Secretary of State for the Home Department vs Maleci

This case concerned the non-admission of late evidence in an immigration appeal involving the Secretary of State for the Home Department and Col Maleci.

TLDR:

• The Secretary of State sought to deprive Maleci of British citizenship based on alleged fraud.
• The First-tier Tribunal excluded late evidence submitted by the Secretary of State.
• The Upper Tribunal upheld the exclusion of the late evidence.
• The case underscores the importance of adhering to procedural directions in immigration proceedings.

The respondent, Col Maleci, entered the United Kingdom in 1997, claiming to be from Kosovo and was granted Indefinite Leave to Remain in 1999. He was naturalized as a British citizen in 2005. The Secretary of State for the Home Department later questioned Maleci's nationality and age, alleging that his citizenship was obtained by fraud.

In October 2021, the Secretary of State decided to deprive Maleci of his citizenship, supported by an Embassy letter from Tirana, which indicated discrepancies in Maleci's personal details. Maleci appealed this decision to the First-tier Tribunal.

The First-tier Tribunal issued directions for the Secretary of State to submit supporting documents by specific deadlines. Despite extensions, the Secretary of State failed to comply, leading to a sanction that excluded the late evidence.

At the substantive hearing, the judge excluded the late evidence, emphasizing the importance of procedural compliance. The judge noted that the Secretary of State had ample opportunity to request further extensions but failed to do so.

The Secretary of State's attempt to withdraw the decision to reissue it with the excluded evidence was also refused by the judge, who considered it an abuse of process.

The Upper Tribunal upheld the First-tier Tribunal's decision, stressing the need for procedural rigour and adherence to directions. The Tribunal emphasized that parties must appreciate the risk of exclusion if they fail to comply with procedural directions.

This case highlights the critical importance of following procedural rules in immigration proceedings and the potential consequences of non-compliance.

Legal representatives: Mr. D Clarke, Senior Presenting Officer for the appellant; Mr. C Timpson, counsel for the respondent.

Judicial Panel: The Hon. Mr. Justice Dove, President; Mr. C M G Ockelton, Vice President; Upper Tribunal Judge Blum.

Case Citation Reference: [2024] UKUT 28 (IAC)