AM (Belarus), R. (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2024] UKSC 13 (24 April 2024)
Citation:AM (Belarus), R. (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2024] UKSC 13 (24 April 2024)
Rule of thumb: If a Migrant has been in the UK for a long time, even over 20 years, but has not co-operated with immigration authorities in this time, do they automatically get citizenship? No, UK citizenship is awarded based on co-operation & merit, and the fact that 20 years has passed is irrelevant if there has not been co-operation & working.
Background facts: This case was in the subjects of immigration law and the human right to privacy & family life.
The basic facts of this case were that AM arrived in the UK without any passport documentation or identity documents. He was removed to Belarus however the immigration authorities there stated that he was not from there. Immigration were unable to work out where AM was originally from. As AM refused to clarify who he was, he could not get checked out & get a bank account and a job. AM had a series of convictions in the UK. AM had been here for over 20 years & sought citizenship – this could have allowed him to work & not be on minimum benefits/universal credit. AM argued that it was a violation of his Article 8 right to family & private life as he was unable to work & form a life for himself – he led medical evidence to affirm that his situation was making him mentally ill.
Court held: The Court rejected the arguments. The Court affirmed that when a migrant refuses to clarify where they are from so that they can be identified, get a bank account, have their background checked out, so that they can get to work doing some job or another, and then is convicted of criminal offences, they do not qualify for citizenship, irrespective of how long they have been in the UK.
Ratio-decidendi:
‘103. Quite apart from these general points, the reliance by the Upper Tribunal on paragraph 276ADE was not appropriate, because it did not give proper consideration to the operation of the whole scheme of paragraph 276ADE. As explicitly stated in paragraph 276ADE(1) (para 37 above), the Secretary of State's policy is to grant LTR after 20 years' residence in the United Kingdom only if the individual does not fall for refusal under the specified suitability requirements. AM clearly could not satisfy those requirements (see para 39 above). He was currently the subject of a deportation order (S-LTR.1.2). His presence in the United Kingdom was not conducive to the public good because he had been convicted of an offence for which he had been sentenced to imprisonment for more than 12 months (S-LTR.1.4; see also S-LTR.1.6). He had failed without reasonable excuse to comply with a requirement to provide information (S-LTR.1.7(b)). He had made false representations and failed to disclose material facts in his applications for LTR and his human rights claim (S-LTR.4.1 read with S-LTR.4.2). The 20-year condition in paragraph 276ADE does not stand apart from these other conditions. It only becomes relevant if those other conditions are satisfied.
107. … In my view, the right to respect for private life under article 8 is engaged and may be interfered with or may potentially become the basis for a positive obligation where an immigrant is subject to an extended period with limbo status, without a grant of LTR to enable them to have a more enhanced opportunity to participate in ordinary life, including by being able to foster self-respect and form relationships with others through seeking employment.
117. As explained in the European authorities, the state has a margin of appreciation in deciding how immigrants should be treated in relation to according respect for their private and family lives. In my view, in the circumstances of the present case, the Secretary of State was clearly entitled to decide that AM should not be granted LTR. Allocating limbo status to AM, with the benefits associated with that, rather than granting him LTR and the more extensive benefits associated with that, was a proportionate measure in pursuit of the legitimate aims of maintaining effective immigration controls and focusing state benefits and other resources on citizens and lawful immigrants. The position arrived at in relation to AM struck a fair balance between his individual rights and interests and the general interest of the community which fell within the margin of appreciation to be accorded to the United Kingdom and to the Secretary of State as its representative’.
Lord Sales
Warning: This is not professional legal advice. This is not professional legal education advice. Please obtain professional guidance before embarking on any legal course of action. This is just an interpretation of a Judgment by persons of legal insight & varying levels of legal specialism, experience & expertise. Please read the Judgment yourself and form your own interpretation of it with professional assistance.