Home Office Withdraws Citizenship Refusals

The Home Office has withdrawn three British citizenship refusal decisions following legal challenges to its controversial “good character” guidance.

For refugees and other migrants whose citizenship applications were refused because they entered the UK illegally or made what the Home Office describes as a “dangerous journey”, this is an important development.

However, it does not mean that the Home Office has completely abandoned its policy.

The current guidance still states that a person who entered the UK illegally will normally be refused British citizenship, regardless of how much time has passed. The revised policy does, however, give clearer instructions on circumstances in which illegal entry may be disregarded.

These circumstances may include cases where:

the applicant was a child
the applicant was trafficked
the journey was outside the applicant’s control
the applicant has a valid section 31 refugee defence
there are compelling mitigating or exceptional circumstances

A separate High Court judgment has also upheld the legality of the earlier version of the policy on the particular grounds considered in that case. Applicants should therefore not assume that every previous refusal is now unlawful.

Anyone who has received a citizenship refusal should obtain advice about their individual circumstances. Depending on the reasons for refusal and the date of the decision, it may be possible to request reconsideration, submit a fresh application or pursue judicial review.

You can learn more about the support available through OS LAW’s immigration law services.

What has happened?

Four lead judicial review claims were brought against Version 6 of the Home Office’s good character guidance.

Three of the claimants—identified as GUN, NEA and HCH—had already been refused British citizenship. The Home Office had also maintained those refusals after reconsideration requests were submitted.

Following a High Court hearing on 9 June 2026, the Home Office withdrew both the initial refusal decisions and the later reconsideration decisions in the three cases.

The court ordered the Home Office to pay the legal costs of those claimants.

The fourth claimant, CBW, had not yet applied for British citizenship. As any future application would be considered under the revised Version 7 guidance, his claim was treated as academic and withdrawn without an order for costs.

The withdrawals represent a significant result for the individuals concerned.

They also demonstrate that Home Office citizenship decisions may be challenged where the relevant guidance has been applied incorrectly or the applicant’s individual circumstances have not been properly considered.

However, the cases ended without a final judgment declaring the entire good character policy unlawful.

The position in brief

The latest developments mean that:

three citizenship refusal decisions have been withdrawn
the Home Office must reconsider the cases if the applicants continue to pursue citizenship
Version 7 of the good character guidance has been in force since 30 April 2026
illegal entry remains a serious adverse factor
illegal entry is not necessarily an automatic reason for refusal
caseworkers must consider an applicant’s circumstances individually
illegal entry may be disregarded where it was outside the applicant’s control
a valid section 31 refugee defence may prevent refusal based solely on qualifying illegal entry
reconsideration requests are normally expected within six months of the refusal
judicial review deadlines may be substantially shorter

This is therefore an important but limited legal victory.

It is not a general amnesty, nor does it mean that everyone who entered the UK illegally can now obtain British citizenship.

What is the British citizenship good character requirement?

Most adults applying to naturalise as British citizens must satisfy the Home Office that they are of good character.

The British Nationality Act 1981 does not provide a complete statutory definition of good character. Instead, the Home Office publishes guidance explaining the conduct and circumstances caseworkers should consider.

The guidance may require the Home Office to examine matters such as:

criminal convictions
suspected criminal activity
deception and dishonesty
immigration breaches
illegal entry
overstaying
illegal working
financial misconduct
tax issues
terrorism
international crimes
conduct considered contrary to the public good

The current guidance states that each application must be considered individually on its own merits.

Caseworkers must assess good character on the balance of probabilities. They should take account of both negative factors and positive matters, including contributions the applicant has made to society.

The guidance also requires applicants to answer questions honestly and disclose significant events or mitigating circumstances that may affect the assessment.

This means the result should not be based on a simple checklist.

Nevertheless, certain types of conduct create a strong presumption of refusal. Illegal entry is now one of the most serious immigration-related factors affecting citizenship applications.

What changed on 10 February 2025?

On 10 February 2025, the Home Office changed its good character guidance.

