We often represent individuals who are facing deprivation of citizenship. The Secretary of State may deprive a person of citizenship status if the Secretary of State is satisfied that that deprivation is conducive to the public good, or if the Secretary of State is satisfied that the registration or naturalisation was obtained by means of fraud, false representations or concealment of material facts (Section 40(3) of the British Nationality Act 1981).
We act often for Kosovan nationals who are not Kosovans, which means they obtain British nationality as asylum seekers using fraud, false representations or concealment of material facts. These cases are common and usually involve an applicant who assumes a false identity such as name, date of birth or nationality when claiming asylum and then subsequently maintained his false identity and details in the latter applications to the Home Office, including applications for naturalisation as British citizens. The majority of Albanians who presented themselves as Kosovans during the civil war and the immediate aftermath in the late 1990s and early 2000s are facing the same situation now.
Since the Supreme Court decision in R (HYSAJ) v SSHD [2017], the Home Office has made hundreds of decisions to deprive largely Albanians of their British citizenship. The decision to deprive gives rise to a right of appeal to the First-tier Tribunal under Section 40A of the British Nationality Act.
A newly reported decision in the Appeal Tribunal gives guidance on how the tribunal must consider the best interests of any children. In the case of Mujaj (Deprivation: children’s best interests) Albania [2025].
In a deprivation appeal affecting children, a tribunal must approach the question of the children’s best interests in the following way. First, it must identify whether the best interests of any child were relevant to any issue in the appeal and second, it must identify which of those issues are to be determined by the tribunal according to public law principles. Third, it must identify all of the respondent’s reasons for her decision whether the initial deprivation decision or in subsequent review or reconsideration, and take them into account where it is procedurally fair to do so.
In this case the parents were a married couple who were born in Albania, married in Albania in 1997 and came to the UK in 1998 and 1999. They made separate asylum claims in which each claimed to have been born in Kosovo and to be a minor. Both were granted refugee status and indefinite leave to remain and British citizenship in their false identities. They had four children, all of whom were born in the UK before their parents’ deception came to light. In 2022, the Secretary of State decided to deprive the father of his British citizenship and the same decision applied to the mother. All four children were still living in the family home at the time of the deprivation. The appellants appealed to the First-tier Tribunal and these appeals were dismissed. The Upper Tribunal set aside the decision of the First-tier Tribunal because there were three questions to answer:
- What was the foreseeable impact of the deprivation decisions on the appellants’ children?
- Did the respondent properly take that factor into account when deciding to deprive their parents of the British citizenship?
- Does the impact on the family mean that the decisions are disproportionate under Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights?
The solicitors confirmed to the respondent the true identity, apologised for the deception and argued that he was in fear of his life in Albania. They argued he was a successful businessman and it is important to note what the evidence said about the children. They stated that if the nationality is revoked, the family and the father will suffer great financial loss as he may not continue running the business. The family will be in a state of limbo and the family is very well settled in the UK with a network of support and such a network of support would not be available if he had to be deported from the UK and that would break up the family as he could not expect his wife and children to join him in Albania.
The reviews of the decisions resulted in the Secretary of State maintaining her decision, stating that the issue in this case was whether the Secretary of State has complied with the duty under Section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009, the statutory duty to safeguard and promote the interests of children when making the deprivation decisions. Whether the impact on the children and family was reasonably foreseeable and whether the deprivation decisions were proportionate under Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights and what guidance the tribunal should apply.
Summary
In a deprivation appeal affecting children, a tribunal must approach the question of the children’s best interests in the following way:
First, it must identify whether best interests of any child were relevant to any issue in the appeal;
It must identify which of those issues are to be determined by the tribunal according to public law principle;
It must identify all of the respondent’s reasons for their decision, whether in the initial deprivation decision or in subsequent review or reconsideration and take them into account where it is procedurally fair to do so;
With regard to those issues that are to be determined according to public law principles, it must determine whether the respondent complied with her Section 55 duty; and
If she does not, it must then decide whether the error was material and requires a decision to be set aside;
When deciding the issues that are for the tribunal to decide for itself, it must make its own findings about the best interests of any relevant child and take them into account as a primary consideration. This sets out the structured approach for appeals under the British Nationality Act 1981 for the provisions and decisions where children are impacted.