The Excessive Court docket has upheld the lawfulness of the Dwelling Workplace coverage on good character in naturalisation purposes, in a problem introduced by a refugee who initially entered the UK irregularly. The case is R (on the appliance of Ahmed Alibiari) v SSHD [2026] EWHC 1623 (Admin).
The judgment gives little that can help individuals who utilized beneath model 6 and had been ready to hunt a reconsideration. Model 6 has since been up to date, however the place to begin stays the identical: irregular journey to the UK signifies dangerous character, even the place the particular person is later recognised as a refugee. Candidates could also be nonetheless in a position to present the reason why citizenship ought to nonetheless be granted, however the court docket discovered no fault with the method.
The adjustments between model 6 and seven, defined right here by Jed, considerably make clear what the Dwelling Workplace will contemplate to be acceptable causes. This judicial assessment was not rendered educational by that replace to the coverage. Mr Alibiari might search a reconsideration at a later level, and any such reconsideration can be thought-about beneath the sooner model 6. A discovering that model 6 was illegal might subsequently nonetheless have benefitted him.
Background
Mr Alibiari fled Egypt and travelled by means of a number of European nations earlier than coming into the UK hid in a lorry in 2016. He was 18 years previous on the time. He defined that he had not claimed asylum on the continent as a result of he had been advised by an interpreter, pals and an agent that he would possible be returned to Egypt if he did so. He was recognised as a refugee within the UK.
Mr Alibiari later utilized for British citizenship. Underneath part 6 of the British Nationality Act 1981, learn with Schedule 1, an individual could solely be granted naturalisation as a British citizen if the Dwelling Workplace is happy that they’re of excellent character. The court docket summarised the coverage:
an individual making use of for citizenship after 10 February 2025 will usually be refused citizenship if he (1) entered the UK illegally or (2) arrived in the UK with out entry clearance or journey authorisation having made a harmful journey (which included travelling by a small boat or hid in a automobile).
His software was nonetheless refused on the premise that he wouldn’t have had a sound defence beneath part 31 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, had he been charged with unlawful entry and that there was no different mitigation or proof that will assist an distinctive grant.
The grounds of problem
Mr Alibiari challenged the coverage on three grounds. First, that the coverage misinterpreted the great character requirement and directed caseworkers to take illegal selections. Second, that it created an actual threat of a breach of Article 14 of the European Conference on Human Rights (safety from discrimination), when learn along with Article 8 of the Conference (the precise to a household and personal life). Third, that the coverage was adopted in breach of the general public sector equality responsibility.
All three grounds failed.
Why did the court docket contemplate the coverage lawful?
On the primary floor, the court docket reviewed the related caselaw and concluded that it’s for the Dwelling Workplace to resolve what components are related to good character, that the courts mustn’t discourage the Dwelling Secretary from setting a excessive normal, and there’s a wide selection of things that will lawfully be thought-about. Irregular entry or arrival with out entry clearance fell inside these components. It was additionally entitled to conclude that this might usually reveal an individual lacks good character.
The court docket went on to acknowledge that some folks have little management over the style during which they enter the nation. Nonetheless, how the Dwelling Secretary takes account of explanations for irregular entry or harmful journeys is, within the court docket’s view, primarily a matter for her. She was not required to incorporate an categorical assertion that individuals who had entered on this method would possibly nonetheless be of excellent character; this was clear when the coverage was learn as a complete.
The court docket went additional, even suggesting she would possibly make a distinction between individuals who specify their vacation spot to folks smugglers, versus those that merely pay smugglers to get them out. The extent to which individuals fleeing persecution have a free selection of bespoke smuggling providers is, within the creator’s view, extremely questionable.
On the second floor, the direct discrimination argument was that refugees coming into the UK to flee persecution had been handled in the identical method as these coming into illegally by selection. The court docket drew a distinction between the the reason why an individual left their nation of origin and the circumstances during which they travelled to the UK. The place the particular person had good causes for travelling in the way in which that they did, this may very well be taken into consideration. It’s value noting that the judgment readily accepts a recurrent trope in public discourse about refugees – that they need to declare asylum within the first secure nation they attain. Whether or not that obligation exists in worldwide legislation has been explored on this earlier publish.
The oblique discrimination argument was that refugees usually tend to have entered the UK illegally than non-refugee candidates for citizenship. The court docket didn’t settle for that the info confirmed this was the case. It went on to conclude that even when it did, there was an goal justification. Sustaining applicable requirements for entry to citizenship was a respectable intention. The coverage was rationally related to that intention, as unlawful entry or irregular arrival ‘shows a disregard for the legal guidelines and processes governing entry to the nation’.
The court docket thought-about much less intrusive options – reminiscent of excluding individuals who got here to the UK earlier than the coverage was adopted, or disregarding unlawful entry after a time frame – however reasoned these would have diluted the measure a lot that the Dwelling Workplace was successfully compelled to undertake a unique coverage. The court docket concluded the measure was discovered to strike a good stability. There was no entitlement to citizenship, refusal didn’t change the very fact Mr Alibiari loved safety as a refugee, and the curiosity of the neighborhood in making certain new residents had been of excellent character outweighed the longer term acquisition of the rights or advantages citizenship would convey.
On the third floor, the court docket discovered the general public sector equality responsibility utilized. The impression evaluation had thought-about the impact on race and intercourse. It recognized a higher impression on folks of sure racial backgrounds, however thought-about this justified and proportionate because it was based mostly on an individual’s conduct somewhat than race. It concluded there was no direct discrimination on grounds of intercourse, however thought-about the impression of the coverage on ladies. There was no requirement to go any additional. Arguments about oblique discrimination failed for the explanations the court docket had already given.
What subsequent for folks affected?
Refugees who entered the UK irregularly and people helping them will need to rigorously contemplate the present coverage earlier than shelling out on the appliance charge. Along with Jed’s article outlining the updates to the coverage and the way the change impacts individuals who utilized beneath model 6, Colin’s article right here gives extra common steering on addressing dangerous character points in British Citizenship purposes.
