0
In Onuzi v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2025] EWCA Civ 1337, the Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal by Mr Onuzi from a decision of the Upper Tribunal, in a case concerning a decision by the Secretary of State to deprive Mr Onuzi of his British citizenship under s.40(3) of the British Nationality Act 1981 (“BNA 1981”), i.e. on grounds of fraud, false misrepresentation or concealment of a material fact. Julia Smyth KC and Harriet Wakeman acted for the successful Secretary of State before the Court of Appeal.
Mr Onuzi had used a false name and date of birth, and falsely claimed to be Kosovan, when he was in fact Albanian, when applying for asylum, indefinite leave to remain, and finally, when applying to naturalise as a British citizen. When his fraud was uncovered, he was deprived of his British citizenship by virtue of Section 40(3) of the British Nationality Act 1981.
Whilst Mr Onuzi did not dispute that he had used deception in his dealings with the Home Office, he sought to rely on the fact that, following an administrative error at the Home Office, he was treated as having exceptional leave to remain for a period of time after his asylum claim was refused but prior to the grant of citizenship.
Bean LJ confirmed at [32] of his judgment that in appeals against Section 40(3) deprivation of citizenship decisions (i.e. decisions taken on the grounds of fraud, false representation or concealment of a material fact), the correct of approach was that set out by the Court of Appeal in Chaudhry v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2025] K.B. 395 at [54] (in which Julia Smyth KC and Harriet Wakeman also acted for the successful Secretary of State, led by David Blundell KC). Namely:
“(i) it is for the FTT to find, in the event of a dispute, as a fact whether there was fraud, false representation or concealment of a material fact for the purposes of section 40(3) of the BNA 1981;
(ii) the decision of the Secretary of State on the causation issue whether the registration or naturalisation was obtained by the impermissible means is to be reviewed on appeal by the FTT on public law grounds, in accordance with the principles referred to by Lord Reed in paragraph 71 of Begum (No.1);
(iii) the exercise of the Secretary of State's discretion to make an order depriving a person of citizenship status is to be reviewed on appeal by the FTT on public law grounds in accordance with the principles referred to by Lord Reed in paragraph 71 of Begum (No.1); and
(iv) it is for the FTT to consider whether the Secretary of State had acted in breach of other relevant legal obligations, including those arising under section 6 of the Human Rights Act . Although due weight would need to be given to the findings, evaluations and policies of the Secretary of State, the decision was for the FTT.”
Bean LJ went on to note at [34] that the deception in this case was not in dispute, and “on the issue of causation, I consider it unrealistic to suppose that, despite the administrative mishaps in the handling of this Appellant's case, he would have obtained ILR in 2006 if the decision-maker had known that he had obtained ELR by deception about his true nationality. But that is only the background to the critical question here, which is whether the grant of British citizenship by naturalisation in 2007 was obtained "by means of" fraud or false representation.”
Accordingly, the Court of Appeal concluded at [36] that there was no public law error in SSHD’s conclusion that, had the truth been known when he applied for British citizenship, Mr Onuzi would have been refused British citizenship on the grounds that he was not of good character. As such, the Upper Tribunal’s decision was upheld and his appeal to the Court of Appeal was dismissed in its entirety.
Julia Smyth KC and Harriet Wakeman acted for the successful Secretary of State for the Home Department.
Click here to read the judgment
