Before getting to the substantive questions, I would like to address the errata that has been brought up, and will be dismissing it from my consideration of the question.
— Begin quote from ____
Viceroy’s Memorandum on Citizenship, 05/30/2018, “Announcement of Audit”
This particular Memoranda is explicitly self-limiting and has been expired since last year. This would only serve as an example of the Viceroy’s wide-ranging authority on citizenship or as a template for future audits
— End quote
This will be somewhat disjointed, though below I have laid out the various supports for the course of action of the Viceroy and CitiCom. The original question missed a couple pertinent Memoranda, and I am convinced with is a misunderstanding due to a misnomer.
— Begin quote from ____
The Dictum - Regional Considerations and Rights
…4.8- The East Pacific shall assert its right as a Region to deny entry or residence to any nation it has deemed a significant risk to the Region, including but not limited to nations which have been convicted of Treason or High Treason.
This passage has been widely interpreted as the Delegate denying entry or residence to nations, and has precedence of Delegates using this for such actions with non-citizens. This offers some credence to the consultation of the Delegate and Cabinet on the original Issue Application, and more so when considering the military nature of the denial. This alone could have been used to solve a security issue.
— End quote
— Begin quote from ____
Viceroy’s Memorandum on Citizenship, as amended 27/03/18, “Creation of the Public Conciliation Panel”
As the original author of this Memoranda, it was intended to be a public fora through which prominent and interest parties could debate a possibly questionable application. The panel is non-binding, and the Viceroy has the final say on the application, but was meant to have some reasoning and thought behind a high-profile applicant in case of denial.
This Memoranda does not require a panel in the case of a denial, nor does it preclude other processes for consideration. This is effectively immaterial to the question, since it does not place a requirement on the Viceroy or CitiCom.
— End quote
— Begin quote from ____
Viceroy’s Memorandum on Citizenship, as amended 10/11/17, “Citizenship Application Considerations”
This Memoranda establishes a procedural requirement for Citizenship Commission members to ensure the application and Oath have been completed before it can even be processed. This precludes those who have an incomplete application.
Further, it establishes a positive requirement for the applicant to have been fully truthful on the application. Though the Memoranda itself does not explicitly state what do do with an untruthful application, the applicant is required to swear on the contents.
Particularly the applicant swears to be “completely truthful in applying for citizenship within The East Pacific and that I have fully disclosed all information material to this application and its purposes.” If this is not the case, then the applicant has effectively committed perjury and/or fraud. It is safe to say that The East Pacific does not want to see itself become a haven for Perjurers or Fraudsters, and is a reasonable requirement to place on possible community members.
The dishonestly alone could have been used for the denial of the application, in my judgement.
— End quote
— Begin quote from ____
Citizenship Naturalization and Suspension Act
This Act explicitly bifurcates the concepts of Citizenship and Naturalization. Since it had never been the case where a person who ratified the Concordat was immediately masked and fully able to interact with the community as a citizen, it was reasonable to consider there would be some naturalization process to the forums. Without legislating the Forum admin/mod team, the Naturalization Act clarifies the process simply because of the unreasonably low bar of citizenship of mere residency and ratification.
The Act recognizes and respects the jurisdiction of the Viceroy on the matter of Citizenship, and considers Naturalization to be the major aspect of that.
— End quote
With respect to the Naturalization Act, I believe this is all a misunderstanding due to a Misnomer. The application of “Unity for NS” is not an application for Citizenship, rather an application for Naturalization. This denial is supported in a variety of ways, and is only challenged by the question regarding the denial of Citizenship.
If the Viceroy and Citizenship Commission can confirm that it was its intention to deny the Naturalization, that will solve the inherent nature of the advisory question.
— Begin quote from ____
IN SUMMARY
“Given the above, is the action to refuse Citizenship to applicant “Unity for NS”, without providing any legal ground whatsoever, legal under TEP law?” - Bach
Short answer - Yes.
Long answer - Yes, but technically the individual was refused Naturalization. Though generally a reason should be granted even if for plain decency. If this reason is procedural they should have a chance to fix the procedural mistake. If this reason is a ‘security risk’, ejection via the Dictum is possible, as have previous Viceroys convened Public Conciliation Panels to advise them on the treatment of the application up to and including denial.
— End quote
I will suggest the Viceroy and Citizenship Commission be more clear with their language in the future. Though the title “Citizenship Application” should be left for simplicity, it is prudent to not announce the denial of the Citizenship of an applicant, rather the denial of the application for Naturalization.