Being taken into care is a terrifying experience for any child. The fear and confusion involved is likely to be even higher when you are taken into the care of a Local Authority, in a country where you hold no legal status enabling you to imagine your future there, with at least one in 10 children in care being non-British as of 2022 . Due to this many local authorities and the dedicated social workers within them have taken the pro-active step of seeking legal advice and support in applying to Register many of these children as British Citizens, due to the fact their futures can only be envisaged within the United Kingdom. However, there is a sinister additional risk posed to the safety of all children in care, but particularly those with added vulnerabilities such as a precarious immigration status, and that is the risk of being exploited and even trafficked as a child within the UK. Although it may not be clear to all on the face of it, but the registration of a child as a British Citizen and any potential experience of trafficking/modern slavery overlap significantly.
Registration Application Process
The Law relating to the Registration of children as British citizens is contained in The British Nationality Act 1981 . Most commonly, unless there are additional elements at play, children in care are registered under the discretionary element of the act, Section 3(1) :
3 Acquisition by registration: minors.
If while a person is a minor an application is made for his registration as a British citizen, the Secretary of State may, if he thinks fit, cause him to be registered as such a citizen.
This is expanded on by the Home Office’s guidance Registration as a British citizen: children (24 July 2024 – current version) .
Discretionary applications under section 3(1)
There are certain scenarios where you would normally be expected to register a child as a British citizen. In all other cases you must apply the criteria for all other children. The law in relation to section 3(1) This is a discretionary provision for the registration of a child.
The Home Secretary may exercise their discretion to register people as British citizens under section 3(1) of the British Nationality Act 1981 if:
• the applicant is under 18 at the date of the application
• if aged 10 years or over on the date of application the applicant is of good character see good character requirements
• they think fit to register them These are the only statutory requirements.
Commonly when a child is in full time care (usually under a section 30 1989 Children Act care order) the Local Authority will see it as a logical presumption the child’s life is fully in the UK now, with no other parental figure taking responsibility for the child in the UK let alone outside of the country. The process for applying to register a child as a British citizen in the UK involves the completion of an online application form (Form T or Form MN depending on length of time the child has resided in the UK), and the preparation of supporting evidence.
There is no exhaustive or mandatory list of evidence for solely discretionary applications to register children as British citizens. The focus of the application will be on their future only being envisaged and arguably possible within the UK. All evidence supporting this argument should be provided. In addition to this, evidence relating to any additional vulnerabilities noted by the Local Authority or those supporting the child’s care would also be appropriate.
However it is within this process that the Local Authority, who are not always provided with the essential training on the intersectional elements of trafficking/modern slavery and immigration matters, will not be aware of the need to disclose any potential ongoing or concluded trafficking matters as part of the registration application. This can leave a child particularly vulnerable to their application being considered in a poor light, without all material and mitigating factors being provided.
Trafficking and Modern Slavery
I have worked on numerous registration applications for children under local authority care orders. In many of these cases these young people have been subjected to trafficking or modern slavery within the UK, most commonly for forced criminal activity. In such situations due to the complexity of the context in which these children were exploited, either the fact they have been trafficked is not always identified or there is a delay in identification. At times even if there is a recognition that the child has been a victim of trafficking it is not clear to the Local Authority that this could impact the child’s immigration matters.
Definition of trafficking
Trafficking is included in the UK under the banner of Modern slavery, which references:
• human trafficking
• slavery, servitude and forced or compulsory labour
• The definition of a victim of human trafficking, slavery, servitude and forced or compulsory labour is set out in the Slavery and Human Trafficking (Definition of Victim) Regulations 2022
The essence of human trafficking is that the victim is coerced or deceived into a situation where they are exploited. Article 4(a) of the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings (the Convention) defines ‘human trafficking’ as:
“the recruitment, transportation, transfer, harbouring or receipt of persons, by means of the threat or use of force or other forms of coercion, of abduction, of fraud, of deception, of the abuse of power or of a position of vulnerability or of the giving or receiving of payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a person having control over another person, for the purpose of exploitation. Exploitation shall include, at a minimum, the exploitation of the prostitution of others or other forms of sexual exploitation, forced labour or services, slavery or practices similar to slavery, servitude or the removal of organs.”
