Under Section 40A(1) of the British Nationality Act 1981, you can appeal against a decision of the Home Office to deprive you of your British nationality. Decision on deprivation of citizenship under section 40 of the British Nationality Act 1981 is made on grounds of fraud, false representation or concealment of material fact or on grounds of conduciveness to the public good. Section 40 of the British Nationality Act 1981 gives the Secretary of State powers to deprive a person of his British citizenship and Section 40A(1) of the British Nationality Act 1981 gives a statutory right of appeal to the First Tier Tribunal against such decision of the Secretary of State to deprive a person of his British citizenship.
Free Immigration Advice For Appeal Against Deprivation Of British Nationality
Our specialist team of immigration solicitors can provide one-off free immigration advice online in relation to your appeal against the deprivation of British nationality. Ask a question online to our specialist team of immigration solicitors for free immigration advice online, or book an appointment online for detailed immigration advice and consultation with one of our immigration solicitors concerning your application for appeal against deprivation of British nationality.
What Are Grounds For Deprivation Of British Nationality?
The power to deprive a person of British Citizenship has been possible for over a century since the 1914 British Nationality and Status of Aliens Act. It is currently in section 40 of the British Nationality Act 1981 and can be used by the Secretary of State for the Home Department (SSHD) for two reasons which are as follows:
Deprivation Of British Citizenship Where It Is Conducive To The Public Good
Deprivation of citizenship where it is conducive to the public good is reserved for those who pose a threat to the UK or whose conduct involves very high harm, for example in response to activities such as those involving:
- national security including espionage and acts of terrorism
- unacceptable behaviour such as the ‘glorification’ of terrorism
- war crimes
- serious organised crime
“Conducive to the public good” means that it is in the public interest to deprive an individual of British citizenship because of their conduct and/or the threat they pose to the UK. Examples of when a person can be deprived of British citizenship on the ground that it is conducive to the public good include, but are not limited to:
- the interests of national security, for reasons relating to terrorism, hostile state activity, or any other reason
- where the person has been involved in serious organised crime
- where the person has been involved in war crimes, crimes against humanity, or other unacceptable behaviour
There may be overlap between these, for example serious organised crime may have implications for national security.
A decision to deprive a person of British citizenship on the grounds it is conducive to the public good (conducive grounds) can only be made by the Home Secretary (or in their absence, another Secretary of State) and it is for them to determine personally whether a person’s actions are such that it is in the public interest that they are no longer a British citizen. In such cases, the power is used sparingly and complies with the UN Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness.
Deprivation Of British Citizenship On The Grounds Of Fraud
Deprivation of citizenship on the grounds of fraud is for those who obtained their citizenship fraudulently and so were never entitled to it in the first place. An individual in the UK who has been deprived of their British citizenship no longer has any UK immigration status, and they might be granted permission to stay, or steps can be taken by the Home Office UKVI to remove them from the UK. If they are overseas, they cannot re-enter the UK using a British passport.
Section 40(3) of the BNA 1981 provides for a person who has naturalised or registered as a British citizen, British Overseas Territories Citizen, British Overseas Citizen, British National (Overseas), British Protected Person or British Subject to be deprived of their citizenship if the Home Secretary is satisfied citizenship was obtained by means of:
- fraud
- false representations
- concealment of a material fact
Statelessness is not a bar to deprivation of citizenship under section 40(3) although it may be a factor to be considered by the Secretary of State for the Home Department (SSHD). When considering whether deprivation is appropriate, the UKVI must ensure that it is based on sound evidence and is not reliant on speculation. The standard of proof to be applied when determining whether to deprive a person of British citizenship on the grounds of fraud, false representations or concealment of a material fact is the balance of probabilities. This means the Home Office UKVI must be satisfied that it is more likely than not that they have used fraud or withheld material facts to obtain citizenship.
The Status Review Unit in UKVI considers cases where deprivation is being considered on the grounds of fraud. Decisions to deprive on the basis of fraud must be approved at the Grade 7 level. However, if the case involves national security issues, the UKVI caseworker must refer it to the Special Cases Unit.
Can I Appeal Against Decision To Deprive British Citizenship?
Under Section 40A(1) of the British Nationality Act 1981, you can appeal against a decision of the Home Office to deprive you of your British nationality. In BA (deprivation of British citizenship: appeals) [2018] UKUT 00085 (IAC), the Upper Tribunal held, amongst other things, as follows:
"6 The Appeal is to be determined by reference to the evidence adduced to the Tribunal, whether or not the same evidence was before the Secretary Of State when she made her decision to deprive"
Deprivation Of British Citizenship and Statelessness
Under section 40(4) of the BNA 1981, a decision to deprive a person of British citizenship, on the basis that to do so is conducive to the public good, cannot be made if the Secretary of State is satisfied that the order would make a person stateless.
However, section 40(4A) of the BNA 1981, introduced by the Immigration Act 2014, provides for the deprivation of British citizenship on conducive grounds, even if it would render a person stateless, if they have conducted themselves in a manner seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the UK and if there are reasonable grounds for believing that the person is able to become a national of another country or territory.
