United Kingdom

Law, policy and practice on statelessness in the UK is mixed. There have been some recent positive developments, such as the introduction of a statelessness determination procedure (SDP) in 2013, and the UK is party to most relevant human rights treaties. It also has safeguards in place to prevent statelessness in most cases. But there are significant gaps. The UK is not party to the European Convention on Nationality, does not consider statelessness as a protection issue, does not provide for a time limit on detention, and the definition of a stateless person in the UK Immigration Rules contains exclusion criteria that go beyond the 1954 Convention.

The UK SDP allows some people to have their statelessness recognised and acquire residence and socio-economic rights with a route to naturalisation. But, as well as the exclusion clauses, there are procedural obstacles, such as a lack of legal aid in some jurisdictions, limited appeal rights, and a high standard of proof. Applicants have few rights and in practice may be detained while in the procedure although this may be unlawful in some cases. Statelessness is not always considered a juridically relevant fact in decisions to detain, and the lack of sufficient procedural safeguards, including no time limit, leads to repeated and/or lengthy detention in some cases. Safeguards are in place in British nationality law to prevent statelessness in the case of most children born in the UK or to British nationals abroad, but prohibitively high fees for registration and naturalisation (with no possibility of exemption or reduction) are a major barrier for stateless people to acquire British nationality.

Last updated: 
Mar 2020
Next scheduled update: 
Mar 2021
Country expert(s): 

Additional resources






International and Regional Instruments

Assesses whether countries are state party to the relevant international and regional instruments, including whether reservations have an impact on statelessness, and whether instruments are incorporated into domestic law. The four core statelessness treaties (1954 Convention relating to the Status of Stateless Persons; 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness; European Convention on Nationality; Council of Europe Convention on the Avoidance of Statelessness in Relation to State Succession) carry more weight than other relevant human rights instruments in the assessment.

The UK is state party to most relevant international treaties, including the 1954 and 1961 statelessness conventions. However, it is not party to key regional instruments, such as the European Convention on Nationality, nor is it bound by the EU Returns Directive. Most provisions in the 1954 and 1961 conventions are enacted in domestic law (treaties do not have direct effect in the UK legal system), but the definition of a stateless person in the UK’s Immigration Rules contains exclusion criteria that go beyond the 1954 Convention, and some reservations to international instruments impact directly on statelessness.

  • The UK is state party to the 1954 Convention, but it maintains several reservations and the Convention has not been fully incorporated into domestic law (treaties do not have direct effect in the UK legal system).
  • Although some Convention rights are implemented through the statelessness determination procedure, there are legal and/or practical barriers to their realisation in some cases, for example, exceptionally high fees for British nationality applications.
  • The UK is state party to the 1961 Convention, but has reservations allowing for deprivation of nationality of a naturalised person on certain grounds. Deprivation of nationality was reintroduced to UK law in 2014 in cases where a naturalised person ‘acts in a manner which is seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the Crown’.
  • UK nationality law enacts many of the 1961 Convention provisions, but there are gaps.  For example, British nationality law continues to treat those with a form of British nationality that does not allow entry and residence (‘right of abode’) in any country - even the UK - as ‘nationals’ rather than ‘stateless persons’, contrary to a 2018 decision of a higher court in England.
  • The UK is not state party to two of the core regional statelessness conventions, the European Convention on Nationality and the Convention on the Avoidance of Statelessness in Relation to State Succession.
  • The UK is not bound by the EU Returns Directive.
  • The UK maintains reservations to all of the relevant international treaties, but those reservations do not have a direct impact on statelessness or stateless people.

Statelessness Population Data

Examines the availability and sources of disaggregated population data on statelessness. Provides recent figures and assesses reliability of measures countries have in place to count stateless persons, including in the census, population registries and migration databases. Notes whether statelessness has been mapped in the country and whether there are effective measures in place to count stateless people in detention.

The UK Government collects and publishes some data on the stateless population, but it only counts those people it recognises as stateless under the statelessness determination procedure (SDP), and there are potentially overlapping categories, such as 'unknown nationality' and 'Palestinian’. Censuses in the UK do not count stateless people. A mapping study carried out by UNHCR and a national NGO in 2011 noted limitations in stateless population data at the time. Measures are in place to count recognised stateless people detained in immigration removal centres, but there are instances of people who are stateless or at risk of statelessness in detention who are not counted in the statistics.