The above definition is elaborated on by domestic Regulations – Slavery and Human Trafficking (Definition of Victim) Regulations 2022 :
Victim of slavery
2.—(1) For the purposes of Part 5 of the 2022 Act, “victim of slavery” means a person who has been subjected to slavery, servitude or forced or compulsory labour.
(2) In determining whether a person has been subjected to slavery, servitude or forced or compulsory labour, regard may be had to all the circumstances including—
(a)any of the person’s personal circumstances (such as the person’s age, the person’s family relationships, and any physical or mental disability or illness) that significantly impair the person’s ability to protect themselves from being subjected to slavery, servitude or forced or compulsory labour;
(b)any work or services provided by the person.
(3) The consent of a person (whether an adult or a child) to any of the conduct alleged to show that the person has been subjected to slavery, servitude or forced or compulsory labour is not relevant to a determination as to whether the person is a victim of slavery.
Victim of human trafficking
3.—(1) For the purposes of Part 5 of the 2022 Act, “victim of human trafficking” means a person (“V”) whose travel is arranged or facilitated by another person (“P”)—
(a)using any of the methods mentioned in paragraph (5), and
(b)with a view to V being exploited.
(2) P may in particular arrange or facilitate V’s travel by recruiting V, transporting or transferring V, harbouring or receiving V, or transferring or exchanging control over V.
(3) The consent of V (whether V is an adult or a child) to the travel is not relevant to a determination as to whether V is a victim of human trafficking.
(4) It is irrelevant for the purpose of paragraph (1)(a) whether the person using the method is P or another person.
(5) The methods are—
o (a)in a case where V is an adult at the time the method is used—
(i)the threat or use of force or other coercive behaviour;
(ii)abduction, kidnap or false imprisonment;
(iii)fraud or other deception;
(iv)abuse of power or a position of vulnerability;
(v)the giving of payments or other benefits to achieve the consent of a person who has control over V;
(b)in a case where V is a child at the time the method is used, any method.
(6) For the purposes of paragraph (1)(b), a person is being exploited if the person is—
(a)prostituted by another person or otherwise subject to sexual exploitation;
(b)subjected to slavery or servitude or forced or compulsory labour;
(c)encouraged, required or expected to—
(i)do anything which involves the commission, by that person or another person, of an offence under section 32 or 33 of the Human Tissue Act 2004 (prohibition of commercial dealings in organs and restrictions on use of live donors)(1);
(ii)do anything which involves the commission, by that person or another person, of an offence under section 17 or 20 of the Human Tissue (Scotland) Act 2006 (prohibition of commercial dealings in organs and restrictions on use of live donors)(2), or
(iii)do anything outside the United Kingdom that, if it were done in any part of the United Kingdom, would involve the commission of an offence mentioned in paragraph (i) or (ii), or
(d)subjected to force, threats or deception designed to induce that person—
(i)to provide services of any kind;
(ii)to provide another person with benefits of any kind, or
(iii)to enable another person to acquire benefits of any kind.
Identification process
Once a child has been identified to have potentially experienced trafficking or modern slavery, they will be referred into what is known as the National Referral Mechanism (NRM). By being referred into the NRM their case is then assessed by the Single Competent Authority to see if they are legally found to have been a victim of trafficking/modern slavery. Only an individual/organisation classified as a First Responder may refer someone into the NRM, a Social Worker is commonly the one who does so when a child is in care.
Following the referral the Single Competent Authority should issue within 5 days a Reasonable Grounds decision. This is an initial decision on whether it is deemed likely the young person was a victim of trafficking. If this decision is positive the young person is entitled to a 30 day period of reflection where they are entitled to additional support. During this period it is also expected any supporting evidence relating to the victims experience of exploitation be provided for consideration. Following the reflection period the Single Competent Authority would then move towards making the Conclusive Grounds decision, which is the final decision confirming if the victim has been accepted as a victim of trafficking/modern slavery. There is no set time frame for how long the Authority can take to make this final decision.
Due to the complex nature of many experiences of trafficking and modern slavery, it is unsurprising that it is not always clear how such matters can impact Registration applications for child victims.
