QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
London WC2A 2LL
B e f o r e :
|THE QUEEN ON THE APPLICATION OF HETTIARACHCHI||Claimant|
|SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT||Defendant|
WordWave International Limited
A Merrill Communications Company
165 Fleet Street London EC4A 2DY
Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
Mr C Thomann (instructed by Treasury Solicitor) appeared on behalf of the Defendant
Crown Copyright ©
"If on an application for naturalisation as a British citizen made by a person of full age capacity the Secretary of State is satisfied that the applicant fulfils the requirements of Schedule 1 for naturalisation as such a citizen under this subsection, he may, if he thinks fit, grant to him a certificate of naturalisation as such a citizen."
"The Secretary of State must be satisfied that the applicant is of good character on the balance of probabilities. To facilitate this applicants must answer all questions asked of them during the application process honestly and in full."
"Case workers should not normally consider applicants to be of good character if, for example, there is information to suggest...
(e) they had been deliberately dishonest or deceptive in their dealings with the UK government (see section 10)."
"Case workers should count heavily against an applicant any attempt to lie or conceal the truth about an aspect of a previous UKBA immigration application as well as the current application for naturalisation whether on the application form or in the course of enquiries. Concealment of information or lack of frankness in any matter must raise doubt about the applicant's truthfulness in other matters."
"Case workers should refuse the application where there is evidence to suggest that an applicant has employed deception either (a) during the citizenship application process or (b) in previous immigration applications processes."
"It is irrelevant whether the deception was material to the grant of leave or not. The fact that deception was engaged in during the current or any previous application is sufficient to warrant refusal on the basis of good character. In such cases the applicant should be advised that an application for citizenship made within 10 years from the date of refusal on these grounds would be unlikely to be successful."
"30. Furthermore, the questions that arise for decision in the two contexts are different, although similar. In relation to asylum, it is whether 'there are serious reasons for considering' that the respondent has committed 'a crime against peace, a war crime' and so on...
The test is objective, and the onus of establishing the serious reasons is on the Secretary of State...
31. In relation to naturalisation, on the other hand, the test is whether the Secretary of State is satisfied that the applicant is of good character. It is for the applicant to so satisfy the Secretary of State. Furthermore, while the Secretary of State must exercise her powers reasonably, essentially the test for disqualification from citizenship is subjective. If the Secretary of State is not satisfied that an applicant is of good character, and has good reason not to be satisfied, she is bound to refuse naturalisation. For these reasons too a decision in one context is not binding in the other.
33. Despite the importance of citizenship, I do not find it surprising that the test for exclusion from the Refugee Convention is more stringent than the test for exclusion from naturalisation. By definition, a refugee has a well-founded fear of persecution, and persecution in the extreme includes murder, but may also involve torture: fates far worse than statelessness. An unjustified refusal of asylum may therefore lead to the death or ill treatment of the asylum seeker."
"There are serious credibility issues relating to the sponsor's evidence. She admitted at the hearing that she had lied in the evidence put forward in support of her own claim in several material factors."