How Can We Help With Appeal Against Decision To Deprive British Citizenship?
Our specialist team of immigration solicitors and lawyers in London can represent you in your immigration appeal to First Tier Tribunal (FTT) against Home Office UKVI decision to deprive of your British Citizenship and carry out all the work on your immigration appeal until a decision is made by the Immigration Judge of the First Tier Tribunal (FTT) on your immigration appeal. The immigration casework to be carried out by our immigration appeal lawyers on your immigration appeal will entail the following:
Discussing reasons for refusal and grounds for appeal: Our immigration appeal lawyers will discuss the reasons for refusal with you and advise you on potential grounds for appeal against deprivation of your British citizenship;
Advice on chances of success: Our immigration appeal lawyers will advise you on the chances of success in your immigration appeal against deprivation of your British citizenship;
Advice on the process and costs: Our immigration appeal lawyers will advise you on the timeframe, the costs involved and the court procedures;
Drafting grounds of appeal: Our immigration appeal lawyers will draft the grounds of appeal to challenge the refusal in the court arguing how the deprivation of your British citizenship is unlawful;
Advice on documentary evidence: Our immigration appeal lawyers will advise you on documentary evidence to be submitted in support of your appeal against the deprivation of your British citizenship;
Filing an appeal online: Our immigration appeal lawyers will complete the relevant appeal form to submit the notice of appeal, the grounds of appeal and the supporting documents to the First Tier Tribunal (FTT);
Complying with court directions: Our immigration appeal lawyers will liaise with the first tier tribunal after the filing of the appeal and fully comply with all court directions;
Assessment of respondent's bundle: Our immigration appeal lawyers will assess the Home Office Bundle (also known as Respondent's bundle);
Preparing brief to Counsel: Our immigration appeal lawyers will prepare a brief for the Barrister and instruct the Barrister so that the Barrister can represent you in your appeal against the deprivation of your British citizenship;
Preparing witness statements: Our immigration appeal lawyers will prepare detailed witness statements of all the relevant witnesses who will appear in court to give evidence before the Immigration Judge of the First Tier Tribunal (FTT);
Preparing the Appellant's bundle of documents: Our immigration appeal lawyers will prepare the indexed and paginated appeal bundles of all the supporting documents and file the same with the court and the Home Office Presenting Officers Unit (HOPOU);
Arranging pre-hearing conference with Barrister: Where necessary, Our immigration appeal lawyers will arrange a pre-hearing conference with the Barrister who will discuss your immigration appeal case with you and advise you about the court procedures in relation to your immigration appeal;
Follow-up work: Our immigration appeal lawyers will do all the follow-up work until a written determination (decision) of your immigration appeal is received from the court.
Why Choose Us For An Appeal Against Deprivation Of British Nationality?
There are a number of reasons why you can choose our immigration solicitors and lawyers in London to handle your appeal against the deprivation of British nationality. The main reasons include the following:
High-Quality Legal Services: Our team of the best immigration solicitors in London provides high-quality legal services for appeals against deprivation of British nationality. The high quality of UK visa and immigration legal services provided by our best team of immigration lawyers is self-evident from the 5-star Google Reviews rating by 99% of our clients.
Remote Legal Services: Our specialist immigration solicitors and lawyers can provide you with expert immigration advice and legal representation remotely from our offices in London. Using modern technology, our specialist immigration solicitors and lawyers can handle your appeal against the deprivation of British nationality remotely without the need for you to visit our offices. Whilst we are more than happy to welcome clients into our offices, if this is their preference, we are proud to be able to offer our legal services for appeal against deprivation of British nationality remotely to save your time and travel costs.
Open 7 Days A Week: We are open seven days a week and pride ourselves on providing dedicated immigration advice and legal representation for an appeal against the deprivation of British nationality.
All Work Carried Out By Qualified Specialist Immigration Solicitors: All the casework on your application for appeal against deprivation of British nationality will be carried out by our specialist team of fully qualified and experienced immigration solicitors who have extensive experience of dealing with appeals against deprivation of British nationality.
Free Immigration Advice Online: Our specialist team of immigration solicitors and lawyers can provide one-off free immigration advice online for appeal against deprivation of British nationality through our website enquiry form.
Fixed Fees With Payment Plan: Our immigration solicitors and lawyers charge reasonable and affordable fixed fees for an application for appeal against deprivation of British nationality with the option to pay our fixed fee in two instalments whereby you pay half of the agreed fixed fee when we start our work on your appeal against deprivation of British nationality and the remaining half when we have prepared the Appellant's bundle of documents and it is ready for submission to the court and the Home Office UKVI.
How Much Does An Appeal Against Deprivation Of British Nationality Cost?
The costs associated with your appeal against the deprivation of British Nationality are as outlined below:
Our Fixed Fees for Your Application
Our fixed fee for processing your appeal to challenge the deprivation of British Nationality ranges from £3,000 + VAT to £5,000 + VAT. Our fixed fee will cover all our work on your appeal until a decision is made by the Immigration Judge to determine your appeal.