Children are already a particularly vulnerable group. Those in care hold an additional layer of vulnerability, while those without leave and confirmed citizenship potentially from another country are particularly vulnerable to exploitation in the UK. Such exploitation can commonly go undetected for extended periods of time, being perceived as a child simply acting out or getting involved with the ‘wrong crowd’.
Impact on Registration Applications
I would strongly urge local authorities or carers of children applying in any capacity to be registered as British Citizens, who are aware of any indicators of trafficking/modern slavery or of children who have been referred to the NRM to raise this prior to an any immigration application being submitted. It will likely be a material aspect of the child’s case. If this is not done it is possible the actions of the child that took place due to trafficking, for example being forced to commit criminal acts, could be considered against the young person, without awareness of the mitigating factors behind it. Young people have had their registration applications refused, and the Local Authority have had to pay double the expected cost of an application to resolve matters when the link between trafficking/modern slavery experiences and Immigration applications have not been addressed.
Need advice on an Immigration Law matter?
Our experienced solicitors are here to help.
Call 020 8885 7986 to speak with a member of our team.
Following a High Court hearing on 9 June 2026, the four lead claims brought by Wilson Solicitors challenging version 6 of the Home Office’s “good character” policy for British citizenship applications have been resolved.
In three cases (GUN, NEA and HCH), the Home Office withdrew the original refusals of British citizenship, and the court ordered it to pay our clients’ costs.
Our fourth client, CBW, challenged version 6 but has not yet applied for British citizenship. As any future application would be considered under the new version of the policy published on 30 April 2026 (version 7), his claim had become academic and was withdrawn with no order as to costs.
Background
In February 2025, the Home Office amended its good character policy to state that people who had travelled to the UK illegally and/or who had made a dangerous journey to the UK would normally have their British citizenship applications refused for an indefinite future period. The policy did not explain when that presumption might be displaced by mitigating factors and/or evidence of good character. Nor did it refer to, or provide guidance on, Article 31 of the Refugee Convention or the potential relevance of Article 8 ECHR to British citizenship applications.
CBW issued a judicial review claim in May 2025. In pre-action correspondence, the Home Office said it would publish amended guidance addressing Article 31. When that guidance was not published within the indicated timeframe, CBW amended his claim to challenge version 6 in full. He argued that version 6 was unlawful because it failed to address Articles 31 and 34 of the Refugee Convention and Article 8 ECHR; was discriminatory under Article 14 ECHR; and was irrational or otherwise unlawful on domestic public law grounds.
Our firm later lodged further judicial review claims challenging both version 6 and individual refusal decisions in respect of applications that had been refused and subsequently, reconsideration decisions maintaining the original refusal. Following disclosure, the Claimants also applied for permission to amend their claims to challenge unpublished guidance documents that were circulated to decision makers.
In January 2026, we agreed case management directions with the Home Office. These provided for permission to be granted and for the lawfulness of version 6 to be determined through lead claims, with other claims brought by our clients stayed behind them. The order also allowed people with refusal decisions to notify the Home Office’s lawyers in order to extend the judicial review time limit to three months after final orders in the lead claims.
Version 7
On 30 April 2026, the Home Office published version 7 of its good character policy. Version 7 describes the amendments as “technical clarifications”. In the lead claims, the Home Office’s unequivocal position was that there was no material difference in how versions 6 and 7 were understood or would be applied in practice by Home Office officials.
Version 7 includes an amended section on considering all circumstances in the round, titled “Considering the balance of probabilities”; a section stating that it will normally be appropriate to disregard illegal entry or arrival where this was outside the person’s control, such as for children or people under the control of traffickers; and a section addressing Article 31, confirming that those with a valid defence must not be refused citizenship on the sole basis of the illegal entry.
Decision in the lead claims
After becoming aware of version 7, we made a settlement offer that would have resolved the four lead claims, the stayed claims and cases involving clients who had relied on the permission order to extend the judicial review time limit until three months after final orders in the lead claims. The proposal would also have allowed anyone refused under version 6 to ask, free of charge, for their decision to be reconsidered under version 7. The Home Office declined to engage with the offer.
