High Court upholds Home Office’s ‘good character’ policy of refusing citizenship to refugees who entered UK irregularly

In R (on the application of Ahmed Alibiari) v SSHD [2026] EWHC 1623 (Admin), Mr Alibiari, an Egyptian national with refugee status in the UK, challenged the Home Office policy of refusing citizenship to refugees who originally came to the UK irregularly. Following judicial review proceedings, the Divisional Court has rejected Mr Alibiari’s claim and found the Home Office’s ‘good character’ policy to be lawful.

The Home Office policy

Applications for naturalisation as a British citizen are governed by section 6 of the British Nationality Act 1981. The Home Secretary can grant citizenship under either section 6(1) or 6(2), which applies in the case of those married to existing British citizens, if an applicant meets the requirements of Schedule 1. One of the requirements is that an applicant ‘is of good character’. To be granted citizenship under either section 6(1) or 6(2), this ‘good character’ requirement must be satisfied.

The Home Secretary issues guidance on how Home Office caseworkers should consider whether a person applying for British citizenship meets the ‘good character’ requirement. Between February 2025 and April 2026, Version 6 of the guidance was in force. This version set out that any applicant who previously entered the UK illegally or arrived irregularly following a dangerous journey would normally be refused on the basis that they did not satisfy the ‘good character’ requirement. This meant that any applicant who arrived illegally or irregularly – regardless of how long ago the arrival took place or any subsequent recognition as a refugee – would be presumed to lack good character.

The legal challenge

The claimant, Mr Alibiari, was an Egyptian national who had been granted refugee status in the UK. He had left Egypt at the age of 18 due to a fear of persecution and travelled through several European countries before entering the UK concealed in a lorry in 2016. He had since been granted Indefinite Leave to Remain and applied for naturalisation as a British citizen. His application for naturalisation was refused under Version 6 of the ‘good character’ policy, leading Mr Alibiari to challenge the policy through judicial review.

The claimant challenged the policy on three grounds. The first ground submitted that the policy directed caseworkers to take unlawful decisions because it failed to consider that a refugee may not bear any moral responsibility for the circumstances that caused them to enter the UK illegally. Secondly, the claimant submitted that the policy created a risk of breach of Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which provides protection against discrimination. The third ground submitted that the policy was adopted in breach of the public sector equality duty under the Equality Act 2010.

The High Court’s judgment

In relation to the first ground of challenge, the High Court found that the Home Secretary is entitled to instruct caseworkers that, normally, illegal entry to the UK indicates that a person lacks good character. The court affirmed that it is for the Home Secretary, rather than the courts, to set the standard of behaviour or conduct to be expected of persons seeking citizenship.

The court acknowledged that in some circumstances, such as those involving trafficking, a person may not be responsible for how they entered or arrived in the UK. However, it was concluded that the Home Office policy accounted for such circumstances by providing for exceptional cases where applications that would normally be refused are, nonetheless, granted. The exceptional case mitigation covers cases where individuals are not responsible for the means by which they arrive in the UK. Therefore, there was no need for the policy to include an express statement that people who entered irregularly or illegally might still be of good character. The omission of this statement did not misdirect caseworkers into taking unlawful decisions.

In relation to the second ground, the Court found that the claimant failed to show that the policy had a disproportionate effect on refugees entering illegally or arriving irregularly compared to non-refugees who arrived or entered in the same way. There was no data available to prove any discrepancy in treatment between the two groups, and this ground of challenge therefore failed. In any event, the Court concluded that even if a disproportionate effect on refugees was established, the difference would have been deemed objectively justified and the ground would have failed on that basis instead.

Finally, in relation to the third ground of challenge, the Court found that the Home Secretary was ‘well aware’ of her public sector equality duty and clearly complied with it.

Impacts of the judgment

This judgment affirms the Home Secretary’s broad discretion over setting the standard of conduct required of applicants for naturalisation. Whilst the claimant’s legal team has indicated an intention to seek permission to appeal the decision, the legality of the policy currently stands. For those who arrived in the UK irregularly or illegally and are now considering making an application for naturalisation as a British citizen, seeking legal advice is highly recommended.

Notably, Version 6 of the ‘Nationality: Good Character Requirement’ guidance was replaced by Version 7 on 30 April 2026. Therefore, any applications for naturalisation as a British citizen made after that date will be considered under Version 7.

Version 7 of the Good Character guidance includes an express reference to disregarding illegal entry or arrival where this was outside the person’s control. It is therefore more favourable than Version 6. However, the general presumption of a lack of good character for illegal or irregular entrants remains, and prospective applicants are encouraged to carefully consider the current policy and seek legal advice.

Gherson Insights

This decision confirms just how wide a margin of discretion the Home Secretary retains when defining what ‘good character’ means for naturalisation purposes. Where a policy choice is grounded in a legitimate assessment of conduct, such as mode of entry to the UK, the courts will be slow to interfere and challenges based on discrimination will fail without clear statistical or evidential proof of disproportionate impact.

In our experience, applicants who arrived in the UK irregularly should not assume that naturalisation is automatically out of reach. Both Version 6 and the now-current Version 7 of the guidance retain an exceptional case carve-out for applicants who were not responsible for their means of arrival, for example, victims of trafficking or those who travelled as children. Building a well-evidenced case around the individual circumstances of arrival remains the most effective way to strengthen a naturalisation application.

Given that the claimant’s legal team has signalled an intention to seek permission to appeal, and that Version 7 now expressly directs caseworkers to disregard illegal entry or arrival that was outside an applicant’s control, this area of policy is likely to keep evolving. Individuals refused naturalisation under Version 6 may wish to consider whether a fresh application under Version 7 improves their prospects, though the underlying presumption against illegal or irregular entrants persists and each case should be assessed on its own facts.

How Gherson can assist

Gherson’s Immigration Team are highly experienced in advising on Good Character requirements for naturalisation applications. If you have any questions arising from this blog, please do not hesitate to contact us for advice, send us an e-mail, or, alternatively, follow us on X, Facebook, Instagram, or LinkedIn to stay-up-to-date.

The information in this blog is for general information purposes only and does not purport to be comprehensive or to provide legal advice. Whilst every effort is made to ensure the information and law is current as of the date of publication it should be stressed that, due to the passage of time, this does not necessarily reflect the present legal position. Gherson accepts no responsibility for loss which may arise from accessing or reliance on information contained in this blog. For formal advice on the current law please do not hesitate to contact Gherson. Legal advice is only provided pursuant to a written agreement, identified as such, and signed by the client and by or on behalf of Gherson.

©Gherson 2026