Secretary of State for the Home Department v Altin Arusha

Secretary of State for the Home Department v Altin Arusha

The First-tier Tribunal did not err in law in its assessment of the evidence or in its findings regarding deprivation of citizenship or refusal of entry clearance. The Tribunal properly directed itself on the burden and standard of proof, considered the evidence in the round, and gave adequate reasons for its...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
First Respondent: Secretary of State for the Home Department; First Appellant: Altin Arusha; Second Appellant: Ugeza Demushi; Second Respondent: Entry Clearance Officer – Tirana
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 March 2012
Procedural Posture
Immigration and Asylum Appeal / Upper Tribunal Appeal (immigration and Asylum Chamber)
Outcome
both appeals dismissed
Legal Topics
Deprivation of Citizenship, Burden of Proof, Human Rights Grounds in Nationality Appeals, Delay and Procedural Fairness, Entry Clearance Requirements
Immigration Law Nationality Law Deprivation of Citizenship Burden of Proof Human Rights Grounds in Nationality Appeals Delay and Procedural Fairness Entry Clearance Requirements

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Secretary of State for the Home Department

First Respondent

Altin Arusha

First Appellant

Ugeza Demushi

Second Appellant

Entry Clearance Officer – Tirana

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Immigration and Asylum Appeal / Upper Tribunal Appeal (immigration and Asylum Chamber)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the First-tier Tribunal erred in law in allowing the appeal against deprivation of citizenship under s.40 of the British Nationality Act 1981
  2. 2 Whether the First-tier Tribunal erred in law in dismissing the appeal against refusal of entry clearance
  3. 3 Whether delay in promulgation of the decision rendered the determination unsafe and unlawful

Ratio Decidendi

The First-tier Tribunal did not err in law in its assessment of the evidence or in its findings regarding deprivation of citizenship or refusal of entry clearance. The Tribunal properly directed itself on the burden and standard of proof, considered the evidence in the round, and gave adequate reasons for its findings. Delay in promulgation did not render the decision unsafe as no nexus was shown between the delay and the safety of the decision.

Court Disposition

both appeals dismissed