then deported to Kenya without any possibility for him to challenge, in Court, the "prohibited immigrant" notice issued by the Minister of Home Affairs. 67.The Applicant alleges that the proceedings leading to the decision to invalidate his passport did not follow the legal procedure as required by Article 15 (2) (a) of the Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania. 68.The Applicant contended that his father, who is Tanzanian by birth and with whom the Respondent State's authorities claimed to have spoken, had requested a DNA test to ascertain their parental connection but the Respondent State's authorities did not accede to the request. 69.The Respondent State contends that the Applicant's passport was obtained on the basis of false documents, adding that the information on the copy of his father's birth certificate attached to the Applicant's passport application in 2006 turned out to be contradictory to the statements concerning his parents, obtained during the investigation conducted on 29 November, 2012. 70.The Respondent State further contends that the birth certificate issued on 6 september, 2015 mentioned by the Applicant and attached to the Application submitted to this Court was obtained on the basis of the false documents that were presented. 71.The Respondent State also submits that the Applicant was declared a nonTanzanian after the investigation in Masinono village where the Applicant claimed he was born; that in light of the discrepancies between the questionnaire completed by the Applicant at the lmmigration Office and the statements obtained during the investigation conducted on 28 November, 2015, the immigration authorities concluded that the Applicant is not a citizen of the United Republic of Tanzania. T2.According to the Respondent State, the Applicant had the opportunity to change his status to one that is legal given that he was asked, in a 76 @v