[2025] UKUT 00230 (IAC)

The evidence before the First-tier Tribunal is set out in detail at paragraphs 17-19 of the decision. The Respondent’s evidence included in particular a reproduction of a passport-style photograph annotated with the details of an Albanian identity card and passport that expired on 8 May 2021 in the name of Theodhori Laçi (‘the ID card photo’). Other documentation included an Albanian birth certificate, a partially multilingual Albanian family certificate, and an untranslated letter dated 18 November 2021.

The Appellant’s evidence included his witness statement, a letter from the Ministry of the Interior of Albania dated 10 January 2023 showing the travel history of Theodor Laci between 2011 and 2023 and refusing to provide the same information regarding Theodhori Laçi due to data protection issues, a statement from the Appellant’s maternal uncle dated 29 December 2022, background information about Mitrovica, and documents relating to the Appellant’s business and life in the UK.

The Appellant also filed an expert report by James Zjalić dated 30 December 2022, which compared the ID card photo to the Appellant’s UK passport photo. The report identified 35 points of similarity between the facial features in the two photos and 7 points of dissimilarity, reaching the overall conclusion that it was more probable that the Albanian ID card photo was of the Appellant than of an individual “within the light skin tone population of the UK”. The report was, understandably, not relied upon by the Appellant, and the First-tier Tribunal recorded that the report had been included within the Appellant’s bundle because the Appellant’s representatives considered that they were obliged to disclose it by “the duty of candour”.

At paragraphs 25-26 of the decision, the First-tier Tribunal judge set out the applicable legal framework by reference to Chimi v SSHD [2023] UKUT 115 (IAC), which had been promulgated on the date of the First-tier Tribunal hearing. The judge directed himself, in accordance with the guidance in Chimi, that he was required to apply “established public law criteria” and review the Respondent’s conclusion as to whether the Appellant had engaged in deception, rather than carrying out a “merits based review” and determining the question for himself.

At paragraph 40, the judge found that

“…In particular, I am satisfied that the ID card photo and the information confirming that the photo relates to an ID card in the name Theodhori Laçi that expired in May 2021, was provided by the Albanian authorities. In my view, the ID card photo is the key piece of evidence supporting the respondent’s case on deception/fraud.”

He continued, at paragraphs 41-42:

“41.

The other evidence (i.e. the very similar names, the very similar dates of birth and the identical surnames of the fathers) suggests the appellant and the Theodhori Laçi may be the same person. However, I do not consider that on its own, this other evidence is sufficiently cogent to allow a decision maker to conclude, on the balance of probabilities that the appellant and Theodhori Laçi are the same person….I do not find this evidence, in itself, is capable of establishing the appellant and Theodhori Laçi are the same person. I find that to do so would not be ‘reasonable’ in the public law sense (i.e. no sensible person who applied their mind to the question could have reached that conclusion).

42.

I find the ID card photo and the appellant’s passport photograph are sufficiently similar to enable the respondent to conclude that they show the same person….I do not find the respondent’s conclusion that the photographs show the same person can be characterised as unreasonable or irrational in the public law sense. The respondent was entitled to conclude that looking at the evidence provided by the Albanian authorities as a whole, the likelihood of mistaken identity based on so many coincidences occurring simultaneously was very small indeed.”

At paragraphs 43-50, the judge considered the Appellant’s evidence, including the expert report and other supporting evidence. In respect of the expert report, he considered that it provided “strong support for the respondent’s conclusion that the appellant and Theodhori Laçi are the same person.”

At paragraph 48, having summarised the Appellant’s evidence of attempts to obtain information regarding Theodhori Laçi from the Albanian authorities, the judge stated:

“…I do not find that this or any of the other new evidence relied on by the appellant is sufficiently cogent to undermine the respondent’s decision, particularly in the context of the public law review.”

He concluded, at paragraph 50:

“Accordingly, looking at the evidence as a whole, applying the approach set out in Chimi (above) I do not find the respondent materially erred in law in finding the appellant and Theodhori Laçi are the same person and that the appellant obtained is [sic] UK citizenship by deception.”

He therefore dismissed the appeal.