Court of Appeal Confirms Approach in Citizenship Deprivation Appeals (19 November 2025)

Duncan Lewis Solicitors has acted in a significant Court of Appeal case concerning the proper approach to citizenship deprivation appeals, with solicitor Rajni Chodha instructing counsel on behalf of the appellant, Mr Onuzi.

In Onuzi v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2025] EWCA Civ 1337, the Court of Appeal considered yet another challenge arising from the lack of statutory clarity in the British Nationality Act 1981 regarding how tribunals should determine appeals against deprivation decisions. While the Supreme Court in R (Begum) v SIAC [2021] UKSC 7 set out the broad principles, their application in naturalisation fraud cases continues to evolve through litigation.

A complex trajectory through the tribunals

The case concerned a deprivation decision under s. 40(3) of the 1981 Act, where the Secretary of State concluded that Mr Onuzi had obtained his British citizenship by means of fraud, having claimed asylum under a false Kosovan identity before later securing naturalisation.

Although Mr Onuzi succeeded before the First-tier Tribunal—persuading it that his citizenship had not been obtained by fraud—the Secretary of State appealed. The Upper Tribunal identified an error of law and remade the decision, dismissing the appeal. The Court of Appeal later granted permission, recognising that the case provided an opportunity to clarify the correct test on appeal.

However, by the time the case was heard, the Court of Appeal had delivered its judgment in Chaudhry v SSHD [2025] EWCA Civ 16, confirming that tribunals have a fact-finding jurisdiction on whether fraud occurred but may only review the Secretary of State’s conclusion that citizenship was obtained by fraud on public law principles.

The Supreme Court’s subsequent ruling in U3 v SSHD [2025] UKSC 19 further shaped the legal landscape.

Legal arguments and the Court’s findings

Against this backdrop, Mr Onuzi—represented by Adrian Berry KC, Christopher McWatters, and Tomor Bhaja, instructed by Rajni Chodha—refined his arguments. He submitted that when assessing whether citizenship was “obtained by means of fraud”, the Secretary of State must look back to determine what she would likely have done at the time of the naturalisation application, considering the nationality law and policy then in force. In particular, the “good character” policy at the time was flexible and evaluative, meaning refusal was not inevitable even if discrepancies existed.

It was argued that the tribunal, applying public law principles, should review whether the Secretary of State correctly adopted this approach.

The Court of Appeal ultimately upheld the Upper Tribunal’s decision, finding no public law error in the Secretary of State’s conclusion that, had the truth been known, naturalisation would likely have been refused on good-character grounds. The Court did not, however, provide further guidance on how tribunals should approach deprivation appeals applying public law principles—leaving important questions still open for future cases.

A strong performance by legal representatives

This case highlights the ongoing complexities of deprivation appeals and the evolving jurisprudence governing them. It also reflects the calibre of work undertaken by Duncan Lewis Solicitors.

Rajni Chodha played a central role in guiding a highly complex case through the appellate courts, working closely with leading counsel to ensure that the arguments were fully and robustly advanced.

Rajni Chodha is a Solicitor in the Immigration Department at Duncan Lewis Solicitors. She specialises in asylum, detained asylum casework, and immigration detention matters, including bail applications and appeals. Rajni regularly conducts Judicial Review challenges against unlawful detention and removal decisions made by the Secretary of State, with experience litigating before the Upper Tribunal and the High Court. She has substantial expertise working with vulnerable clients—particularly those in detention, individuals with psychological difficulties, and victims of torture or trafficking—and has a strong track record in challenging detention and securing the release of those unlawfully held.