The case concerns a married couple, an Iraqi man and a stateless woman, who were denied a judicial review of the Secretary of State’s decision to refuse their application for naturalisation in light of their former membership to the Ba’ath party in Iraq, citing this membership as sufficient to show that the applicants were not ‘of good character’.
- British Nationality Act 1981 (“BNA 1981”)
- Guidance to the British Nationality Act published on 30 September 2020 (the “Guidance”)
The applicants were husband and wife who both had permanent residence status (indefinite leave to remain) in the UK. The first applicant was a stateless woman who was born in Iraq to Egyptian and Palestinian parents. The second applicant was an Iraqi national. Both applicants lived in Iraq and were members of the Ba’ath party. Both applicants said that they had to become members of the Ba’ath party in order to attend university and/or work in their desired profession (teaching) and not for the political motivations for which the Ba’ath party stood. Both applicants received privileges as a result of their membership and seniority status within the party.
After the fall of Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq, the wife’s presence in Iraq became unlawful. As such, she left Iraq with the applicants’ three children in September 2006. The husband joined his family in the UK in May 2009.
Since moving to the UK, the applicants worked as teachers and volunteer lecturers. Their children became British citizens and attended school/higher education centres.
The applicants held permanent residence status in the UK and applied for naturalisation in July 2014. Their applications were refused in January 2019 on account of the fact that both applicants were previously members of the Ba’ath party. The decision referenced research which identified that between 1980 and 2003, the Ba’ath party (with others) perpetrated widespread and systematic crimes against humanity, war crimes and crimes of genocide. This prior association and membership meant that the Secretary of State did not consider the applicants to be “of good character” (per paragraph 1(1) of schedule 1 to the BNA 1981). The applicants sought judicial review of the Secretary of State’s decision.
The applicants sought to challenge the decision based on several grounds, including the Secretary of State:
- failing to apply her own policy properly, or at all;
- misdirecting herself in law by applying a ‘scale system’ or ‘credit system’ contrary to the test embodied in the BNA 1981;
- failing to take account of the following material matters:
- mitigating circumstances as to the claimants’ involvement in the Ba’ath Party; and
- evidence of the claimants’ good character in the UK
- the Secretary of State’s decision was irrational.
N/A
Taking each ground for judicial review in turn, as to the first ground, the Court found that the Guidance to the British Nationality Act specifically identifies that “'[m]embership of a particular group may be sufficient' to cast serious doubts on an applicant’s character, and thereafter directs consideration to other relevant features, such as the individual role of the applicant, the length of their membership and level of seniority within the group”. As such, the Secretary of State was entitled to refuse the couple's applications based on their previous membership to the Ba’ath party.
The applicants’ second ground was subsumed into their third ground. As to that third ground, the Court found that the Secretary of State had not disregarded evidence of the applicants’ character since their arrival in the UK. Whilst the Court suggested that it would have been helpful for the Secretary of State to summarise the information with which she had been provided, it concluded that “it was not necessary for her to do so in order to render her decision lawful.” The Court rejected these grounds.
Finally, as to the applicants’ fourth ground, the Court noted that it was for the applicants “to demonstrate to the Secretary of State that they are of good character and… the Secretary of State’s decision that the applicants did not demonstrate this, was well within the bounds of a decision that could be reached by a reasonable decision maker.” The Court rejected the fourth ground.
The Court dismissed the request for judicial review.
N/A
R (Thamby) v SSHD [2011] EWHC 1763 (Admin)
DA (Iran) v SSHD [2014] EWCA Civ 654
R (Al-Fayed) v SSHD (No 2) [2000] EWCA Civ 523
SSHD v SK (Sri Lanka) [2012] EWCA Civ 16
R (Hiri) v SSHD [2014] EWHC 254
R (DC) v SSHD [2018] EWHC 399 (Admin)
R (SA) v SSHD [2015] EWHC 1611
Amirifard v SSHD [2013] EWHC 279
N/A