The four lead claims were fully prepared for a three-day hearing before the Divisional Court (Lewis LJ and Farbey J) from 9 to 11 June 2026. Shortly before the hearing, however, the Home Office confirmed that both the initial refusals and the reconsidered refusals had been withdrawn. Its skeleton argument also stated that CBW’s claim was academic because any British citizenship application he made would be considered under version 7.
Because many of our clients and others were awaiting the outcome of the lead claims, two clients with stayed claims agreed to be added as lead claims. Their claims were not ready for hearing, however, and the court was not prepared to add them solely so that their generic grounds challenging the policy—that is, the same grounds as the existing lead claims—could be considered. Their applications were therefore refused. The Home Secretary’s position was that the court should hear CBW’s grounds challenging version 6, either through the existing lead claims despite their having become academic, or by substituting our two stayed clients.
The four lead claims were withdrawn. The court ordered that the Home Office pay our costs in three cases, and the court made no order as to costs in CBW.
A linked claim brought by Duncan Lewis Solicitors (Alibiari), listed alongside our four lead claims, proceeded. Judgment was reserved and will be handed down later. Although there was some overlap between the grounds in CBW and Alibiari, Alibiari did not include CBW’s Refugee Convention or Article 8 grounds.
What does this mean for other people affected by version 6?
Anyone who used the 7 January 2026 order to extend the judicial review time limit until three months after final orders in the lead claims should urgently seek legal advice. Our understanding of the orders made by the court is that the three-month period began on 16 June 2026, meaning proceedings must be lodged by no later than 16 September 2026. We have asked the GLD to confirm its understanding of the orders and will update on any response we receive.
People with initial refusal decisions under version 6 should also urgently seek legal advice. At court on 9 June 2026, the Home Office’s position was that any reconsideration would be undertaken by reference to version 6. However, version 7 states that its amendments are “technical clarifications”, and the Home Office’s unequivocal position in the lead claims was that there is no material difference between versions 6 and 7 in how the policies are understood or applied by Home Office officials. Advisers should therefore be able to rely on version 7 as accurately reflecting how the Home Office will assess good character in British citizenship applications.
People refused after reconsideration should also seek urgent legal advice on whether to pursue judicial review to have their decisions withdrawn or reconsidered. Alternatively, they may consider making a fresh naturalisation application.
Amended reconsideration policy
On 15 June 2026, the Home Office published amended guidance on reconsideration requests. Previously, there was no deadline for submitting such requests. The updated guidance states: “We expect an application for reconsideration to be submitted within 6 months of the date that the decision was made.” We consider that anyone whose initial refusal was issued more than six months ago and who now wishes to seek reconsideration should submit their request as soon as possible. However, we consider fairness would require that ultimately they should have six months from 15 June 2026 to do so. The six-month period does not appear to be a strict deadline, meaning a request should still be considered where there is a reasonable explanation for submitting it more than six months after the refusal.
Our immigration team can advise on individual applications (immigration@wilsonllp.co.uk) and both our immigration and public law teams can act in judicial review claims (immigration@wilsonllp.co.uk and public@wilsonllp.co.uk).
The team working on the four lead claims is Mala Savjani, Marcela Navarrete, Catherine Hegarty and Jed Pennington. Counsel instructed are David Chirico KC, Victoria Laughton and Catherine Robinson.
Need advice on an immigration law, public law or human rights matter?
Our experienced solicitors are here to help.
Call 020 8885 7986 to speak with a member of our team.
“The deep bench at Wilson Solicitors LLP combines ‘professionalism and integrity’ with ’exceptional’ legal knowledge to act for clients in high-profile asylum, deportation and human rights cases …”
“Wilson Solicitors may be the most important immigration firm in the area; they are one of the few still doing legal aid immigration work, combining it with private work. They are SO important …”
We are extremely proud that the firm’s Immigration Department has once again received Tier 1 ranking for its Immigration: human rights work in the Legal 500 2026, and Tier 3 in the new category of Immigration: personal.
We are particularly praised for representing “VT and others in their claims for asylum and unlawful detention whilst on the British Indian Overseas Territory (BIOT) of Diego Garcia”, and for our efforts to help a client who was “deprived of her citizenship on national security grounds after travelling to Syria in 2014”. But of equal importance are the hundreds of clients we have helped to get refugee status, succeed in a visa application, or win an appeal against deportation. Our team gives 100% whatever the case.
