![[2025] UKUT 00349 (IAC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_AioYBzS.png){kind=logo}
Conclusions
Notice of decision
The appellants’ challenges to the lawfulness of the respondent’s exercise of her discretion are dismissed on public law grounds.
The appellants’ appeals are dismissed on article 8 grounds.
E. Ruddick
Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber
17 July 2025
TO THE RESPONDENT: FEE AWARD
As we have dismissed the appeals, there can be no fee award.
E. Ruddick
Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber
17 July 2025
- Heading
- The appellants were granted anonymity before the First-tier Tribunal in consideration of the best interests of their children, two of whom were minors. Having heard from the parties, and taking into a
- Introduction
- The process that led to Mr Mujaj being deprived of his citizenship
- The process that led to Mrs Mujaj being deprived of her citizenship
- The respondent’s decisions
- The appeals before the First-tier Tribunal
- The hearing before us
- The legal framework
- The available grounds of appeal
- The respondent’s section 55 duty
- The relevance of the respondent’s compliance with her section 55 duty in a tribunal appeal
- The claimed public law errors in the respondent’s compliance with her section 55 duty in this case
- Did the respondent exercise her discretion lawfully?
- The decision to deprive Mrs Mujaj of her British citizenship
- Article 8
- Conclusions