The amended policy stated that a person applying for British citizenship who had previously entered the UK illegally would normally be refused, regardless of how much time had passed since the illegal entry.

The same normal refusal position applied to some applicants who arrived without the required entry clearance or electronic travel authorisation after making a “dangerous journey”.

The guidance identifies dangerous journeys as potentially including:

travelling to the UK by small boat
travelling while concealed inside a lorry
travelling while concealed in another vehicle
travelling while hidden in another form of transport

The change applies to citizenship applications submitted from 10 February 2025. The current GOV.UK publication continues to state that applications involving illegal entry will normally be refused regardless of when the entry occurred.

This caused serious concern among immigration lawyers, refugee organisations and affected applicants.

A person could potentially be refused even if they:

entered the UK many years earlier
were later recognised as a refugee
obtained indefinite leave to remain
had no criminal convictions
worked and paid tax
raised a family in the UK
contributed positively to their community
had otherwise behaved responsibly since arrival

The policy was particularly significant for refugees because people fleeing persecution may not have access to a passport, visa or authorised route to safety.

Why was the policy challenged?

Wilson Solicitors brought four lead judicial review claims challenging Version 6 of the good character guidance.

The challenges argued that the policy failed adequately to address important legal protections, including:

Article 31 of the Refugee Convention
Article 34 of the Refugee Convention
Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights
Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights
domestic public-law requirements

Article 31 of the Refugee Convention recognises that genuine refugees may sometimes need to enter or remain in a country illegally while escaping persecution.

Article 34 concerns the facilitation of refugees’ naturalisation and assimilation.

The claimants argued that the Version 6 guidance did not properly explain how these protections should affect a citizenship decision.

They also argued that the guidance failed to give caseworkers adequate instructions about when mitigating circumstances, positive conduct or a lack of personal responsibility could displace the normal presumption of refusal.

Why did the Home Office withdraw the three refusals?

Shortly before the full judicial review hearing was due to conclude, the Home Office confirmed that it was withdrawing the initial and reconsidered refusals in the cases of GUN, NEA and HCH.

The precise reasons for withdrawing each individual decision are not fully set out in the public case update.

However, the withdrawals meant that the challenged decisions no longer stood and that the claimants did not need to continue pursuing those particular judicial review claims.

The court ordered the Home Office to pay the claimants’ costs in the three cases.

This outcome is important because a costs order generally reflects that the claimants achieved a meaningful practical result through the proceedings.

Nevertheless, the withdrawal of an individual decision is different from a final court judgment declaring a government policy unlawful.

Other applicants must still examine the facts and reasoning in their own refusal letters.

What changed under Version 7?

Version 7 of the good character guidance was published on 30 April 2026.

The Home Office describes the changes as technical clarifications concerning:

international obligations
cases where a person was not in control of their illegal entry or presence
balance-of-probabilities assessments
trafficking and other exceptional circumstances

The guidance remains in force at the time of writing.

Version 7 retains the general position that a person who entered the UK illegally will normally be refused citizenship if their application was submitted from 10 February 2025.

However, it now provides more detailed guidance about individual assessment, lack of control, refugee protection and mitigating circumstances.

This makes the applicant’s evidence particularly important.

Illegal entry is not necessarily automatic refusal

The word “normally” matters.

The guidance does not say that every person who entered illegally must automatically be refused.

Instead, caseworkers must consider the application individually and determine whether the applicant is of good character on the balance of probabilities.

This involves assessing:

the nature of the illegal entry
the applicant’s degree of responsibility
the circumstances that led to the journey
the applicant’s age
evidence of trafficking or coercion
the timing of any asylum claim
whether a section 31 defence applies
conduct after arriving in the UK
other negative character issues
positive contributions and mitigating evidence

The guidance states that decision-makers must weigh negative factors against mitigation and positive conduct.

However, applicants should not underestimate the strength of the normal refusal presumption.

Long residence, employment and a clean criminal record may support the application, but they do not automatically remove concerns about illegal entry.

What if the journey was outside the applicant’s control?

Version 7 says it will normally be appropriate to disregard illegal entry, overstaying or irregular arrival where the conduct was outside the person’s control.

