[2025] UKUT 00349 (IAC)

The respondent’s failure to comply with her section 55 duty is even clearer with regard to her initial decision to deprive Mrs Mujaj of her British citizenship. By that point, Mr Mujaj had already been deprived of his citizenship, by the same decision-maker, M.B., and in any event, Mrs Mujaj reminded M.B. that he was “going through the same thing” and his case had not yet been “resolved”. She indicated that she had two jobs, but one was with her husband’s transportation company. This job required leaving the country. She also referred to “this rough financial period”, albeit without providing any detail or supporting evidence. This was enough to indicate a potential risk of financial hardship to the children and require at least some further information about their current circumstances.

However, in Mrs Mujaj’s case, the respondent did reconsider her decision in the respondent’s review, taking into account Mrs Mujaj’s appeal evidence. By that point, the respondent was entitled to consider that she had all of the information she needed to make an informed assessment of the children’s circumstances. She had detailed statements from both Mrs Mujaj and the couple’s eldest child, as well as bank statements, mortgage statements, and a table of regular expenses. In a case in which the only concerns raised by the mother and the eldest child were financial, this provided an adequate basis for a rational decision. Having considered that information, and taking into account the likelihood of the family accessing support from friends and from the local authority, the respondent maintained her decision. It was clearly open to her to do so on the evidence before her.