![[2025] UKUT 00349 (IAC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_AioYBzS.png){kind=logo}
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
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 account Guidance Note 2022 No 2: Anonymity Orders and Hearings in Private and the specific facts of this case, we consider that the public interest in open justice outweighs the privacy interests of the appellants and their children, only one of whom is still a minor.
- 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