[2025] UKUT 00349 (IAC)

Both appellants appealed against the respondent’s decisions and submitted further evidence, including appeal statements and various documents.

For the purposes of this appeal, it is important to note what the appellants’ appeal evidence said about their children. In Mr Mujaj’s appeal statement, dated 15 August 2023, he said:

“10.

If my nationality is revoked, my family and I will suffer great financial loss as I may not be able to continue running my business [….]

“11.

Once the decision to revoke is made, I and my family will be in a state of limbo […] there is no certainty that I will be able to work, run my business and if so required, in the future, to claim public benefits.

“12.

My family and I are very well settled in the UK and we have a network of support. Such a network would not be available should I be deported from the UK. It will certainly lead to the break-up of our family as I cannot expect my wife and my children to follow me to Albania.”

Mr Mujaj’s appeal statement thus suggested that his wife’s British citizenship was not precarious, even though the respondent had already decided to deprive her of that citizenship two months before. The skeleton argument submitted on his behalf muddied the waters further, arguing that his wife’s British citizenship weighed in favour of the appellant in the article 8 balancing test; this was drafted on 29 September 2023, more than three months after her deprivation decision.

Mr Mujaj’s evidence before the FTT included his children’s identity documents and various documents setting out his financial position. The latter included Company House documents and accounts for his business, tax returns showing that he had declared an income from employment of just over £12,000 for the tax years from 2019-20 through 2022-23, and £6,912 in 2018-19 and a mortgage statement in his wife’s name, showing an outstanding mortgage balance of £154,700 and monthly mortgage payments of £685. Finally, there was an email from the appellant’s eldest child to his legal representatives, setting out a table of estimated monthly income and expenses. This showed incomings of roughly £5,000 a month and outgoings of just under £2,800 in both personal and business expenses (not including the mortgage).

The respondent conducted two reviews of her decision in Mr Mujaj’s case and maintained her decision. The first was dated 8 October 2023 and addressed the article 8 issues, which at the time the respondent understood to be the only basis of challenge. The respondent noted Mr Mujaj’s concerns about the limbo period, but asserted that the period was not “excessive” and the consequences were proportionate to the seriousness of his fraud. The second review was dated 11 January 2024. It began by alerting the tribunal to Mrs Mujaj’s pending appeal and suggesting that the appeals be linked. It primarily addressed the question of whether the respondent had erred in deciding that the condition precedent had been met. With regard to discretion, the respondent did not review her decision in light of the appeal evidence. Instead, she pointed to paragraphs 36 and 37 of the refusal decision as evidence that discretion had been exercised lawfully in accordance with published policy. The second review did not address the issues of “Article 8 or foreseeable consequences”, on the grounds that they already been addressed in the 8 October 2023 review.

Mrs Mujaj took a different approach in her appeal. Her statement, the statement of her daughter and her skeleton argument all addressed the potential consequences of both parents being deprived of their citizenship at the same time. In her statement, Mrs Mujaj set out that she and her husband both worked and were the “sole breadwinners” for the family. Their eldest daughter was looking for work as a paralegal, their eldest son was at university, and their youngest two children were still at school. She said:

“18.

My biggest worry now is that both me and my husband […], who has a separate appeal against deprivation will, for an uncertain period of time, become illegal. We will have no right to work, claim benefits, drive or rent if that becomes necessary if we lose our home […] We could even have our bank accounts closed. I worry how we can support our children if that happens. We have no one to turn to for help.”

The couple’s daughter likewise referred in her statement to her parents both going through “the same process”. She wrote, “I understand they both will be allowed to stay here, but I also know there could be serious financial consequences for all of us while a decision is made on this.” She too referred to the risk that the family would lose their home if both parents lost their right to work.

Mrs Mujaj’s statement also included a table of expenses. This showed that she and her husband each earned £1,047 a month from their business, and that they received £159.60 in Child Benefit. Their outgoings were estimated to be £2,015 a month. She included payslips, tax returns, and bills to confirm this, as well as bank statements. Her two personal bank accounts had a combined balance of over £3,000, and her husband’s of over £9,000.

The skeleton argument, finally, squarely raised the arguments that both appellants now pursue before us. These included that the decision was unlawful because the respondent failed to take into account the impact on the family of depriving both parents of their citizenship, which was material to the exercise of her discretion, and that the respondent had not complied with her section 55 duty.

In the review in Mrs Mujaj’s case, the respondent responded directly to the issue raised about the impact on the family of the simultaneous deprivation decisions. She asserted that because the appellant and her husband had “lived within the UK for a considerable length of time”, they would have “developed a network of support who can assist if both herself and husband face deprivation action.” She also relied on Hysaj (Deprivation of Citizenship: Delay) Albania [2020] UKUT 128 (IAC) for the proposition that the children would be able to access to support under section 17 of the Children Act 1989.

On 4 March 2024, the two appellants’ pending appeals were formally linked on the myHMCTS system and they were listed to be heard together on 16 April 2024, with Mr Mujaj’s appeal designated as the lead case. Both appeals came before Judge Bibi at Taylor House on the same day. The same Home Office Presenting Officer was present on behalf of the respondent in both appeals, but each appellant was represented by different counsel. Neither appellant gave evidence in the other’s appeal.

The appeals proceeded separately in spite of the direction made on 4 March 2024. In two separate but substantially identical decisions, Judge Bibi dismissed both appeals, finding that the respondent’s decision to revoke their citizenship was both lawful and proportionate under article 8. Each appellant applied separately to the First-tier Tribunal for permission to appeal. Neither challenged Judge Bibi’s decision to uphold the respondent’s finding that they had obtained their British citizenship by fraud, but they both challenged the findings that the respondent had exercised her discretion lawfully and that the decisions were not disproportionate under article 8.

Both appellants were refused permission to appeal, and both renewed their applications to the Upper Tribunal. By this point, they had instructed the same counsel, who presented substantially the same grounds in each appeal, and after both applications were granted, the appeals were listed to be decided in a single hearing.

The appeals then came before Upper Tribunal Judge Ruddick for an error of law hearing. In a decision promulgated on 4 November 2024, Judge Ruddick set aside both of Judge Bibi’s decisions in part and directed that the appeals be retained in the Upper Tribunal for remaking.

The appeals were listed for hearing before us in December 2024, but we granted the respondent’s application for an adjournment to await the imminent judgments of the Court of Appeal in Chaudhry v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2025] EWCA Civ 16, Secretary of State for the Home Department v Daci [2025] EWCA Civ 18 and Secretary of State for the Home Department v Kolicaj [2025] EWCA Civ 10. Those judgments were handed down on 17 January 2025.