Our fixed fee will depend on the complexity of your case and the volume of work involved in your appeal. You will make an initial payment of half our fee when we start working on your matter, and the remaining half is due once we have fully prepared the appellant's bundle and it is ready for submission.
Court Fee and Barrister's Fees For Your Appeal
In addition to our fixed fee for assisting you with your appeal, you must pay the court fees and the Barrister's fees separately.
What Are Our Other Related Services?
- British Citizenship
- Immigration Appeals UK
- Reconsideration of Naturalisation Refusal
- Judicial Review (JR) Against The Home Office UKVI
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) For Appeal Against Deprivation Of British Nationality
Following are the various frequently asked questions (FAQs) about an appeal against deprivation of British nationality:
Under Section 40A(1) of the British Nationality Act 1981, you can appeal against a decision of the Home Office to deprive you of your British nationality.
In a recent judgment in Chimi (deprivation appeals; scope and evidence) Cameroon [2023] UKUT 00115 (IAC), published on 19 May 2023, the Upper Tribunal has provided guidance on deprivation of British citizenship appeals, particularly their scope and the evidence that the Tribunal can consider.
The headnote of the judgment of the Upper Tribunal (UT) reads:
(1) A Tribunal determining an appeal against a decision taken by the respondent under s40(2) or s40(3) of the British Nationality Act 1981 should consider the following questions:
(a) Did the Secretary of State materially err in law when she decided that the condition precedent in s40(2) or s40(3) of the British Nationality Act 1981 was satisfied? If so, the appeal falls to be allowed. If not,
(b) Did the Secretary of State materially err in law when she decided to exercise her discretion to deprive the appellant of British citizenship? If so, the appeal falls to be allowed. If not,
(c) Weighing the lawfully determined deprivation decision against the reasonably foreseeable consequences for the appellant, is the decision unlawful under s6 of the Human Rights Act 1998? If so, the appeal falls to be allowed on human rights grounds. If not, the appeal falls to be dismissed.
(2) In considering questions (1)(a) and (b), the Tribunal must only consider evidence which was before the Secretary of State or which is otherwise relevant to establishing a pleaded error of law in the decision under challenge. Insofar as Berdica [2022] UKUT 276 (IAC) suggests otherwise, it should not be followed.
(3) In considering question (c), the Tribunal may consider evidence which was not before the Secretary of State but, in doing so, it may not revisit the conclusions it reached in respect of questions (1)(a) and (b).
Removing someone’s British citizenship, also known as deprivation of citizenship, is used against those who obtained citizenship allegedly by fraud and against allegedly the most dangerous people, such as terrorists, extremists and serious organised criminals. It always comes with a right of appeal.
- The Bill allows for the Home Office to deprive someone of their citizenship without prior notification but only in exceptional circumstances.
- The Nationality and Borders Bill does not change any existing right of appeal or widen the reasons for which a person could be deprived of their citizenship.
- Although the UKVI will always try to tell an individual that they are to be deprived of British citizenship, it might not be possible in exceptional circumstances. For example, this may be because UKVI does not know where they are because they are in a war zone where we can’t get in touch with them, or because informing them would reveal sensitive intelligence sources.
The Home Office UKVI makes decisions after carefully considering advice from officials and lawyers and in accordance with international law, including the UN Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness. Each case is assessed individually.
An individual can seek to exercise their statutory right of appeal against the decision - even if not aware of their deprivation at the time. The clause in the Nationality and Borders Bill would not impact the individual’s right of appeal. The Home Office UKVI would explain their appeal rights when they make contact with UKVI.
The European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) does not contain an absolute right to acquire a particular nationality or citizenship. However, once the UKVI have assessed that a person meets the threshold to be deprived of citizenship, they must consider whether their human rights are engaged. This does not mean they should not be deprived of citizenship, but where deprivation might interfere with a qualified ECHR right, the UKVI must carefully consider the impact deprivation would have on the person, and, if appropriate, their dependants and whether it would be proportionate. For example, such consideration is more likely to be relevant in relation to Article 8 where the person to be deprived is in the UK and has been for some time.
The Home Office UKVI must balance the impact deprivation will have against the reasons for depriving. Just because deprivation would mean that a person may experience disruption to their life, for example they may lose their job or access to benefits, it does not mean they should not be deprived of British citizenship. In the case of Aziz [2018 EWCA Civ 1884] the Court of Appeal made a clear distinction between the impact on a person’s human rights of a decision to deprive versus the impact of a decision to deport.
In addition, the court found that it was unnecessary to conduct an assessment of a person’s human rights as part of a decision to deprive in anticipation of whether they would be deported because that assessment would be done at a later stage in response to representations against deportation or removal.
Article 1 of the ECHR limits a contracting State’s obligations to secure the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention to those individuals within its jurisdiction. However, where a person is overseas and therefore outside the scope of the Human Rights Act 1998 when a decision is made to deprive them of British citizenship, the Home Office UKVI must consider if deprivation would expose those individuals to a real risk of mistreatment which would constitute a breach of Articles 2 or 3 as if they were within the UK’s jurisdiction and those articles were engaged.
