The Particular Immigration Appeals Fee has dismissed a assessment of the refusal of a naturalisation utility on good character grounds, based mostly on the applicant’s earlier involvement with a proscribed organisation. The case is AZ (Naturalisation: Substantive) [2025] UKSIAC SN/04/2024.
Background
AZ is a Turkish nationwide of Kurdish origin. When he was 15 years outdated he joined the Kurdistan Employees’ Celebration (PKK), a proscribed organisation, for a interval of two and a half months, earlier than surrendering to the Turkish authorities and spending time in custody in consequence. As a result of he had surrendered and never participated in any armed exercise he didn’t obtain a custodial sentence.
Later he had different difficulties with the authorities and AZ arrived within the UK on 28 Might 2011 and claimed asylum which was granted on 12 December 2012. In November 2013 the applicant was in a car with some folks from a Kurdish neighborhood centre and once they had been stopped by police. Within the automotive, the police discovered copies of Serxwebun, the official journal of the PKK. The occupants of the automotive had been questioned with out an interpreter and no additional motion was taken.
On 29 November 2017 the applicant was granted indefinite depart to stay. He utilized to naturalise as a British citizen on 17 April 2019. This was refused on 6 October 2021, with the choice letter stating that he didn’t meet the great character requirement as a result of he had been a member of the PKK.
The applicant then utilized to have that call put aside underneath part 2D(2) of the Particular Immigration Appeals Fee Act 1997. In the middle of these proceedings the Residence Secretary supplied new reasoning for the refusal, which was that the applicant had didn’t declare his PKK membership, that the police report of the incident in 2013 was inconsistent together with his declare to have had no involvement with the organisation since 2008, and “there was “no convincing materials” suggesting he had publicly retracted or moderated his views supportive of the PKK”.
In response, the applicant filed amended grounds, together with a declare of procedural unfairness, in addition to further proof addressing the brand new causes for refusal. The Residence Secretary then withdrew the refusal and mentioned that the choice could be retaken.
Additional representations had been made on behalf of the applicant on 11 February 2024 and on 17 July 2024 one other refusal was issued. That was the choice underneath problem on this case. This mentioned that the applicant didn’t meet the great character requirement as a result of “you may have been concerned with the Proscribed group the Kurdistan Employees Celebration”. The explanations had been expanded on in an inner “Good Character Evaluation” word.
Evaluate dismissed
The primary floor for assessment was that the choice was procedurally unfair due to a failure to offer a chance to deal with considerations earlier than the refusal and the failure to offer ample causes within the resolution letter. It was additionally argued that the choice was irrational.
In response to the purpose about advance discover of considerations, it was argued on behalf of the Residence Secretary that there was no “minded to refuse” course of in naturalisation functions. It was additionally submitted that there was no want to offer advance notification that affiliation with a terrorist organisation was a matter of concern.
SIAC accepted the submission that due to the revealed steering, there’s “typically no requirement for particular person issues of concern to be drawn to an applicant’s consideration prematurely of a naturalisation utility”.
SIAC held that adequate causes had been supplied within the disclosed materials, though it made some criticism of the Good Character Evaluation. The tribunal additionally famous that AZ “had been capable of launch a really detailed problem to the rationality of the choice, demonstrating that there has not been any obstacle to entry to justice by purpose of any lack of causes”. The procedural floor was dismissed.
Equally, SIAC concluded that there was a rational foundation for the choice concerning the applicant’s involvement with PKK, once more, though there have been some criticisms to be made concerning the reasoning. The tribunal mentioned that “It’s clear that the Applicant’s affiliation with the PKK when aged about 15 couldn’t, itself, present a foundation for a discovering in 2024 that he’s not of fine character”.
Nevertheless it went on to say that that “In our judgment there was a rational foundation for the Respondent to take the view that the 2013 police cease was proof of a renewed or continued affiliation with the PKK which undermines the Applicant’s declare to be of fine character”. The rationality floor was dismissed.
A 3rd floor, based mostly on a breach of AZ’s article 10 proper to freedom of expression, was not pursued on the listening to. The appliance for assessment was dismissed.
Conclusion
There are some studying factors to take from this resolution. Particularly, in refusing the appliance the Residence Workplace was essential of the shortage of proof of the applicant having “publicly retracted or moderated his views” of PKK. It’s unclear whether or not doing so would have been sufficient to vary the choice, nevertheless it appears wise in these instances to make sure that that is in some way finished and evidenced with the appliance.
