Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER Case No: UI-2026-002451
First-tier Tribunal No: DC/50132/2023
LD/00003/2025

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:

On 6th of October 2026

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE KEBEDE
UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE FRANCES

Between

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Appellant
and

MOHAMAD HIJAZI
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Mr E Terrell, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer
For the Respondent: Ms S Jegarajah, instructed by AMZ Law

Heard at Field House on 28 September 2026

DECISION AND REASONS
1. Although this is an appeal by the Secretary of State (SSHD), we refer to the parties as they were in the First-tier Tribunal (FTT). The appellant’s appeal against the respondent’s decision to deprive him of British citizenship was allowed by First-tier Tribunal Judge Mulready (the judge) on 30 March 2026.
Immigration history
2. In 1995, the appellant applied for and was granted British Overseas citizenship (BOC). In that application he submitted his Lebanese passport. On 4 June 2004, the appellant submitted an application under section 4B of the British Nationality Act 1981 for registration as a British citizen. The application was accompanied by a letter from his solicitors, which stated that the appellant was a British Overseas citizen and he did not currently hold any other nationality, and a letter from the Lebanese Embassy in London confirming that the appellant was not registered there. In the application form in response to the question “Have you ever held or do you now hold any other nationality?” the appellant ticked the box which stated “No”. The application was granted and the appellant became a British citizen on 11 August 2004.
3. On 23 June 2021, the HM Passport Office (HMPO) referred the appellant's case to the Status Review Unit on the basis the appellant should not have been registered under section 4B when he held Lebanese nationality. On 1 September 2023, the respondent notified the appellant of her decision to deprive him of British citizenship under section 40(3) of the British Nationality Act 1981 (the deprivation decision).
FTT findings
4. On appeal before the FTT, the respondent conceded that the appellant was not a Lebanese national in June 2004. The judge applied Chaudhry v SSHD [2025] EWCA Civ 16, Laci (Deprivation; fraud; procedure) [2025] UKUT 00230 (IAC) and Ullah v SSHD [2024] EWCA Civ 201. She found that there was a prima facie case of fraud and the appellant had provided a plausible innocent explanation. At [23] she took into account the respondent’s case and at [24] she concluded that the evidence before her supported the appellant’s case that he had not attempted to hide his previous Lebanese citizenship. The judge found that the appellant had provided evidence that he no longer held Lebanese citizenship in addition to evidence already held by the respondent, namely his old Lebanese passport.
5. The judge made the following relevant findings:
25. Additionally I do not consider it plausible that a person who has provided their Lebanese passport to a British Embassy would think they could tell the British Home Office that they had never held a Lebanese passport without being discovered for doing so, risking refusal of an important citizenship application on good character grounds.
26. The Respondent's position in the notice of intention to deprive, is that had she known the Appellant was a Lebanese national at the date of the section 4B application, the application would have been refused.
27. As confirmed to me by the Respondent's representative today, the Respondent now accepts that the Appellant was not a Lebanese national at the date of the section 4B application.
28. It is clear from the evidence before me that the relevant caseworker in the Home Office was also of the view the Appellant was not a Lebanese national at the date of the application, because at paragraph 14 of the notice of intention to deprive, the following extract from an earlier (undated) document from the Respondent is set out: "in view of the fact that the only other citizenship or nationality that the applicant could acquire through place of birth or through parents, Lebanon, do not allow dual nationality, we can be satisfied that the applicant does not hold any other citizenship. The applicant therefore could not have renounced, relinquished or lost any other citizenship since 4 July 2002. All criteria is (sic) met under section 4B."
29. It is clear also from the operation of Lebanese domestic law, as detailed in the Appellant's skeleton argument, that Lebanese citizenship is extinguished once another citizenship is granted.
30. The fact is the Appellant has not been a Lebanese citizen (at least) since the granting of his BOC passport on 13 July 1995, and so was not a Lebanese citizen at the date of his section 4B application, nor could he have renounced, relinquishes, or lost it since 4 July 2002.