One of the clearest examples is trafficking.

A person who was trafficked into the UK may not have controlled:

the route
the destination
the transport method
the documents used
the timing of the journey
when or how they approached the authorities

The guidance provides an example of a person who entered illegally 14 years earlier but was subsequently recognised as having been trafficked into the UK.

Because the person was not in control of their method of entry, later received refugee status and had no other significant adverse character issues, the guidance indicates that they may still be considered of good character.

Evidence of trafficking may include:

a positive National Referral Mechanism decision
police records
social services evidence
medical or psychological reports
statements from support organisations
immigration tribunal findings
witness statements
other independent evidence of exploitation or control

The absence of a particular document does not necessarily mean trafficking cannot be established. The evidence must be assessed as a whole.

What if the applicant entered the UK as a child?

The guidance also recognises that immigration breaches committed while a person was a child may have been outside their control.

The younger the child was, the less likely it is that they were personally responsible for decisions made by:

parents
guardians
relatives
smugglers
traffickers
other adults

Relevant evidence may include:

a birth certificate
passport records
asylum documents
social services records
school records
evidence identifying who arranged the journey
statements from parents or family members
trafficking or safeguarding evidence

Being under 18 at the time does not automatically guarantee that the breach will be disregarded.

The Home Office may still consider the child’s exact age, understanding, involvement and level of control.

However, a citizenship decision should not simply treat a child’s actions in the same way as those of a fully informed adult.

How does Article 31 of the Refugee Convention help?

Article 31 of the Refugee Convention protects qualifying refugees from being penalised for certain illegal entry or presence.

In UK law, relevant protection is reflected in section 31 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999.

The current citizenship guidance identifies a number of matters that may be relevant when considering whether the defence applies.

These may include whether the refugee:

came directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened
could reasonably have been expected to obtain protection in another country
presented themselves to the authorities without delay
showed good cause for their illegal entry or presence
claimed asylum as soon as reasonably practicable

The question of whether someone “came directly” can become complicated when they travelled through one or more other countries before reaching the UK.

The Home Office may consider:

which countries the person travelled through
how long they stayed in each country
whether those countries were safe for them
whether they could access an asylum system
whether they remained under the control of smugglers or traffickers
whether they had a reasonable explanation for travelling onwards
whether family or other relevant connections existed in the UK

Version 7 confirms that a person with a valid section 31 defence must not be refused citizenship solely because of the illegal entry covered by that defence.

This does not mean Article 31 creates an automatic right to British citizenship.

The applicant must still satisfy the other nationality requirements, and any separate character concerns may still be considered.

Does refugee status automatically establish an Article 31 defence?

No.

Being recognised as a refugee and establishing a section 31 defence are related but separate questions.

Refugee status establishes that the person meets the definition of a refugee and requires international protection.

A section 31 assessment may additionally consider matters such as:

the route to the UK
time spent in transit countries
when the applicant approached the authorities
when asylum was claimed
whether there was good cause for illegal entry
whether protection could reasonably have been sought elsewhere

Applicants should therefore not assume that a grant of refugee status alone answers every citizenship concern.

Detailed evidence about the journey may still be needed.

What did the High Court decide in Alibiari?

A separate connected claim proceeded to judgment after the three Wilson Solicitors cases were withdrawn.

In R (Alibiari) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2026] EWHC 1623 (Admin), the claimant challenged the lawfulness of Version 6 of the good character policy.

The claimant was a recognised refugee who had entered the UK while concealed in a lorry after travelling through several European countries.

His naturalisation application had been refused because of his illegal entry and dangerous journey. However, the proceedings challenged the general policy rather than the legality of his individual refusal.

On 30 June 2026, the Divisional Court dismissed the challenge.

The court found that the Home Secretary was entitled to regard illegal entry and dangerous journeys as conduct capable of indicating a lack of good character.

It also concluded that the policy, read as a whole, allowed individual circumstances and mitigating evidence to be considered. The court rejected the grounds alleging that the policy was unlawful, discriminatory or contrary to the public sector equality duty.

