At least 75 people successfully overturned Home Office orders to strip them of their British citizenship last year, according to records obtained by the Observer, which reveal a dramatic increase in challenges to the government’s use of the controversial powers.
On Wednesday, Shamima Begum, 23, lost her appeal against the Home Office’s decision to remove her British citizenship and is stranded in Syria, barred from returning to the UK.
New figures show that, between January and September 2022, there were 354 other legal challenges against the government’s citizenship deprivation orders, less than a fifth of which were successful. The figures, by far the highest on record, suggest a steep increase in these orders.
Last week’s decision by the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (Siac) to reject the appeal by Begum, who left the UK aged 15 to join Islamic State, continues to prompt outrage.
Yesterday, a former intelligence officer for the Canadian security services, which employed a double agent to smuggle Begum into Isis territory, condemned it as a “travesty of justice”.
Huda Mukbil, who worked with MI5, said the verdict defied belief. “They even recognise she was a child and was trafficked into Syria; there was a breach of duty on behalf of the state [the UK] to make sure she doesn’t leave the country,” she said.
Concern has been rising after the government introduced reforms, making it easier to strip people of their citizenship without warning, in the Nationality and Borders Act, which received royal assent last April.
Figures obtained by the Observer – provided after an intervention from the Information Commissioner’s Office – reveal that, during Priti Patel’s tenure as home secretary from July 2019 to September 2022, there was a sustained rise in challenges against deprivation orders, with over 119 in 2019-20 (37 successful) and 120 in 2020-21 (33 successful). By comparison, in 2013-2014 there were just 13 challenges; and in most years before, there were fewer than five challenges to the deprivation orders.
In February 2019, then home secretary Sajid Javid stripped Begum of her UK citizenship; she has since remained in a refugee camp in north-east Syria.
Fizza Qureshi, CEO of the Migrants’ Rights Network, said “The news that so many people have overturned attempts to strip them of their citizenship is welcome, as no one should be at risk of being made stateless.
“However, it does raise serious concerns about the government’s determination and intention to pursue such draconian measures.”
The home secretary can issue a deprivation order against someone in certain circumstances, such as if it is “for the public good” and would not make them stateless. Begum’s parents have Bangladeshi citizenship, though Shamima herself does not, and the country’s government has stated repeatedly that she cannot enter. Deprivation orders have also been used against members of proscribed organisations such as Islamic State.
Zehrah Hasan, advocacy director at the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants, said “People who’ve been born and raised here should feel safe in the knowledge that this is their home, regardless of skin colour or where their parents were born.
“The home secretary’s use of citizenship deprivation orders – which are eight times more likely to be used against racialised people than white Britons – is discriminatory and draconian, and the courts clearly agree, as we can see from the huge number of rulings they’ve overturned.”
A Home Office spokesperson said: “Deprivation of citizenship is used against those who have acquired citizenship by fraud and against the most dangerous people, such as terrorists, extremists and serious organised criminals. Deprivation of citizenship only happens after careful consideration of the facts, in accordance with international law. Each case is assessed individually on its merits and always comes with the right of appeal.”