31. Whether he had, before 4 July 2002, been a Lebanese citizen, is immaterial to his entitlement to British citizenship under section 4B. Even if he did perpetrate a deliberate fraud on the Respondent by ticking "no" to the question of whether he was currently or had ever been a citizen of any other country, this fraud could not have been material to the decision to grant his British citizenship because in order to obtain it all he had to establish was that he was a BOC and held no other citizenship at that time having not relinquished etc since 4 July 2002. That was the position, on the agreed facts, at the date of the section 4B application.
32. I am not persuaded in any event that there was any such fraud. I am [not](sic) satisfied the Appellant was acting dishonestly when he (or his representative) completed the section 4B application form. I accept it was an honest mistake.
33. It is clear from the late evidence provided (permission for which I grant as it is of assistance to the Tribunal), that the relevant caseworker in the Home Office was also aware of his previous Lebanese citizenship at the time of considering the section 4B application, because next to the box "nationality", the caseworker had written "Lebanon."
34. In light of the foregoing, I am not satisfied that the Secretary of State has established on a balance of probabilities that the Appellant's explanation is to be rejected.
35. I am not satisfied the Appellant's registration as a British citizen was obtained by means of fraud, false representation, or concealment of material fact. On that basis the appeal is allowed and no further consideration is required.
6. It is not in dispute that the judge found that the appellant was not dishonest and no point was taken by the respondent in relation to the typographical error in [32] of the decision.
Grounds of appeal
7. The respondent appealed on the following grounds:
(1) The concession (made by the presenting officer at the hearing before the FTT) that the appellant was not a national of Lebanon at the date of registration as a British citizen was wrong and the respondent should be permitted to withdraw it.
(2) The finding that the respondent was aware that the appellant had previously been Lebanese is not adequately reasoned and does not engage with the respondent’s submissions.
(3) The findings as to the appellant’s state of mind had no obvious foundation in the evidence and was irrational and/or inadequately reasoned.
8. The Upper Tribunal granted permission to appeal on all grounds for the following reasons:
The first ground of appeal argues that the concession made by the Presenting Officer - that Mr Hijazi did not hold Lebanese nationality on 4 June 2004 - was, by reference to the respondent's policy on 'Registration as a British citizen: other British nationals v 7.0', wrongly made. This ground contends that this is a clear mistake by reference to the only evidence before the First-tier Tribunal (IAC) relating to Lebanese nationality law and that there are good reasons why that concession should be withdrawn.
Although the judge concluded that the applicant had not been dishonest when he made his application for British Citizenship under s.4B, and although the judge maintains that any mistake is, in any event, immaterial to his assessment of the appellant's honesty, it is arguable, for the reasons given at [12] and [18] of the renewed grounds, that the concession, if wrongly made, may have affected the judge's assessment of the appellant's honesty.
Respondent’s submissions
9. Mr Terrell relied on his skeleton argument and submitted the position adopted by the presenting officer at the FTT was not sustainable. In response to questions from the judge, the presenting officer accepted the appellant was not a Lebanese national at the time he sought to register as a British citizen in 2004. Mr Terrell submitted the presenting officer did not advance the respondent’s case as pleaded in the respondent’s review (the review) and the response to the appeal under 24A(3) dated 4 February 2026 (the response). As a result, the judge wrongly considered whether the appellant had concealed his previous nationality and found he did not. The judge should have considered whether the appellant concealed his extant Lebanese citizenship.
10. Mr Terrell referred to the copy of the appellant’s Lebanese passport and the BOC application form and submitted the appellant had perpetrated a deliberate fraud because he knew he was a Lebanese citizen and he deliberately concealed that fact. In response to a question from the Tribunal about the appellant’s belief that he was no longer a Lebanese national given the letter from the Lebanese Embassy in London, Mr Terrell submitted there was no evidence from the appellant to show that he held that belief because the appellant did not give evidence.
11. Mr Terrell submitted that if the appellant held Lebanese nationality at the time of the grant of British citizenship then the decision was unlawful. Therefore, the Check Print document (the late evidence referred to at [33] of the decision) must be wrong. There was evidence in the respondent’s policy “Registration as a British citizen: other British nationals Version 7.0, dated 24 July 2024 (the 2024 guidance) which was before the FTT to show that the appellant can hold dual nationality. Mr Terrell accepted that the 2024 guidance provides that “a person born in Lebanon since 19 January 1925 will be regarded as Lebanese unless they acquired at birth another nationality including British overseas citizenship and British protected person”.
