character as he was complacent in a crime involving a safe box and his involvement in the "cash for questions" scandal. He was invited to give evidence on these matters before a decision was reached, and subsequently he was given reasons as to why the decision was taken to refuse his application.

The issue in this case - from skimming it - is that the Secretary of State is not obliged to divulge the evidence/reasons for judging the applicants were not of good character, which would allow them to rebut the evidence at hand, because it is not in the interest of national security.

The Secretary of State cannot just decide that it doesn't like you, and therefore reject your application on entirely arbitrary grounds. In putting forward such a statement, you are liable to scare people into thinking that this is an entirely arbitrary and opaque process. However, it's not - and that's one of the great things about life in the UK - which is democracy and the ability for people to hold the State to account.

I hope this helps.

JR In those circumstances, will be the appropriate step to take, to have the decision to remove set aside.

The most interesting thing is that its not mentioned anywhere neither in the application form nor in the good character guidance that citizenship would be granted at the discretion and that its not a right!

If its not a right of someone settled permanently then why do they grant people settlement in the first place? why don't they just ask people to keep extending their visas no matter how long they have stayed and regardless of marriage to a BC.

Is ILR a right if you are here married to a BC or have been on any of the professional work category visas for an x number of years?

I dont agree with the above. Section 6 (1) of the Nationality act 1981, does say the Secretary may, if she sees fit, grant naturalisation. It is not mandatory, or it would have said the secretary of state must.

However this discretion is subject to public law principle to act fairly, reasonably and rationally. To provide adequate reasons . Failure to observe this, will result in the refusal being set aside.

The only times where it may be reasonable to not give a reason for a refusal is in the interest of natural security for example. Reasonableness must follow the principles set down in Wednesbury. However, the 'national security' card is often a very useful hand for the Home Department to play. The evidence will generally be precluded from the public eye, the case potentially heard in a secret court and the petitioner being non-the wiser.

D4109125 wrote:However, the 'national security' card is often a very useful hand for the Home Department to play. The evidence will generally be precluded from the public eye, the case potentially heard in a secret court and the petitioner being non-the wiser.

It's a trump card.