The department is very grateful to its clients, NGO partners and the professionals it works with. We pride ourselves on being a collaborative team of over 50 lawyers. We are proud of each member of our team for the contribution they have made to the department’s success over the last year.
The Legal 500 has singled out for individual recognition a number of our lawyers.
Anita Vasisht, our Head of Department, once again features in the Hall of Fame, and our Deputy Heads Ana Gonzalez, Muhunthan Paramesvaran are ranked as Leading Partners.
We are also thrilled that partner Marcela Navarette is recognised as a Next Generation Partner and that, our other partners, Aisling Ni Chuinn and Chris McKendry are praised as “key lawyers”.
We are proud of the whole team and look forward to another year of believing in justice for all and going the extra mile for our clients.
This morning, 17 September 2025, Imogen Townley, Associate Solicitor in our Immigration Department spoke to the BBC, ITV and Times Radio about removals under the UK-France treaty targeting Channel crossings announced in August.
Imogen spoke about her experience of the chaotic way in which the Home Office had selected people for removal and the importance of proper due process being observed to ensure that people (such as children) not eligible for removal under the scheme are not wrongly removed to France.
Links to Imogen’s interviews and news coverage of these are below:
Today – 17/09/2025 – BBC Sounds (at 07:53)
Eritrean man wins block on removal to France under ‘one in, one out’ deal – BBC News
Carole Walker | Times Radio | The Times and The Sunday Times (at 27 minutes 20 seconds)
Wilson Solicitors are acting in a number of individual cases for people refused British citizenship on the basis that their ‘illegal’ journeys to the UK mean they are not considered to be of ‘good character’ according to the Home Office’s policy, last updated on 11 February 2025, Good character: caseworker guidance – GOV.UK. The Home Office had indicated that the policy would be updated again to clarify the policy, but this has still not been done.
The firm is also acting in a judicial review challenging this policy. At time of writing, a court decision on whether the judicial review will be permitted to proceed to a full hearing is pending. You can read
our previous posts about this challenge here: 5 March, 14 May, 28 July.
If your application for British citizenship is refused, you have the right to request for the decision to be reconsidered and, potentially, to challenge the refusal in court by way of judicial review. Judicial
reviews must be started promptly and no later than 3 months from the decision challenged. For people who are financially eligible, legal aid may be available. Our immigration team can also act for
you on a private basis.
If you have been refused British citizenship because you arrived in the UK irregularly, you can contact us by email (m.savjani@wilsonllp.co.uk, m.navarrete@wilsonllp.co.uk, j.pennington@wilsonllp.co.uk)or telephone (switchboard 020 8808 7535).
Wilson Solicitors are acting in a judicial review brought by a Syrian refugee of the Home Office’s policy, Good character: caseworker guidance, version 6.0 issued on 11 February 2025. The court reference for the judicial review is AC-2025-LON-001516. You can read our previous posts about the challenge here and here.
In pre-action correspondence the SSHD – whilst denying that the policy was unlawful – indicated her intention to amend the policy to address the position of people who would have a defence under section 31 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, with the expectation that amended policy guidance would be issued by the end of May 2025.
Since then, the latest position communicated to us in correspondence from Home Office lawyers is that there is no timescale for when amended policy guidance will be issued, and no confirmation as to what amendments to the policy being considered.
On 27 June 2025 we filed amended judicial review grounds which argue that the guidance is unlawful on the basis (1) it misdirects decision-makers as to the law, specifically Articles 31 and 34 of the Refugee Convention; (2) it fails to direct decision makers to take account of the impact of refusal on Article 8 ECHR rights; (3) it is unlawfully discriminatory under Article 14 when read with Article 8; and (4) of domestic public law grounds, including frustrating statutory purposes and irrationality / Wednesbury unreasonableness.
On 18 July 2025 the SSHD filed summary grounds of defence denying the claim on all grounds. The defence emphasises the discretion in the policy allowing for individualised assessment of good character in the round. It takes an extreme position – despite previously indicating that the policy would be amended to address those who would have a section 31 defence – that Article 31 of the Refugee Convention does not apply in this context, on the basis that a refusal of naturalisation is not a ‘penalty’ in the meaning of this provision, and because naturalisation is governed by Article 34.
