The High Court has upheld a decision to refuse a child’s application for British citizenship, despite the minimal reasons provided for the refusal. The case, R (OBN (a minor) by his litigation friend ASM) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department [2024] EWHC 1833 (Admin), centred on a child born in Bangladesh who arrived in the UK with his mother in September 2020.
The claimant, born on 19 December 2013, entered the UK at age six with leave to remain until 22 April 2023. His father, ASM, became a naturalised British citizen in 2021, and his sister, born in September 2021, was a British citizen by birth. On 25 February 2023, ASM applied for his son to be registered as a British citizen under section 3(1) of the British Nationality Act 1981, which allows for discretionary registration by the Home Secretary.
The application was refused on 26 April 2023. The refusal letter cited that the claimant did not meet the criteria as he was not settled in the UK, and although one parent was British, the other was not settled. The refusal concluded by stating, “I have considered whether there are grounds to exercise discretion to register you as a British citizen, however, I am not satisfied there are sufficient grounds to do so. As you are a child, I have considered your best interest in making this decision.”
Judicial Review
The claimant, through his father, sought judicial review of the decision. The refusal letter mentioned the right to request an administrative review, which the claimant did not pursue, opting instead for judicial review. The Home Secretary argued for dismissal based on the availability of another remedy. However, the claimant contended that an administrative review would yield the same result, supported by a detailed response rejecting the points made in the pre-action letter.
The judge acknowledged that the claimant’s father should have requested an administrative review but decided not to dismiss the claim solely on this basis.
High Court Decision
The claimant’s main argument was that the discretion under section 3(1) is broad and does not require the claimant or his mother to be settled in the UK. The claimant referenced the case R (on the application of K (A Child)) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2018] 1 WLR 6000, where the High Court described the Secretary of State’s discretion under section 3(1) as “open-ended.”
Additionally, the claimant challenged the decision on the grounds that the refusal letter did not adequately show that the Home Secretary had fulfilled the duty to safeguard and promote the claimant’s welfare under section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009. The letter briefly mentioned considering the child’s best interests and provided a URL for further information, which the claimant argued was insufficient.
The High Court rejected the challenge, stating, “I am satisfied that the reasons leading to the refusal to grant the claimant British citizenship is adequately, if somewhat barely, set out in the refusal letter. There is sufficient information contained in the refusal letter for those acting on behalf of the claimant to understand why he did not satisfy the criteria in the Guidance, and why after consideration of his best interests, the SSHD did not exercise his discretion to permit his registration as a British citizen.”
If you are thinking about applying to register your child as British or have received a recent refusal, please get in contact and one our expert immigration advisors will be able to assist.