This was taken from UK Immigration Justice Watch Blog.
Posted on February 24, 2017 by Alicemuzira Standard.
When the Home Office seek to unfairly deny a man his entitlement to British citizenship and an Immigration Judge invokes justice.
A man born in the UK in the early 60’s about to a parent of Nigerian Origin, who were residing in the UK at the time about 52 years ago. He had a change of name with a British citizenship and the Home Office subsequently decided to take deportation action against him after a year of changing of his name that he is not a British National.
He applied for a Certificate of Entitlement to the Right for Above as a person born in the UK before 1 January 1983. The Home Office stated that “the birth certificate that he has provided was not contemporaneous and was issued over 44years after his birth day”. The Home Office treated him as a man who was not a British and had taken someone identity.
The Home Office went ahead to stop his benefits entitlement, despite he had serious physical and mental health problems because of his immigration status.
The Home Office refused to find out details about C’s life history, the Home Office did not bother to check from Passport Office about C’s previous name and the previous passport they have issued to him in the past. The Home Office refused to acknowledge that C’s was the same person who has done a change of name.
Mr C refused to make use of legal practitioner to deal with his case while he was having problems at early stage with Home Office regarding his application. The behaviours of C’s were part of the reasons why the Home Office was doubting if he was a genuine person who has the Right of Abode previously before he went to Nigeria.
It shows clearly that the law makers could take some citizens for granted and not given what is the rightful by law to them because of the bad characters or bad dealing that they have involved in the community. As it had clearly seen in C’s case with Home Office. The Home Office clearly ignored all correspondence sent to them including all the copies of the British passport and the change of name deed in relation to the new name of C.
The Passport Office had all the documentations that shows that C’s had his new name in previous passport that was issued to him but Home Office refuse to make enquiry from Passport Office. The Home office refused to acknowledge despite that C’s Nigeria passport shows that C’s was born in the UK. It was evidence that Home Office was aware that C had a British passport application outstanding as they point it out in their refusal of the certificate of entitlement.
It is noted in this case that immigration judge was not prejudice and equitable in his judgement by looking carefully into all the 15 pages of the grounds of appeal which served as “skeleton” argument.
The Judge realised that Home Office was not comply with Direction in a deportation appeal case. The immigration Judge refused the adjournment made by Home Office’s Officer. To the Judge he wanted to know if C is British Citizen or not, he was not interested in any argument. He discovered that C speak with English accent. C provided two suitcases containing documents running over many decades of his life in UK with his names. The Judge had eyes to details and carefully looking through all the bundle pages as he mentioned them in his judgements. He was not pleased with C’s past adverse history but he prepared to accept on the balance of probabilities that C was the same person who was born in the UK all those years ago in his judgement.
In conclusion, it is clearly seen that the government official could make some errors and make the citizen to suffer pains and ignored them from their human right as in C’s case which the Home Office total adamant to allow C to get Right of abode.
The Home Office ignored to find out from Passport Office if they have any documents identify C as a British citizen instead of threatening C to be deported back to Nigeria.
For the law maker to ignored the deportations regulations is unlawful act which is clearly seen in what the Home Office did in C’s case. The Home Office refused to gather all relevant documentation to ascertain the fact in C case.
The C case shows that there is injustice and mistake in UK immigration law which the courts need to corrected