[2025] UKUT 00349 (IAC)

We find that the respondent did not exercise her discretion lawfully when deciding to deprive Mr Mujaj of his British citizenship. She was aware that he was the father of four children, and, having been provided with their birth certificates, she was aware that two of them were minors.

Even taking into account the respondent’s considerable discretion in complying with her section 55 duty (as recognised in CAO) and the general unlikelihood that the consequences of the limbo period for children will weigh heavily against depriving a parent who has acquired citizenship by fraud (as noted in Hysaj), some individualised consideration of the children’s circumstances was still required.

The deprivation decision contains a finding that there was “no evidence” that it would have an “impact on their [the children’s] education, housing, financial support or contact with you.” This is accurate. Mr Mujaj and his representatives had provided no such evidence. We consider that no rational decision-maker could consider that they could comply with their section 55 duty without any evidence whatsoever about the children’s circumstances. CAOmakes it clear, moreover, that although a decision-maker is entitled to presume that a parent will normally provide information sufficient to make an assessment of a child’s best interests, where they do not, the decision-maker has a duty to take steps to acquire it.

The nationality and immigration status of the other parent is clearly likely to be material to the assessment of the effects of deprivation on a child, because it affects that parent’s ability to help support the child by working or receiving public funds. In this case, the respondent was aware that the status of the other parent was precarious. The birth certificates informed the respondent that the children’s mother was Ermira Sina (Mrs Mujaj’s false name), which was reiterated in the brief representations from Mr Mujaj’s legal representatives. It is accepted that Mrs Mujaj’s use of this false identity had already come to respondent’s attention by sometime in 2022, and the representations reminded the decision-maker that both parents were facing deprivation. This should have made it even clearer that some specific information about the children’s circumstances was necessary.

We therefore consider that the respondent failed to comply with her Tameside duty and failed to obtain sufficient information about the children’s circumstances to enable her to comply with her section 55 duty when deciding to deprive Mr Mujaj of his British citizenship

We find, however, that this error was not material. If the respondent had sought more information from Mr Mujaj about his children’s circumstances, it is fair to assume that he would have not said anything more than what he and his wife said in support of their appeals. This included that the couple were living together with all four of their children. The eldest was working as a paralegal; she told us at the hearing before us that her salary had been £1,400 a month. The second child was studying, but there was no suggestion that he was not capable of working if necessary. The couple held savings of £12,000, which was enough to cover five months of their total outgoings. We consider that if the respondent’s decision-maker had acquainted themselves with these facts, the decision to deprive would have been the same. Indeed, as set out below, when, prior to Mrs Mujaj’s appeal hearing, the respondent did reconsider the exercise of discretion in light of all of this evidence, she maintained her decision.