We have filed a reply and now await a decision on permission on the papers, which we expect to receive in the next 1-3 months. If permission is granted, we would expect there to be a full hearing and a decision on the judicial review by the High Court some time in 2026.
Separately, Wilson Solicitors are representing a number of individuals who have been refused British citizenship on the basis of their illegal entry and making a dangerous journey, and we have been made aware of other refusals. In two cases we have been made aware of, the individuals arrived as visitors and were subsequently deemed illegal entrants when they claimed asylum. It therefore seems that people are being refused even where their arrival did not involve a dangerous journey.
In the refusal cases we are acting in, we are seeking reconsideration on form NR in the first instance, as well as preparing to issue JR proceedings within 3 months of the refusal to protect our clients’ position.
We have capacity to assist with refusal cases on legal aid and privately, and we would be interested to hear about refusal cases others are acting in. We would also be interested to hear of any cases decided since the policy was amended on 10 February 2025 where naturalisation was granted notwithstanding illegal entry or arrival.
The Wilson team are Mala Savjani, Marcela Navarrete and Jed Pennington. Email enquiries can be sent to immigration@wilsonllp.co.uk and public@wilsonllp.co.uk.
Counsel instructed are David Chirico KC and Victoria Laughton at 1 Pump Court.
Wilson Solicitors are acting for a Syrian refugee in a judicial review challenge of the Home Office’s policy on assessing good character for applications to naturalise as a British citizen.
This policy was amended on 10 February 2025 to provide that people who arrive or enter illegally will now normally have their applications for British citizenship refused indefinitely. You can read further information about the background to the challenge in our earlier post here.
Our challenge argues that the policy is unlawful because it: (1) directs Home Office decision makers to act in a way that is contrary to the law, including the Refugee Convention; (2) fails to direct them to consider human rights law; (3) is discriminatory; and (4) is irrational.
Before lodging the judicial review we sought to negotiate with the Home Office.
The Home Office has agreed to amend the policy to address Article 31 of the Refugee Convention, which says that states should not penalise refugees for their illegal entry if they travel directly to the country in which they seek asylum. The Home Office has indicated that this will be done by end May.
The Home Office refused two further requests: (1) that the policy should not have retrospective effect; and (2) to provide a reasonable period for the Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association (ILPA) to provide representations, so that all relevant issues and the position of all relevant persons could be considered.
We have also been working with ILPA in relation to amendments to draft legislation currently before Parliament which would ensure that the good character requirement is not applied in a manner that is contrary to international law, and would ensure that it is not applied to refugees who were unable to travel to the UK via another immigration route (see page 37 here).
Mala Savjani, Jed Pennington and Anna Olney-Smith are working on the case, instructing barristers Victoria Laughton and David Chirico KC.
Our immigration department are also acting in individual applications for British citizenship. Partner Marcela Navarrete is leading this work.
You can read journalist Diane Taylor’s article in the Guardian on the case here.
Wilson Solicitors Immigration and Public Law & Human Rights teams are acting in a challenge to the Home Office’s amended guidance on when a person will be considered to be of ‘good character’ for the purposes of an application for British citizenship.
Our challenge argues that the policy is unlawful including because it misdirects Home Office officials as to how they should decide naturalisation applications.
How has the policy changed?
On 10 February 2025, the Home Office amended its guidance on how it assesses whether someone is of ‘good character’ to be granted naturalisation as a British citizen.
A comparison of the previous guidance and the new guidance published on 10 February 2025 is available here.
The main change affects people who entered or arrived in the United Kingdom ‘illegally’. The guidance now says that for anyone applying for naturalisation from 10 February 2025, if they entered or arrived in the UK illegally, however long ago this happened, ‘normally’ their application
will be refused.
Under the previous good character policy (in place since June 2022), illegal entry and other immigration breaches relating to lawful residence that had occurred in the preceding 10 years could be disregarded by the Home Office when considering the naturalisation application, where the person had been granted indefinite leave to remain and no concerns regarding the person’s character had arisen since the grant of settlement.
