Challenge to refusal of naturalisation on good character grounds dismissed by Special Immigration Appeals Commission

The Special Immigration Appeals Commission has dismissed a review of the refusal of a naturalisation application on good character grounds, based on the applicant’s previous involvement with a proscribed organisation. The case is AZ (Naturalisation: Substantive) [2025] UKSIAC SN/04/2024.

Background

AZ is a Turkish national of Kurdish origin. When he was 15 years old he joined the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), a proscribed organisation, for a period of two and a half months, before surrendering to the Turkish authorities and spending time in custody as a result. Because he had surrendered and not participated in any armed activity he did not receive a custodial sentence.

Later he had other difficulties with the authorities and AZ arrived in the UK on 28 May 2011 and claimed asylum which was granted on 12 December 2012. In November 2013 the applicant was in a vehicle with some people from a Kurdish community centre and when they were stopped by police. In the car, the police found copies of Serxwebun, the official journal of the PKK. The occupants of the car were questioned without an interpreter and no further action was taken.

On 29 November 2017 the applicant was granted indefinite leave to remain. He applied to naturalise as a British citizen on 17 April 2019. This was refused on 6 October 2021, with the decision letter stating that he did not meet the good character requirement because he had been a member of the PKK.

The applicant then applied to have that decision set aside under section 2D(2) of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission Act 1997. In the course of those proceedings the Home Secretary provided new reasoning for the refusal, which was that the applicant had failed to declare his PKK membership, that the police report of the incident in 2013 was inconsistent with his claim to have had no involvement with the organisation since 2008, and “there was “no convincing material” suggesting he had publicly retracted or moderated his views supportive of the PKK”.

In response, the applicant filed amended grounds, including a claim of procedural unfairness, as well as additional evidence addressing the new reasons for refusal. The Home Secretary then withdrew the refusal and said that the decision would be retaken.

Further representations were made on behalf of the applicant on 11 February 2024 and on 17 July 2024 another refusal was issued. That was the decision under challenge in this case. This said that the applicant did not meet the good character requirement because “you have been involved with the Proscribed group the Kurdistan Workers Party”. The reasons were expanded on in an internal “Good Character Assessment” note.

Review dismissed

The first ground for review was that the decision was procedurally unfair because of a failure to provide an opportunity to address concerns before the refusal and the failure to provide adequate reasons in the decision letter. It was also argued that the decision was irrational.

In response to the point about advance notice of concerns, it was argued on behalf of the Home Secretary that there was no “minded to refuse” process in naturalisation applications. It was also submitted that there was no need to give advance notification that association with a terrorist organisation was a matter of concern.

SIAC accepted the submission that because of the published guidance, there is “generally no requirement for individual matters of concern to be drawn to an applicant’s attention in advance of a naturalisation application”.

SIAC held that sufficient reasons had been provided in the disclosed material, although it made some criticism of the Good Character Assessment. The tribunal also noted that AZ “had been able to launch a very detailed challenge to the rationality of the decision, demonstrating that there has not been any impediment to access to justice by reason of any lack of reasons”. The procedural ground was dismissed.

Similarly, SIAC concluded that there was a rational basis for the decision about the applicant’s involvement with PKK, again, although there were some criticisms to be made about the reasoning. The tribunal said that “It is clear that the Applicant’s association with the PKK when aged about 15 could not, itself, provide a basis for a finding in 2024 that he is not of good character”.

However it went on to say that that “In our judgment there was a rational basis for the Respondent to take the view that the 2013 police stop was evidence of a renewed or continued association with the PKK which undermines the Applicant’s claim to be of good character”. The rationality ground was dismissed.

A third ground, based on a breach of AZ’s article 10 right to freedom of expression, was not pursued at the hearing. The application for review was dismissed.

Conclusion

There are some learning points to take from this decision. In particular, in refusing the application the Home Office was critical of the lack of evidence of the applicant having “publicly retracted or moderated his views” of PKK. It is unclear whether doing so would have been enough to change the decision, however it seems sensible in these cases to ensure that this is somehow done and evidenced with the application.