Deprivation appeals include full merits assessment of decision and consequences
The official headnote to Deliallisi (British citizen: deprivation appeal: Scope) Albania  UKUT 439 (IAC):
(1) An appeal under section 40A of the British Nationality Act 1981 against a decision to deprive a person of British citizenship requires the Tribunal to consider whether the Secretary of State’s discretionary decision to deprive should be exercised differently. This will involve (but not be limited to) ECHR Article 8 issues, as well as the question whether deprivation would be a disproportionate interference with a person’s EU rights.
(2) Although, unlike section 84(1)(g) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, section 40A of the 1981 Act does not involve any statutory hypothesis that the appellant will be removed from the United Kingdom in consequence of the deprivation decision, the Tribunal is required to determine the reasonably foreseeable consequences of deprivation, which may, depending on the facts, include removal.
(3) A person who, immediately before becoming a British citizen, had indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom, does not automatically become entitled to such leave, upon being deprived of such citizenship.
This is another case where a person claiming on arrival in the UK to be Kosovar early this century later transpired to be Albanian. I well remember the questions that used to be asked in Oakington asylum interviews about Kosovan rivers, radio stations and the like. Having been recognised as a refugee on the basis of being Kosovar then obtaining British citizenship, the appellant’s parents applied to visit the UK in 2007. From Albania. The appellant’s deception became clear.
The tribunal upheld the deprivation decision but was encouraged to think by the Home Office Presenting Officer that it was highly unlikely that the appellant would actually be removed from the United Kingdom. He was of good character other than his initial deception, had 13 years residence and had a British wife and two British children. Given the Appellant does not appear to meet the terms of the human rights immigration rules, I would not be so sure.