  • Censuses in the UK do not include a 'stateless' category but do include a question on passport held.
  • UK Government (Home Office) data includes the category ‘stateless’ in some statistics (for example, detention and asylum statistics), but the detention data only counts people it recognises as stateless under the statelessness determination procedure (SDP). The Government does not yet publish statistics on applications under the SDP, but some data has been made available through Freedom of Information Requests (e.g. a total of 5,236 applications for stateless leave were made between 1 April 2013 and 30 September 2019). People who are stateless but refused protection under the SDP are not included in published data. In some published data, there is a category of 'unknown nationality', and other categories that may overlap with statelessness, such as 'Palestinian'.
  • In 2018, 354 main applicants categorised as stateless claimed asylum in the UK. The annual figures for the number of stateless applicants in 2019 was not available at the time of writing. 329 of 560 ‘cases’ categorised as ‘stateless’ were granted refugee protection in 2019; 117 were refused, 92 were withdrawn, and 22 received other forms of protection.
  • There is a 2011 mapping study of statelessness in the UK (by NGO Asylum Aid, and UNHCR), but it is now out of date and limitations in the availability of data were noted at the time of the study.
  • Based on the UK Government’s figures, UNHCR reports 125 (non-refugee) stateless people in the UK who have had their status formally determined in its Global Trends database as at the end of 2018. Figures made available to ENS through Freedom of Information requests give the updated total of 174 grants of stateless leave as at 30 June 2019.
  • The UK Government (Home Office) counts and publishes some limited data on stateless people held in UK immigration removal centres, but this does not include people who are or may be stateless but have not been recognised as such under the SDP.
  • Home Office statistics show that 54 people recorded as 'stateless' entered immigration detention in 2018. In the first six months of 2019, 21 men and one woman recorded as stateless entered immigration detention (one West Saharan man; 15 men and one woman recorded as ‘Occupied Palestinian Territories’; 12 men recorded as 'Kuwaiti'; and 12 men recorded as having nationality ‘unknown’ or ‘other’).
  • We were unable to find data published by the Ministry of Justice or prison services in devolved administrations (Scottish Prison Service and Northern Ireland Prison Service) on stateless people detained under immigration powers in UK prisons.

Statelessness Determination and Status

Identifies whether countries have a definition of a stateless person in national law that aligns with the 1954 Convention, and whether they have a dedicated statelessness determination (SDP) procedure; or, if not, whether there are other procedures or mechanisms by which statelessness can be identified and legal status determined. Countries are subdivided in four groups to enable comparison between those with an SDP in place, those with other administrative procedures, those with a status but no clear mechanism, and those without any status or mechanism. Where a procedure and status exist, these are assessed against norms and good practice, and the rights granted to recognised stateless persons are examined.

The UK introduced a dedicated SDP in the Immigration Rules in 2013. A centralised Statelessness Team within the UK Government Visas and Immigration (Home Office) is responsible for examining all claims. There is some good practice relating to accessibility, procedural protections, and status; but there are significant shortcomings both in the Rules and how they are implemented. The procedure prioritises consideration of eligibility for a residence permit over the determination of statelessness and given the exclusion criteria in the UK definition of a stateless person, this results in a protection gap. Legal aid is not generally available for the procedure in England and Wales, there is no automatic right to appeal, and poor decision-making has been reported in some cases. Those who are recognised and receive a residence permit as a stateless person, face further barriers to naturalisation, including prohibitively high fees.