The judgment is important because it prevents the withdrawals from being presented as a complete defeat of the Home Office’s policy.

What does the Alibiari judgment mean for applicants?

The current position is nuanced.

The Home Office withdrew three individual refusal decisions and was ordered to pay the claimants’ costs.

Version 7 now contains clearer guidance about:

Article 31
trafficking
children
lack of control
individual assessment

However, the High Court has also upheld the lawfulness of Version 6 on the specific grounds considered in Alibiari.

This means an applicant may have a stronger case where they can show that the policy was applied unlawfully to their individual circumstances, rather than relying only on a general argument that the entire policy is invalid.

For example, a refusal may potentially be challenged if the Home Office:

treated refusal as automatic
ignored relevant evidence
misunderstood the applicant’s journey
failed to consider section 31
overlooked trafficking evidence
failed to consider the applicant’s age
applied the wrong guidance
failed to consider mitigating circumstances
provided inadequate reasons
made a material factual mistake
acted inconsistently with its published policy

The wording of the refusal letter will therefore be central to deciding the next step.

What should you do if your citizenship application was refused?

A citizenship refusal should not automatically be accepted as the end of the matter.

Depending on the facts, the available options may include:

requesting reconsideration
submitting a fresh citizenship application
pursuing judicial review

The correct route depends on:

why the application was refused
which version of the guidance was applied
when the decision was issued
what evidence was originally submitted
whether new evidence is now available
whether an urgent judicial review deadline applies

Before deciding what to do, consider obtaining advice from OS LAW’s immigration solicitors.

Option one: Request reconsideration

A person who believes their citizenship application was incorrectly decided may request reconsideration using Form NR.

A reconsideration request generally asks the Home Office to examine whether the original decision was correct under the law and policy applicable at the time.

It may be appropriate where:

the wrong policy was applied
the decision contained a factual error
relevant evidence was overlooked
evidence already submitted was misunderstood
section 31 was not considered
the applicant’s lack of control was ignored
trafficking evidence was not addressed
the applicant’s age was not properly considered
exceptional circumstances were overlooked
the Home Office treated refusal as automatic

The request should identify specific errors and explain why they could have affected the result.

A general statement that the decision was unfair is unlikely to be sufficient.

What is the six-month reconsideration deadline?

On 15 June 2026, the Home Office published amended guidance stating that it expects a reconsideration request to be submitted within six months of the date of the decision.

According to Wilson Solicitors’ case update, the wording appears to be an expectation rather than a strict statutory deadline.

A late request may therefore still need to be considered where there is a reasonable explanation for the delay. Nevertheless, affected applicants should act as soon as possible.

Applicants should provide an explanation if more than six months have passed.

They should not assume that delay will automatically be excused.

Option two: Submit a fresh citizenship application

A fresh application may be more appropriate where important new evidence was not available or was not submitted with the original application.

New evidence might include:

a positive trafficking decision
new medical or psychological evidence
newly obtained asylum records
evidence confirming the applicant’s age
documents explaining the journey
witness statements
evidence about transit countries
evidence explaining a delay in claiming asylum
further proof of positive conduct
evidence showing that circumstances were outside the applicant’s control

A fresh application requires a new application fee.

Citizenship fees are significant and are generally not refunded simply because an application is refused.

Applicants should therefore understand why the first application failed before submitting another one.

Repeating the same application without addressing the refusal reasons may lead to the same result.

Option three: Judicial review

British citizenship refusals do not normally carry a conventional statutory right of appeal.

Judicial review may be available where the Home Office’s decision was legally defective.

Possible grounds may include:

failure to follow published guidance
procedural unfairness
failure to consider relevant evidence
consideration of irrelevant matters
irrationality
unlawful discrimination
inadequate reasons
failure to consider international obligations
treating a discretionary policy as an automatic rule

Judicial review does not normally ask the court to make the citizenship decision itself.

Instead, the court considers whether the Home Office acted lawfully. If the challenge succeeds, the decision may be quashed or withdrawn and returned to the Home Office for reconsideration.

What is the judicial review deadline?

