The Court docket of Attraction has held that the Particular Immigration Appeals Fee (SIAC) was entitled to resolve that it will not be unjust to refuse to permit a girl in a refugee camp in Syria to lodge a late enchantment towards the Residence Workplace’s resolution depriving her of her British citizenship.
The case is F4 v Secretary of State for the Residence Division [2025] EWCA Civ 291.
The time restrict for interesting could also be prolonged the place it will be unjust not to take action. As famous by the Court docket of Attraction, this can be a excessive hurdle. Hardship to the appellant will not be sufficient. Any hardship must be set towards “the essential basic precept of authorized certainty and the desirability of guaranteeing compliance with guidelines of process” (at [16]).
This case demonstrates the significance of lodging an enchantment in time and the difficulties that may be confronted when this isn’t accomplished.
F4’s circumstances
The appellant on this case, anonymised as F4, lived within the UK together with her mom till she was 17. In round 2013, she left the UK for Syria the place she married a person who went on to bodily and verbally abuse her. She had two kids with this man: a son who was born in 2016; and a daughter who died when she was only some months previous in round 2019. Shortly after the loss of life of her daughter, F4 fled ISIS territory together with her son. She at present lives in a refugee camp in Syria together with her son.
On 20 December 2019 the Residence Workplace determined to deprive F4 of her British citizenship. This didn’t have an effect on her son’s standing. Though it isn’t explicitly talked about within the Court docket of Attraction’s resolution, he’s presumably a British citizen by descent. The choice to deprive F4 of her citizenship was served to file i.e. it was not despatched to F4.
The follow of serving to file – though lawful because of part 10 of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 – is extremely unfair. Nevertheless, this was of restricted significance in F4’s case as she was instructed in regards to the resolution by her mom earlier than the enchantment deadline had handed.
She additionally acquired a letter from the charity Reprieve explaining the choice, highlighting the deadline for interesting, and warning that it will be “very very laborious (possibly inconceivable)” to enchantment later. This letter was described as “a mannequin of readability and ease” (at [42]).
F4 despatched a number of VoiceNotes to her mom indicating that she didn’t need to enchantment.
The following enchantment to SIAC
An enchantment was lodged with SIAC on 24 August 2022 following F4’s resolution, made in June 2022, that she needed to enchantment towards the choice to deprive her of her citizenship.
What occurred between December 2019 and August 2022? Did F4 change her thoughts or was her way of thinking in December 2019 such that she shouldn’t be taken to have decided in any respect?
This was the query on the coronary heart of this case.
SIAC determined that F4 had modified her thoughts and refused to increase the time restrict for interesting. This resolution was upheld by the Court docket of Attraction.
F4’s preliminary reluctance to enchantment seems to have stemmed from “…a ‘deep-seated misapprehension’ in regards to the penalties of an enchantment for her and for her baby. She was afraid that the British Authorities would take her baby away by pressure” (at [32]). It took time for her to be reassured that that will not occur.
Nevertheless, SIAC was not keen to simply accept her declare that she was incapable of creating a call earlier than the deadline for lodging an enchantment. It held that:
To just accept that later materials [relating to her state of mind] would require a conclusion that though the VoiceNote strongly instructed that she had learn the Reprieve letter, she was ‘not sure’ that her citizenship had been taken from her. Despite the fact that her way of thinking then ‘might have been very sub-optimal’ it was ‘obscure why, if she was unsure, she didn’t categorical that to her mom and cousin within the messages. As a substitute, and in marked distinction, the messages exhibit a level of frustration which a youngster might usually really feel in the direction of a mum or dad who’s, of their eyes, badgering them to do one thing they’ve determined to not do’ (at [44])
SIAC didn’t resolve what the explanation for F4’s failure to enchantment truly was. This shaped the idea for the primary floor to the Court docket of Attraction. A second floor alleged that SIAC was mistaken to resolve that a proof which is objectively unreasonable can not justify the train of its discretion to increase time. The third floor of enchantment associated to SIAC’s therapy of the skilled psychological proof.
The Court docket of Attraction’s resolution
In relation to the primary floor, it was argued on F4’s behalf that there have been three doable causes for the delay:
The primary was ‘mind fog’: she couldn’t perceive that her citizenship had been eliminated. The second, which emerged from the proof of Professor Patel [who provided expert evidence eon F4’s psychological condition], was that she was ‘frozen’ or ‘overwhelmed’: she understood what she wanted to do, however couldn’t do it. The third rationalization was that she was afraid that if she appealed, her son could be eliminated. (at [80]).
SIAC didn’t settle for the primary two causes and, in relation to the third cause, determined that it was “plainly solely unreasonable for F4 to take care of that stance” (at [52]).
The Court docket of Attraction determined that SIAC was not obliged to make a discovering about F4’s actual cause for not interesting earlier:
SIAC analysed the proof rigorously. It was entitled to resolve that F4 knew all that she wanted to know with the intention to enchantment in time and had made a aware resolution to not enchantment… SIAC was not obliged to go additional and to make a discovering about F4’s actual cause for not interesting till June 2022. (at [86]).
In relation to the second floor of enchantment, the Court docket of Attraction held that SIAC had not determined that, as a result of F4 had acted unreasonably, it couldn’t lengthen the time for the enchantment. Slightly, there was no rationalization for the delay in any respect. She had intentionally made an knowledgeable selection to not enchantment. As such, the query of whether or not any rationalization was affordable or passable didn’t come up.
In relation to the third floor, the Court docket of Attraction didn’t settle for that SIAC had reached a conclusion on F4’s credibility after which thought-about whether or not this conclusion might be displaced by the skilled proof. SIAC didn’t take a look at the proof in inflexible and separate containers. It thought-about all of the proof within the spherical, and reached a balanced conclusion on it.
The enchantment was due to this fact dismissed.