12. Mr Terrell submitted the concession was clearly wrong because the appellant was issued with a Lebanese passport and therefore he must be regarded as a Lebanese national. The judge erred in law in her findings at [29] and [30]. The respondent did not need to provide evidence of the operation of Lebanese law because the fact that the appellant had been issued with a passport was sufficient to show he was a Lebanese national. The respondent did not know the appellant held a Lebanese passport at the time she granted him British citizenship. The evidence before the judge did not show that the grant of BOC would extinguish the appellant’s Lebanese citizenship. Mr Terrell submitted the appellant was a dual national in 1995 and there was no evidence to show he had lost his Lebanese nationality prior to the grant of British citizenship in 2004. The letter from the Lebanese Embassy in London stated they had no record of him. The evidence before the FTT justified a finding that the appellant was a dual national in 2004 and therefore the concession was wrongly made.
13. Mr Terrell relied on AM (Iran) v SSHD [2018] EWCA Civ 2706 at [39] and [57(4)] and submitted the respondent should be permitted to withdraw the concession because it was unjustified. There was no evidential basis for the concession because the appellant held a Lebanese passport in 1995 and there was no evidence to show he was no longer entitled to it or that he had lost his Lebanese citizenship. The respondent had complied with the guidance in MH (Appendix EU: withdrawal of concession) Albania [2025] UKUT 351 (IAC) and made a formal application to withdraw the concession at the earliest opportunity. There was significant public interest given this was a case of fraud and the respondent had suffered prejudice because the concession effectively disposed of the appeal.
14. Mr Terrell submitted the concession was material because had it not been made the judge would have considered whether the appellant was a Lebanese national in 2004 and concealing nationality is considered dishonest: Ullah v SSHD [2024] EWCA Civ 201 at [28]. If the appellant was a dual national in 2004, he had a motive to lie because he could only be registered as a British citizen if he concealed his Lebanese nationality. Had the concession not been made, the case would have been considered on an entirely different basis and the conclusion would not inevitably have been the same.
Appellant’s submissions
15. Ms Jegarajah relied on her skeleton argument and submitted there was no evidence from the respondent to support the submission that the caseworker had made a mistake or to explain why the appellant was registered as a British citizen in 2004. There was no evidence of the applicable provisions and the respondent relied on an old passport as evidence of nationality. The appellant was represented by reputable solicitors in 2004 who also stated the appellant did not hold any other nationality. The appellant disclosed that he was born in Lebanon and had lived there from 1984 to 1992. The caseworker was plainly alive to all relevant issues. The UK government was indivisible and the appellant had provided his Lebanese passport to what he could have reasonably considered to be an officer of the respondent when he made his BOC application. Ms Jegarajah submitted the judge properly directed herself in law. The fact that the respondent knew the appellant was a Lebanese national was not relevant to the grant of citizenship and the judge’s decision was not irrational.
16. In response to a question from the Tribunal, Ms Jegarajah submitted that the respondent had a suspicion of dishonesty and considered the case retrospectively, but there was no evidence to support the respondent’s submission. Looking at the evidence as a whole, the judge’s finding that the appellant had made a mistake in his application form was open to her on the evidence before her. The appellant had submitted his old passport to the respondent in 1995 and he had produced a letter from the Lebanese Embassy which supported the appellant’s case that he was not concealing his nationality.
17. Ms Jegarajah submitted there was nothing in the grounds to demonstrate that the judge’s findings were not open to her. She applied the correct law to the facts and was entitled to come to her finding at [25]. The letter of 11 August 2004 referred to in the deprivation decision was relied on by the judge at [28]. The judge found the appellant had provided evidence of his nationality and accepted the appellant had made an honest mistake when completing his application form.
18. The concession was correctly made and consistent with the decision in 2004. There was evidence that the appellant was no longer a Lebanese national. There was sufficient evidence before the judge to support her reasoning if the concession had not been made. Even if the respondent had made a mistake in granting British citizenship in 2004, the issue before the judge was whether the appellant was lying or had made a mistake. The concession was not relevant to the substantive issue before the judge.