Judicial review claims must normally be brought promptly and, in any event, no later than three months after the grounds for the claim arose.

Three months is a maximum long-stop, not a period applicants should automatically wait before taking action.

A court may find that a claim was not brought promptly even if it was issued within three months.

Sending a complaint, reconsideration request or pre-action protocol letter may not stop the judicial review time limit.

Urgent specialist advice is therefore essential.

Does the 16 September 2026 deadline apply to everyone?

No.

The reported deadline of 16 September 2026 relates to a specific group of people who relied on a court order made on 7 January 2026.

That order allowed certain applicants with refusal decisions to notify the Home Office’s lawyers and obtain an extension of their judicial review deadline until three months after final orders in the lead claims.

Wilson Solicitors reported its understanding that the three-month period began on 16 June 2026, producing a deadline of 16 September 2026. It also stated that confirmation had been requested from the Government Legal Department.

This is not a general deadline for everyone refused British citizenship.

Another applicant’s deadline may run from the date of their individual refusal or reconsideration decision and could expire earlier.

What evidence could support your case?

The evidence required will depend on the individual circumstances.

Potentially relevant documents include:

the original citizenship application
the citizenship refusal letter
any reconsideration request
any reconsideration decision
asylum interview records
the refugee status decision
immigration tribunal judgments
Home Office immigration records
passports and travel documents
evidence of the journey and route
evidence concerning transit countries
evidence showing why protection could not be sought elsewhere
National Referral Mechanism decisions
trafficking or modern slavery evidence
social services records
medical or psychological reports
evidence that the applicant was a child
statements from relatives or witnesses
police records
employment and tax records
volunteering evidence
community references
evidence of rehabilitation
evidence of family life and integration

Positive evidence is valuable, but it should not replace a direct explanation of the immigration issue.

The strongest application or challenge connects the documents to the questions the caseworker must answer.

What should current citizenship applicants do?

Anyone applying now will be assessed under Version 7 of the good character guidance.

An applicant with a history of illegal entry or a dangerous journey should address it openly.

A carefully prepared application should explain:

Why the applicant left their country.
What risks or persecution they faced.
How the journey was arranged.
Which countries they travelled through.
How long they stayed in those countries.
Whether protection was realistically available there.
Whether they controlled the route and destination.
Whether traffickers or smugglers controlled the journey.
Whether the applicant was a child.
When they first contacted the UK authorities.
When they claimed asylum.
Whether there was a delay and why.
Whether section 31 applies.
What their conduct has been since arrival.
Why they should be considered of good character overall.

Applicants should provide full and honest disclosure.

Attempting to conceal an illegal entry, use of false documents or another immigration breach could create a separate deception issue. That may be more damaging than the original conduct.

Can long residence overcome illegal entry?

Long residence may be relevant, but it does not automatically overcome the normal refusal position.

Evidence that the person has lived responsibly in the UK for many years may support the overall good character assessment.

Relevant positive matters may include:

stable employment
payment of tax
education
volunteering
caring responsibilities
family life
community involvement
an absence of criminal offending
compliance with immigration conditions after status was granted

However, the current policy expressly says illegal entry may normally lead to refusal regardless of how long ago it occurred.

Positive conduct should therefore be presented alongside a clear legal and factual explanation of the original entry.

Frequently asked questions

Has the Home Office cancelled the illegal entry citizenship policy?

No.

The current guidance still states that a citizenship application submitted from 10 February 2025 will normally be refused where the applicant previously entered the UK illegally, regardless of when the illegal entry occurred.

Version 7 provides clearer safeguards and exceptions, but the general presumption remains.

Will everyone refused under Version 6 receive a new decision?

No.

The three withdrawn refusals do not automatically reopen every decision made under Version 6.

Other applicants may need to request reconsideration, submit a fresh application or consider judicial review.

Does “normally refused” mean automatic refusal?

No.

“Normally refused” creates a strong presumption, but it does not remove the requirement to consider the application individually.

Relevant mitigation, lack of control, refugee protection and exceptional circumstances must still be assessed.

