UK resident with ILR loses challenge against refusal to grant waiver for Life in the UK test for citizenship

About this case:

• Citation:
  [2025] CSOH 40
• Judgment:
  External link
• Court:
  Court of Session Outer House
• Judge:
  Lord Lake

Shorsh Mohammadi, an Iranian national who suffered from reduced mobility and memory issues after his leg was amputated due to a gunshot injury, sought judicial review of a decision of the Home Secretary to refuse his application for exemption. He argued that the respondent was required to exercise discretion in circumstances such as his, and he ought to have been granted the exemption.

The petition was considered by Lord Lake in the Outer House of the Court of Session. K Forrest, advocate, appeared for the petitioner and S Crabbe, advocate, for the respondent.

Poor concentration

Under Home Office guidance, a person could be exempted from the KOLL requirements for naturalisation on a discretionary basis if they suffered from a long-term illness or disability that severely restricted their ability to learn English or prepare for the Life in the UK test. Alternatively, a person could be exempted if they had a mental condition preventing them from learning or speaking English to the required standard.

The petitioner submitted an application for exemption, supported by his GP, who said in the application that he suffered from low mood and depression, struggled with memory issues and poor concentration, and had difficulties improving his English language skills. His GP also commented that he felt the petitioner would not be able to manage the multiple-choice Life in the UK test and he guessed at answers due to lack of understanding of the process.

On 19 December 2022, the respondent wrote to the petitioner indicating that his application for exemption had been refused. In the letter, it was noted that he had been resident in the UK for 10 years and therefore it was reasonable that he would already have a good grasp of the English language, culture, and history. The petitioner was given until 19 January 2023 to provide additional medical information to support his claim of memory issues, which was not provided.

For the petitioner it was submitted that the respondent erred in seeking further medical information. The terms of the doctor’s report were such to indicate that his condition would prevent him from studying for the test. Counsel for the respondent submitted that the correct policy had been followed. The respondent was not obliged to accept the conclusions of the petitioner’s GP and the weight to be given to the report was a matter for their discretion.

Accepted the deficit

In his decision, Lord Lake said of the conditions for the grant of a waiver: “For the petitioner to obtain a waiver, it would be necessary to establish that he had a mental condition and that, as a result of that, it would be unreasonable to expect him to meet the requirements. It is apparent from this that the condition and the inability to complete the tests are two distinct things. This is understandable. If waivers were given simply on the basis that the applicant could not pass the tests, the policy would be wholly undermined and there would be no purpose in having the requirements.”

He continued: “Whenever an applicant was not able to meet the requirements, they would be able to seek a waiver. The British Nationality Act 1981 and the policy recognise that there may be situations where, because of the circumstances of a particular applicant which go beyond the fact that he or she cannot meet the test, it would be unreasonable for them to be imposed.”

Evaluating the material before the respondent in deciding the application, Lord Lake said: “The closest the report gets to identifying a mental condition is the reference to low mood and depression. In the report the petitioner’s inability to study and the fact he would guess at answers are not directly related to the issues of low mood and depression. There is no consideration of when a diagnosis was made, what treatments have been tried and what effect, it any, they have had. It was with these factors in mind, no doubt, that the communication of 19 December 2022 gave the petitioner a chance to submit additional medical information.”

He concluded: “The respondent has exercised the discretion conferred by the policy. In so doing, the respondent has not disregarded or ignored what was said by the General Practitioner. He has accepted the deficit referred to in the application for waiver form but concluded that on the basis of the limited information provided and the fact that the petitioner has been resident in the UK for some time, the petitioner has not established that the condition prevents him from taking the life in the UK test or learning English.”

The petition was accordingly refused.