Onuzi (Appellant) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Respondent)

Case summary

Case ID

UKSC/2026/0030

Parties

Appellant(s)

Betim Onuzi

Respondent(s)

Secretary of State for Home Department

Issue

Did the Upper Tribunal err in dismissing the appellant’s appeal against the decision of the Secretary of State for Home Department depriving him of British citizenship? Did the Court of Appeal err in dismissing the appellant’s appeal against the Upper Tribunal’s ruling?

Facts

The appellant entered the UK illegally on 28 November 1999 and claimed asylum in a false identity. The appellant claimed to be Betim Jonuzi, born on 22 February 1976, from Kosovo. In fact, the appellant is Betim Onuzi, born on 23 February 1976, from Albania. The appellant made his asylum application alleging that he had left Kosovo because of war and that he had been persecuted by Serb police and miliary groups because of his ethnicity. The respondent (SSHD) refused the asylum claim on 16 August 2000. However, a letter from the Home Office dated 13 February 2001 to an unknown recipient indicated that the appellant had been informed by social services in September 2000 that he had been granted Exceptional Leave to Remain (“ELR”) until 16 August 2004. The Home Office clarified that this incorrect record was transmitted to social services in error and the Home Office’s internal system indicated that there was no evidence of a grant of ELR on the appellant’s file. Although a field in the Home Office’s GCID system was checked to show that the appellant had been refused asylum and granted ELR, there is no other evidence to show that the appellant was ever notified of a decision to grant ELR by the Home Office or was issued with papers actually granting him ELR. The appellant’s case came before a Special Adjudicator who concluded on 24 May 2001 that following SSHD’s administrative error, the SSHD was estopped from denying that the appellant had been granted ELR for four years up to 16 August 2004. On 9 July 2004, the appellant applied for indefinite leave to remain (“ILR”), also in the false identity. In so doing, he signed a declaration that the information given in the form was complete and true to the best of his knowledge, and that he would inform the Home Office if there was a material change in circumstances. The form highlighted that it was an offence to make a false statement or representation or to obtain or to seek to obtain leave to remain in the UK by means which include deception. On 10 March 2006, a Home Office official noted in internal minutes in respect of the appellant’s application that delays and mistakes had been made in handling the appellant’s case and proposed that he should be granted ILR. The appellant was duly granted ILR by a letter dated 17 May 2006. On 25 April 2007, the appellant applied to naturalise as a British citizen, again in the false identity. In so doing, he ticked a box on the form indicating that he had not done anything that might cast doubt on his good character. Subsequently, SSHD issued the appellant with a certificate of naturalisation as a British citizen. Following investigations in 2020, it was discovered that the appellant was from Albania; not from Kosovo as claimed. When invited to make representations, the appellant admitted that he had lied about his real identity because he did not want to be returned to Albania. In a statement, the appellant expressed remorse for what he had done and asked for discretion to be exercised not to deprive him of citizenship status because he had lived in the UK for over 20 years and had a wife and three British children here. By a letter dated 4 November 2020, the appellant was informed that he was being deprived of his British citizenship pursuant to section 40(3) of the British Nationality Act 1981. Before the First-tier tribunal (“FTT”), the judge allowed the appellant’s appeal against the SSHD’s deprivation decision. However, the Upper Tribunal (“UT”) subsequently set aside the FTT’s decision and ordered that it should be remade by the UT. In remaking the decision, the UT dismissed the appellant’s appeal against the SSHD’s deprivation decision. The Court of Appeal (“CA”) upheld the UT’s ruling. The appellant now seeks permission to appeal to the Supreme Court.

Date of issue

13 March 2026

Case origin

PTA

Back to top