Immigrationboards.com

Thanks for your replies.

The applicant's visa history is fully considered at the time of naturalisation. Any previous visa fraud would result in refusal.

Theoretically, later knowledge of visa fraud could result in deprivation. However, you ask "how easy". My guess is not very easy as the historical number of deprivations is quite small:

2006 - 1
2007 - 1
2008 - 0
2009 - 0
2010 - 4

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/d ... itizenship

Also, deprivation cannot occur under international human rights law after 13 years in the country. Additionally, the UKBA's caseworker guidelines state not to bother with attempts to deprive if any appeal is expected ( in order to not waste government resources ).

It would appear deprivation is only actually pursued in cases of national interest - eg. terrorism or espionage, as in the case of "Anna Chapman" queried in the FOI request above:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anna_Chapman

So it seems pretty safe to say it is unlikely previous visa fraud would ever result in deprivation.

After naturalisation, if someone surrenders his/her original nationality, either voluntarily or due to legal requirement (e.g. dual nationality not recognised), then the deprivation of BC will make the person stateless. This is also not allowed under international law.

ban.s wrote:After naturalisation, if someone surrenders his/her original nationality, either voluntarily or due to legal requirement (e.g. dual nationality not recognised), then the deprivation of BC will make the person stateless. This is also not allowed under international law.

Hi Thanks for your reply.

Your point is quite reasonable. But given the reason for deprivation as below:

1. the deprivation is conducive to the public good and the individual being deprived would not become stateless as a result of the deprivation; or

2. the registration or naturalisation as a citizen was obtained by means of fraud, false representation or the concealment of any material fact;

I interpret it as rendering people stateless preventing deprivation only for point 1 (public good). It does not protect depriving citizenship if it is obtained by fraud (point 2).

How do you think about this?

rod_p wrote:
2006 - 1
2007 - 1
2008 - 0
2009 - 0
2010 - 4

Thanks for your reply. I think these numbers only reflect people being deprived due to public good. It does not include people being deprived because of fraud?

ryurocker wrote:
2. the registration or naturalisation as a citizen was obtained by means of fraud, false representation or the concealment of any material fact;

I interpret it as rendering people stateless preventing deprivation only for point 1 (public good). It does not protect depriving citizenship if it is obtained by fraud (point 2).

How do you think about this?

I am not an expert on this subject - so interested to know what would happen in #2 if the person becomes stateless!

ryurocker wrote:

rod_p wrote:
2006 - 1
2007 - 1
2008 - 0
2009 - 0
2010 - 4

Thanks for your reply. I think these numbers only reflect people being deprived due to public good. It does not include people being deprived because of fraud?

See below.

http://www.freemovement.org.uk/2009/10/ ... g-officer/

Albania recognise dual citizenship, so I presume the person in the above case never lost his Albanian nationality, so no risk of being stateless once his BC was stripped off.

Also see Abu Hamza keeps his citizenship

The most up to date tally of deprivations 'conducive to the public good' I know of is at An Act of Exile. So far the only person to be deprived that had a deep-rooted British ancestry is David Hicks, and he had a prior nationality.

I'm wondering whether the power will come to be applied to ordinary criminals.