United Kingdom - Mr Kleanth Dashi v Secretary of State for the Home Department

The case concerned the decision to deprive the appellant of his British citizenship on the basis that he had exercised deception in relation to his identity when he first applied for asylum. The court considered the application of the discretion by the Home Office (hereafter the respondent) and the impact the decision would have on appellant’s family, in particular his minor child. The court dismissed the appeal on the basis that the errors of law identified were not sufficient to affect the outcome of the decision.

Case name (in original language)
Mr Kleanth Dashi v SSHD, IAC
Case status
Case number
DC/00072/2018 (V)
Mr Kleanth Dashi v SSHD, IAC Appeal Number: DC/00072/2018 (V)
Date of decision
Court / UN Treaty Body
UK Immigration and Asylum Chamber
Language(s) the decision is available in
Applicant's country of residence
United Kingdom
Relevant Legislative Provisions

European Convention on Human Rights, Article 8

Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009, s. 55

British Nationality Act 1981, ss. 40(2), 40(3)

Human Rights Act 1998, s. 6


The applicant had entered the UK in 1995 to claim asylum. He claimed that he was named Sokol Rugova, a Kosovan national. In 2002, he obtained British citizenship following an application for naturalisation. However, in 2005, evidence was obtained as to the fact that he was instead an Albanian national of a different name. The deprivation decision was made as late as 2018, with the justification from the respondent that the British embassy in Tirana had provided them with information as to the applicant’s deception only in 2013. The appellant lodged appealed the decision of the First Tier tribunal.

Decision & Reasoning

The court first addressed ground 5, i.e. the anonymity order and found that while the proceedings may have an impact on employment, as the appellant admits that he exercised deception, there was no necessity of reinstating the anonymity order.

In relation to grounds 1 and 2, the court cited the case of Ciceri (deprivation of citizenship appeals: principles) [2021] UKUT 238 (IAC), as guidance for the application of case law. The court stated that its decision would be based on an evaluation of, inter alia, whether the respondent had made irrelevant considerations, failed to make relevant ones or acted irrationally. In considering the deprivation letter, the court found that the document should be assessed as a whole. The court noted that the delay from 2013 to 2018 was not fully justified, but it was not unprecedented in the case law. The First Tier Tribunal approach to evaluating the proportionality of the decision was found to be correct.

It then distinguished the present case from the facts in Laci v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2021] EWCA Civ 769 as in that case the affected individual had their passport renewed shortly before being deprived of their citizenship. Therefore, the court was satisfied that there was no error in law when the First Tier Tribunal reviewed the respondent’s decision. Furthermore, in relation to the delay in the deprivation decision, the Court rejected Laci as the authority for the proposition that any delay could interfere with the exercise of the discretion. Consequently, the court held that there had not been any relevant delay.

Lastly, the court addressed grounds 3 and 4. It accepted that there had been an interference with Article 8 of the ECHR in relation to the applicant’s inability to work during the time between the deprivation decision and the potential grant of leave to remain. However, this interference was found to be proportionate given that the applicant’s wife would be allowed to work and no evidence as to her earnings had been put forward to show that she would not be able to provide for the family.

Next, while the First Tier Tribunal judge had made a mistake in relation to the respondent’s intention and its effect on the child’s best interest, such consideration would have little effect on the outcome. S. 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009 does not apply given the appellant’s wife’s ability to provide and the short period of time between the deprivation decision the potential grant of leave.


The appeal was dismissed.

Caselaw cited

Hysaj (Deprivation of Citizenship; Delay) [2020] UKUT 128

Begum v Special Immigration Appeals Commission; Begum v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2021] UKSC 7

Ciceri (deprivation of citizenship appeals: principles) [2021] UKUT 238 (IAC)

Laci v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2021] EWCA Civ 769