Deprivation of citizenship appeal returned to First-tier Tribunal after error of law

The Upper Tribunal has set aside a decision of the First-tier Tribunal dismissing the appeal of a man deprived of his British citizenship after the Home Office alleged that it was obtained through the use of deception. In doing so, the Upper Tribunal has set out guidance in line with a recent Court of Appeal decision on how the First-tier Tribunal should approach appeals against decisions made under section 40(3) of the British Nationality Act 1981, which provides for deprivation of British citizenship where it was obtained by fraud, false representation or concealment of a material fact.

The case is Laci v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Deprivation; fraud; procedure) [2025] UKUT 230 (IAC) (this is a different Laci to the one from the previous litigation you may be thinking of).

The headnote reads as follows:

Following the decision of the Court of Appeal in Chaudhry v SSHD [2025] EWCA Civ 16; [2025] KB 395, the correct approach to appeals against decisions depriving a person of their British citizenship using section 40(3) of the British Nationality Act 1981 is as follows:

(a)   First, in cases where it is disputed, the First-tier Tribunal is required to find as a fact whether there has been fraud, false representation or concealment of a material fact, which is the statutory precondition for the making of a deprivation order under s40(3) (‘the precedent fact issue’);

(b)   Second, if the statutory precondition is met by proof of the precedent facts, the First-tier Tribunal is required to review on public law grounds whether the citizenship was obtained by the impermissible means (‘the causation issue’);

(c)    Third, the First-tier Tribunal is required to review on public law grounds the Secretary of State’s exercise of her discretion to make a deprivation order (‘the discretion issue’);

(d)   Lastly, the First-tier Tribunal must consider whether the Secretary of State has acted in breach of other relevant legal obligations, including section 6 Human Rights Act 1998. The First-tier Tribunal is required to resolve that question for itself whilst giving due weight to the findings, evaluations and policies of the Secretary of State.