Conclusions and reasons
Ground 1
19. The respondent submits that the concession was clearly wrong because it was inconsistent with the deprivation decision and the case advanced before the FTT set out in the review and the response.
20. The deprivation decision states at [14]:
On 7 July 2023 and 27 July 2023 AMZ Law requested (sic) extension to respond (sic) SRU's investigation letter. On 7 August 2023, SRU received your mitigation letter through your legal representative, AMZ Law (Annex 01-03). On their letter they were stating that: “On 11 August 2004, Mr Hijazi was issued with a certificate of naturalisation as a British citizen and so became a British citizen on that date. Mr Hijazi current BOC passport was examined. It was noted that Mr Hijazi did not have sufficient residence in the UK to be considered under section 4(2) BNA 1981. The SSHD stated that: “In the view of the fact that the only other citizenship or nationality that the applicant could acquire through his place of birth or through parents, Lebanon, do not allow dual nationality, we can be satisfied that applicant does not hold any other citizenship. The Applicant therefore could not have renounced, relinquished or lost any other citizenship since 4 July 2002. All criteria is (sic) met under section 4B”. Therefore, the SSHD, having examined the documents attached to the application, had no concerns about entitlement or authenticity of the document.”
21. Section 4B entitled a British Overseas citizen to register as a British Citizen if the following conditions under section 4B(2) were met:
(a) he applies for registration under this section,
(b) the Secretary of State is satisfied that the person does not have, apart from the status mentioned in subsection (1), any citizenship or nationality, and
(c) the Secretary of State is satisfied that the person has not after 4th July 2002 renounced, voluntarily relinquished or lost through action or inaction any citizenship or nationality
22. The respondent’s review relies on the deprivation decision and acknowledges that the appellant submitted his Lebanese passport with his BOC application. The respondent did not accept in the review that the appellant’s Lebanese passport had expired or that the grant of a BOC passport extinguished/cancelled his Lebanese nationality. It was the respondent’s case that the appellant was still a Lebanese national, subject to immigration control, after the grant BOC status and that he failed to disclose his Lebanese citizenship on his application form. Had he done so, he would not have been registered as a British citizen.
23. It was the appellant’s case before the FTT that the respondent knew the appellant was a Lebanese national in light of the Check Print document obtained by the appellant through a Subject Access Request (SAR). The response states that the reference to the appellant’s nationality “Lebanon” is clearly an error for the following reasons. The respondent would not have registered the appellant under section 4B because the criteria were not met. There was no evidence that the respondent was aware of the appellant’s nationality because HMPO had not passed information about the appellant’s passport to UKVI at that time. There was no evidence to show that the respondent was aware of the appellant’s Lebanese nationality and, if she was, it is likely she would have made further enquiries. The reference to nationality was therefore an error by the caseworker.
24. The response states that the appellant was issued with a Lebanese passport and must be considered a Lebanese national as a consequence. There was no expert evidence of the operation of Lebanese Law and no reliable evidence that the appellant at any point ceased being a national of Lebanon. The appellant had dishonestly failed to declare his Lebanese nationality.
25. We are not persuaded that the concession was unjustified because there is an evidential basis for the concession which is set out in the deprivation decision at [14]. The quote comes from the letter from AMZ law dated 7 August 2023 in which they rely on the respondent’s letter of 11 August 2004 sent to the appellant with his certificate of naturalisation. This letter was not before the FTT and a digital copy was shown to us. In that letter the respondent states that:
“In the view of the fact that the only other citizenship or nationality that the applicant could acquire through his place of birth or through parents, Lebanon, do not allow dual nationality, we can be satisfied that applicant does not hold any other citizenship. The Applicant therefore could not have renounced, relinquished or lost any other citizenship since 4 July 2002. All criteria is (sic) met under section 4B”.