What has the government said about the change of policy?
The letter here from Dame Angela Eagle DBE MP, Minister for Border Security & Asylum, to the Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association explains the government’s position as follows:
On 10 February we strengthened good character policy for citizenship to make it clear that anyone who enters the UK illegally, or who arrives without a required valid entry clearance or electronic valid authorisation having made a dangerous journey, including small boat arrivals regardless of their date of entry, will normally be refused British citizenship.
Each citizenship application will continue to be considered on a case-by-case basis and the Secretary of State may choose to apply discretion to grant citizenship on an exceptional basis where there are particularly exceptional, compelling or mitigating circumstances, and where necessary to comply with our international obligations.
The government has also made clear, in answers to questions in Parliament (see here and here), that it will normally be appropriate to disregard illegal entry where the way in which an individual arrived in the UK was outside their control, as will normally be the case for people who arrived when they were children or who were trafficked into the UK.
How can we help?
Since the change of policy was announced, we have received over one hundred enquiries from people concerned about how the change of policy might affect them. In many cases, people had completed the relevant tests (English language and Life in the UK) and were ready to submit their applications when the change of policy was announced.
Our Immigration team is able to provide expert advice on and assistance with making an application for naturalisation. If you did not have control over how you entered the UK – for example because you entered as a child or you were trafficked in to the UK – it may be worth putting in your application with detailed arguments as to why you should be granted on an exceptional basis. It may also be worth applying if an argument can be made that you should be considered of good character notwithstanding the fact that you entered illegally.
For people who are ready to apply but for whom the risk of refusal is too high to justify the time and expense of making an application, judicial review might be an option.
Another option is to await the outcome of our legal challenge, challenges brought by other law firms, or further clarification about how the government intends to apply the policy.
Which of these options is right for you will very much depend on consideration of your individual circumstances.
Contacting us
Our work for people considering applying for naturalisation is led by our Immigration partner Marcela Navarrete. Enquiries can be emailed to: immigration@wilsonllp.co.uk
The work on our judicial review challenge is being led by our Public Law partner Jed Pennington and our Immigration Associate Mala Savjani, working with expert immigration and nationality barrister David Chirico KC. Enquiries about this can be emailed to: public@wilsonllp.co.uk
On 10 February 2025, the Home Office amended its guidance on how it assesses whether someone is of ‘good character’ to be granted naturalisation as a British citizen.
A comparison of the previous guidance and the new guidance published on 10 February 2025 is available here.
The main change affects people who entered or arrived in the United Kingdom ‘illegally’. The guidance now says that for anyone applying for naturalisation from 10 February 2025, if they entered or arrived in the UK illegally, however long ago this happened, ‘normally’ their application
will be refused.
Under the previous good character policy (in place since June 2022), illegal entry and other immigration breaches relating to lawful residence that had occurred in the preceding 10 years could be disregarded by the Home Office when considering the naturalisation application, where the person had been granted indefinite leave to remain and no concerns regarding the person’s character had arisen since the grant of settlement.
Also, it had been Home Office’s practice to disregard illegal entry where the person was considered to have ‘come directly’ from the place where they fled persecution. This reflects Article 31 of the Refugee Convention, which says that refugees should not be penalised for breaching immigration
laws where they have come directly from a place where they fear persecution.
The amended guidance contains no reference to Article 31. Nor does it refer to Article 34 of the Refugee Convention, which says that states ‘shall so far as possible facilitate the assimilation and naturalisation of refugees’.
In Parliament the government has said that where people entered or arrived illegally apply for naturalisation on or after 10 February 2025, ‘the presumption is that they will be refused… unless there are compelling, mitigating circumstances’. It was also said that ‘children will be considered sympathetically’.
What should you do if you are affected by this policy?
We consider there are good arguments that the guidance published on 10 February 2025 is unlawful. We are discussing potential judicial review challenges with people. If you would like to discuss this informally with us, you can email public@wilsonllp.co.uk.
Our immigration team are also able to advise and assist people with naturalisation applications. Even if you have entered illegally, it may be possible to argue that this new rule should not apply to you – for example, if you arrived as a child, or you did not have a choice about how you travelled to the UK, or if there are reasons why you should be considered to meet the good character requirement even though you arrived in the UK illegally. If you would like to contact our immigration team about advice and assistance with a naturalisation application, you can email immigration@wilsonllp.co.uk.