Can a recognised refugee still be refused citizenship?

Yes.

Refugee status does not automatically satisfy the good character requirement.

The Home Office may still consider the person’s route, conduct, timing of their asylum claim and whether a section 31 defence applies.

Does Article 31 guarantee British citizenship?

No.

Article 31 may protect a qualifying refugee from being penalised for certain illegal entry or presence.

Under Version 7, a valid section 31 defence means the applicant should not be refused solely because of the illegal entry covered by the defence.

The applicant must still satisfy all other citizenship requirements.

What if I entered the UK illegally as a child?

The guidance recognises that a child may not have controlled the journey or immigration breach.

Evidence should be provided showing the applicant’s age, who arranged the journey and the degree of control they had.

What if I was trafficked into the UK?

Illegal entry may be disregarded where trafficking meant the applicant did not control the method or circumstances of entry.

A positive National Referral Mechanism decision can be important evidence, although other reliable evidence may also be relevant.

Can I appeal a citizenship refusal?

There is not normally a standard statutory appeal against a refusal to naturalise as a British citizen.

The available routes may include reconsideration, a fresh application or judicial review.

Is reconsideration free?

The reconsideration process may require payment of the relevant Home Office fee.

Applicants should check the current fee and procedure before submitting Form NR.

Should I request reconsideration or submit a fresh application?

Reconsideration may be appropriate where the original decision was wrong based on the evidence already available.

A fresh application may be more suitable where substantial new evidence has since become available.

The refusal letter and original application should be reviewed before deciding.

Why this development matters

The withdrawal of the three refusal decisions demonstrates that Home Office citizenship decisions can be challenged.

A refusal should not be treated as legally untouchable where the Home Office has:

misunderstood the evidence
ignored relevant circumstances
applied the wrong policy
treated a presumption as an automatic rule
failed to consider refugee protection
failed to give adequate reasons

At the same time, the Alibiari judgment confirms that illegal entry remains a serious good character issue and that the wider policy has not simply disappeared.

Applicants should therefore avoid relying on headlines suggesting that everyone previously refused will now succeed.

The most persuasive cases are likely to include:

a detailed and consistent explanation
evidence showing a lack of control
a properly supported section 31 argument
evidence addressing travel through other countries
trafficking or age-related evidence where relevant
proof of positive conduct
focused legal representations
full and honest disclosure

How OS LAW can help

A British citizenship refusal can affect your ability to obtain a British passport, your long-term plans and your sense of belonging in the UK.

OS LAW’s experienced immigration solicitors can review:

your citizenship refusal letter
your original application
your supporting documents
your immigration and asylum history
the version of the guidance used
whether section 31 may apply
whether the Home Office overlooked relevant evidence
whether reconsideration is appropriate
whether a fresh application should be submitted
whether judicial review may be available
any urgent time limits affecting your case

We can also help prepare clear legal representations addressing illegal entry, refugee protection, trafficking, childhood circumstances and the applicant’s conduct since arriving in the UK.

Early advice is particularly important where a reconsideration or judicial review deadline may be approaching.

If your citizenship application was refused because of illegal entry, a dangerous journey or another good character concern, contact OS LAW to discuss your circumstances.

Key takeaway

The withdrawal of three citizenship refusal decisions is an important development, but it does not mean the Home Office has abandoned its illegal-entry policy.

Illegal entry remains capable of leading to refusal.

However, the Home Office must consider each application individually. Refugee protection, trafficking, childhood circumstances, lack of control and other mitigating factors may make a significant difference.

If you have already been refused, do not assume the decision is final. At the same time, do not delay seeking advice, as reconsideration and judicial review time limits may apply.

If you are preparing a new application, ensure that your immigration history is explained fully and supported by appropriate evidence.

Legal disclaimer: This article is provided for general information only and does not constitute legal advice. British nationality and judicial review matters depend on the applicant’s individual circumstances, evidence, decision date and the Home Office policy in force at the relevant time. The law and policy may change.

Article last updated: 7 July 2026.

Home Office Withdraws Citizenship Refusals: What This Legal Victory Means for You