Tribunal decisions

The decision

Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: DC/00043/2015

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Heard at Field House
Decision & Reasons Promulgated
On 17th August 2016
On 22nd August 2016

Before

deputy UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE D E TAYLOR

Between

forhad [a]
(ANONYMITY DIRECTION NOT MADE)
Appellant
and

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Mrs H Gore, Counsel instructed by Lawland Solicitors
For the Respondent: Mr S Walker, Home Office Presenting Officer

DECISION AND REASONS
1. This is the appellant's appeal against the decision of Judge Tiffin made following a hearing at Taylor House on 9th June 2016.
2. The history of this matter is as follows.
3. The appellant was granted indefinite leave to remain in the UK on 5th April 2009 and two years later, on 17th November 2011, was granted British citizenship. He applied for a British passport on 1st December 2011 which was subsequently issued.
4. On 18th September 2015 the respondent wrote to him advising him that she had reason to believe that he had obtained his British citizen status as a result of fraud and on 7th December 2015 she gave her reasons for the decision to make an order to deprive him of British citizenship under Section 40 of the British Nationality Act 1981. A further notice of decision dated 8th February 2016 provided the basis of the appeal which came before the Immigration Judge. It is not necessary at this stage to go into any detail in relation to the judge's findings. Suffice it to say that she concluded that he had failed to meet the good character requirement for the grant of citizenship.
5. The appellant sought permission to appeal against that decision on a number of grounds and permission was granted by Judge Kelly on 20th July 2016. Judge Kelly said that there was a Robinson obvious point of law not identified in the grounds which was nevertheless arguable.
6. At paragraph 11 of the determination the judge said that it was for the respondent to satisfy her that there was a reasonable degree of likelihood that the evidence provided by her representatives supports the decision.
7. As Mr Walker properly accepted, that is a plain misapplication of the law. The judge cited the wrong standard of proof and consequently her conclusions are unsafe. This appeal will have to be re-heard by a judge other than Judge Tiffin in the First-tier Tribunal.
8. Before that hearing takes place the Secretary of State is directed to produce a copy of the passport application made in 2005 which is the subject of the dispute between the parties together with any reasons given at that time as to why the passport application was rejected.
9. The decision of Judge Tiffin is set aside, and the appeal will be heard by a different judge at Taylor House.

Signed Date 20 August 2016
Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge Tyalor