We welcome the positive news that the Home Secretary is allowing our clients the opportunity to reach safety in the UK, after having spent over two years living in extreme and inhumane conditions on Diego Garcia.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvg5vvkj4qko
Our clients have all fled persecution in Sri Lanka, including periods of imprisonment and torture. Entry to the UK will not only allow them the chance to start to rebuild their lives but will also enable the essential access to justice they continue to require, which has been severely inhibited throughout their time on Diego Garcia.
We look forward to receiving the Home Secretary’s formal decision which will hopefully mark the beginning of a new chapter for our clients, free from risk and harm
Anita Vasisht, Head of Immigration speaking on this news of this development ‘We are so proud of our team of specialist lawyers who, in the most challenging of circumstances, fought on behalf of this exceptionally vulnerable group of clients with characteristic skill and tenacity. Our team comprised lawyers from both our public law and immigration department as follows: Adam Spray; Aisling Ní Chuinn; Amelia Meldau; Eoin Lewis; Kirsten Powrie; Michael Goldin; Philippa Quested; and Suhanya Jeyashiri’
Our team of lawyers worked with Helen Law at Matrix Chambers and Alasdair Mackenzie of Doughty Street.
Wilson Solicitors laments the passing of the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill. Implementing this legislation, alongside the Illegal Migration Act 2023, will all but end the right to asylum in the UK.
Last year, the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court decided that Rwanda is not a safe country to send asylum seekers to because of the risk of people being returned to countries where they face persecution. The legislation just passed by Parliament says that Rwanda is a safe country to send asylum seekers to, without allowing for the government’s evidence on why it is now safe being tested in court. The legislation thus severely undermines key tenets of this country’s constitutional arrangements, the rule of law and the separation of powers.
We believe the Rwanda policy will cause immeasurable suffering to already traumatised people who have fled war and human rights abuses. And we believe it will not achieve the government’s stated objective of deterring such people from making life endangering journeys to reach safety.
The expert representation of people seeking asylum has been a core part of the firm’s work for more than 30 years. The firm represented a number of people selected for removal on the June 2022 removal flight to Rwanda. Two of our clients were part of the successful challenges to the Rwanda policy in the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court. Others in this group have since had their asylum claims admitted for consideration in the UK. Others have had to lodge further legal challenges to the government’s decision to keep them in a limbo situation, whereby the consideration of their asylum claims has not even begun almost 2 years after they arrived.
The implementation of the Rwanda policy comes at a time when, due to government cuts, there is an acute shortage in immigration legal aid capacity. And the legislation seeks to severely restrict the possibilities for legal challenge.
The government has said that the first removal flights will likely start in July 2024. As a firm we must focus our limited resources on people who need our help most – most likely people who appear to have been detained for possible removal to Rwanda or people who receive letters dated after 22 April 2024saying they have been selected for removal to Rwanda. If you would like us to consider taking a case, you can email rwandareferrals@wilsonllp.co.uk. If we are unable to take on a case, we will signpost other organisations that might be able to help you find legal representation.
.
If you have any queries about our Rwanda work please contact Jed Pennington or Daniel Merriman.
Last year, the Home Office introduced new rules making it much harder for people applying after June 2021 to submit valid applications to regularise their status.
Since then, we have seen blanket rejection letters from the Home Office, saying that there were not good enough reasons for applicants to apply late to the scheme.
In our experience, those who make late applications are often very vulnerable, or have faced extremely difficult circumstances that made it hard to apply to the scheme by the end of June 2021.
Many applicants have been homeless, struggling with mental or physical health problems, or victims of domestic abuse.
We believe that Home Office decisions to reject applications should come with a right of appeal, so that an independent Judge can look at all the facts and evidence in a case to decide whether an applicant had a good reason for applying to the scheme late.
We are representing the charity Here for Good to bring this challenge and they are crowd funding to cover the costs. Any donations are very welcome.
For further information please contact Mala Savjani, the Associate Solicitor with conduct of the case.