[2025] UKUT 00349 (IAC)

The two refusal decisions on appeal before us were written by the same decision-maker (identified only as “M.B.”). They are identical in almost all respects, with the exception of the precise details of each appellant’s immigration history. They begin by setting out the relevant law and Home Office guidance, each appellant’s immigration history and the representations they had made as to why they should not be deprived of their citizenship. This is followed by sections entitled Citizenship: Guide and Booklet AN, Citizenship: Annex E to Chapter 18 (Good Character), and Chapter 55: Deprivation and Nullity of British Citizenship, in which the respondent considers the appellant’s conduct and representations by reference to each of these guidance documents.

The final paragraph of the Chapter 55 section is the same in each decision:

“It is acknowledged that the decision to deprive on the grounds of fraud is at the Secretary of State’s discretion. In making the decision to deprive you of citizenship, the Secretary of State has taken into account all of the relevant evidence and concluded that deprivation would be both a reasonable and proportionate step to take.”

In each decision, this conclusion is followed by sections entitled Article 8: European Convention on Human Rights, Section 55 [referring to Section 55 of theBorders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009] and Statelessness.

With the exception of the date on which each appellant obtained British citizenship and the fact of how their deception came to light, the Article 8 considerations are also identical. They set out that deprivation did not preclude an individual from remaining in the UK and that therefore the possible effects of removal did not need to be taken into account, that the appellant would lose various benefits of British citizenship, but these were benefits to which they had no proper entitlement, and that it would impact on their identity, but the misrepresentation only came to light through communications from third parties and the Home Office would have considered taking deprivation action earlier if it could have done so.

The “Section 55” consideration is also almost identical. In Mr Mujaj’s decision, it reads in its entirety:

“The Secretary of State is also aware that you have four children in the UK. Section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009 requires the Home Office to carry out its existing functions in a way that takes into account the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of children in the UK. In deciding whether deprivation action is appropriate, I have taken this into account. Deprivation of your citizenship (as distinct from removal or deportation) will not, in itself, have a significant effect on the best interests of your children. It will neither impact on their status or their mother’s status in the United Kingdom, nor is there any evidence that it will impact on their education, housing, financial support or contact with you. Whilst it is acknowledged that deprivation may have an emotional impact on your children, taking into account the seriousness of the fraud, misrepresentation or concealment of material fact(s), it is a reasonable and balanced step to take.”

The Section 55 section of Mrs Mujaj’s decision is the same, except that it begins, “The Secretary of State is also aware you have four British children, two of which [sic] are under the age of 18” and the phrase “their status or their mother’s status” was replaced by “their or your partner’s status”.