26. There was no expert evidence of the operation of Lebanese law applicable in 2004 before the FTT or before us. The appellant relied on Article 8 of Decree No. 15 on Lebanese Nationality 19 January 1925 Amended by Regulation No. 160 dated 16/07/1934 Regulation No. 122 L.R. dated 19/06/1939 Law of 11/1/1960 to show that his Lebanese nationality ceased when he acquired BOC in 1995. The respondent relied on the 2024 guidance to show that the appellant held dual nationality in 2004, although Mr Terrell accepted in submissions that BOC would be considered another nationality under the 2024 guidance and it was the appellant’s case that he had been a British Overseas citizen since birth. Neither assists in establishing the operation of Lebanese law in 2004 when the appellant applied to register as a British citizen.
27. It is apparent from the deprivation decision, the letter of 11 August 2004 and the Check Print document that the caseworker in 2004 was aware of the appellant’s Lebanese nationality but was satisfied that he no longer held it because Lebanon did not allow dual nationality. There was insufficient evidence before us to show that there was an error in the Check Print document. It is consistent with the letter of 11 August 2004 and there was no evidence from the respondent to show that HMPO had not sent information about the appellant’s Lebanese passport to UKVI. The fact that the presenting officer made a concession which was inconsistent with the case advanced in the respondent’s review or response does not mean the concession was wrongly made or that there was no evidential basis for it.
28. We find there are no good reasons for withdrawing the concession. Procedural compliance with the guidance in MH is insufficient to establish good reasons. This is not a case where the concession was contrary to country guidance or not supported by the evidence. The FTT decision was not demonstrably wrong and the presenting officer can be presumed to have a firm understanding of the evidence and the applicable legal principles.
29. In any event, the concession was not material. The issue before the FTT was whether the appellant had deliberately concealed his Lebanese nationality in his application for registration as a British citizen in 2004. The letter of 11 August 2004 quoted in the deprivation decision, the Check Print document and the letter from the Lebanese Embassy in London submitted with the application demonstrate that the decision maker was aware of the appellant’s Lebanese nationality and the reasons for finding that the criteria in section 4B were met was his conclusion that the appellant could not hold dual nationality. Any error in respect of whether dual nationality was permitted was a mistake on the part of the respondent and did not arise from any failure by the appellant to disclose his Lebanese nationality or the existence of his Lebanese passport. The concession that the appellant was not a Lebanese national in 2004 is not relevant to the assessment of whether the appellant deliberately concealed his nationality.
30. There was no error of law at [24] of the judge’s decision where she concluded that the appellant, in his BOC application, had provided his Lebanese passport to “what he could have entirely reasonably considered to be an officer of the respondent’s.” The judge accepted that as far as the appellant was concerned, the respondent already had his old Lebanese passport and the reason for the letter from the Lebanese Embassy in London was to show that they no longer had him registered there as a Lebanese citizen.
31. The judge took into account all relevant matters and properly directed herself in law. Her finding that the appellant had not deliberately concealed his Lebanese nationality was open to her on the evidence before her. The appellant submitted his Lebanese passport with his BOC application, he submitted a letter from the Lebanese Embassy in London with his application for British citizenship and his application form disclosed he was born in Lebanon and had lived there from 1984 to 1992.
32. There was no material error of law in the judge’s findings at [29] and [30] of the decision given the judge’s finding at [31] and the reasons given above. The caseworker in 2004 was satisfied that the appellant did not have Lebanese nationality because he found that the appellant held BOC and Lebanon did not allow dual nationality. Any failure by the appellant to declare that he held or previously held a Lebanese passport was not material to the grant of British citizenship.
Grounds 2 and 3
33. Mr Terrell accepted that grounds 2 and 3 were dependent on ground 1. We find the judge took into account the respondent’s review and response and any failure to specifically refer to the submissions therein was not material. It was not in dispute that the judge was entitled to draw reasonable inferences from the documentation. The judge’s findings were open to her on the evidence before her, notwithstanding the appellant did not give evidence or provide a statement as to his state of mind.
Summary
34. The judge’s finding that she was not satisfied the appellant's registration as a British citizen was obtained by means of fraud, false representation, or concealment of material fact was open to the judge on the evidence before her and she gave adequate reasons for her conclusions. There is no error of law in the decision of 30 March 2026.

Notice of Decision
Appeal dismissed

J Frances

Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber

1 October 2026