  • The UK definition of a stateless person does not fully align with the 1954 Convention, as the exclusion clauses set out in the Immigration Rules are considered part of the definition itself. This departs from the 1954 Convention, which permits state parties to withhold protection from excluded persons, but not recognition of a person's statelessness.
  • Additionally, the exclusions permitted by the UK go further than those set out in the 1954 Convention, for example, in relation to admissibility to a country of former habitual residence or the types of criminal activity that affect exclusion from protection or expulsion from the territory.
  • Further criteria were added in 2019 following an update to the Immigration Rules. Most problematically, the applicant is required to have 'sought and failed to obtain or re-establish their nationality with the appropriate authorities of the relevant country' before they become eligible for leave as a stateless person.
  • The UK has a dedicated statelessness determination procedure established in its Immigration Rules. However, the procedure bars certain stateless people from identification and protection on the basis of exclusion clauses in the UK definition of a stateless person. SDP decision-makers sometimes consider eligibility for permission to stay before determining statelessness, resulting in a protection gap for stateless people who do not meet the criteria for permission to stay.
  • The authority appointed is UK Visas and Immigration (part of the UK Government Home Office), which has a dedicated, centralised Statelessness Team.
  • Statelessness determination is the specific objective of the procedure. There is a specific form with instructions, but it is lengthy, only available in English, and unclear and repetitive in parts. Applications must be made in English in writing (via a problematic online form) and cannot be made orally to a public official. There is little flexibility in the application requirements.
  • There is no fee for the procedure. Access is not contingent on residence status, and there is no time limit. Authorities have an obligation in law to consider the application.
  • There is no general obligation to initiate the procedure ex officio. The authorities are not prohibited from referring to the SDP, but rarely do so. An obligation might be inferred for children, deriving from the obligation to consider children’s best interests in any immigration decision, but the procedure is not initiated ex officio for children.
  • There is no formal cooperation between different government agencies specifically on statelessness or the SDP and recent cases have been reported of lack of coordination and cooperation on statelessness cases between different authorities.
  • Applications are assessed by a centralised team, but practitioners have reported some cases of poor decision-making.
  • Decision-makers receive general training on immigration and asylum, which contains some elements of how to assess nationality. Decision-makers receive informal on-the-job training, and are required to complete online UNHCR Training on Statelessness, and may attend other ad hoc trainings on statelessness.
  • The burden of proof is on the applicant, but decision makers are obliged by government guidance to carry out research and enquiries, particularly for child applicants, where the applicant is ‘unable’ to do so. However, this is not done consistently.
  • There are some special considerations in guidance for children, women and ethnic minorities, but practitioners have observed this guidance not being followed in practice. The 2019 version of the guidance acknowledges the link between statelessness and human trafficking; it also clarifies the procedure for determination of statelessness in a deportation case.
  • The standard of proof is ‘balance of probabilities’, which is higher than in asylum applications.
  • The authorities have guidance on how to determine statelessness, which was updated in 2019, but it is not clear nor comprehensive in all respects. There has been some improvement and some regression in the 2019 version of the guidance.
  • In contrast to provision of legal aid for asylum applicants throughout the UK, there is no legal aid for statelessness applications in England and Wales, though it is possible to apply for exceptional case funding. Survivors of trafficking are eligible for legal aid in any immigration application, including a statelessness application. Legal aid is available in Scotland and Northern Ireland, and for judicial review of refusals in all jurisdictions.
  • Not all applicants are interviewed. Interviews are only conducted where decision-makers consider they cannot make a decision based on the written information provided. However, in some cases in which further relevant information could have been sought in an interview, the applicants were not invited for interview, and their applications refused. The requirement to interview has been watered down in successive versions of the guidance for decision-makers, including in 2019.
  • Interpreters are provided free of charge.
  • There is an internal Home Office quality assurance system in place within the Statelessness Unit, whereby at least one decision per examiner is reviewed each month, but the outcomes of these reviews are not published. Separately, UNHCR’s Quality Integration Project has access to Home Office files with authorities’ consent and works with the UK Government to strengthen decision-making quality, including with respect to the statelessness procedure.
  • Decisions for refusals are written and reasons must be provided, but reasons are not required nor given when applications are approved.
  • There is no referral mechanism into the SDP from other agencies or departments.
  • There is no timeframe for decisions set in law. If the first decision is a refusal and a request for administrative review of the decision is upheld, applicants often face significant delays.
  • There is no automatic right for an applicant to remain in the UK during the procedure and no guarantee against expulsion. A stateless leave application is not a barrier to removal where a person does not have extant leave in any other capacity and an Emergency Travel Document (ETD) has been issued: that will be accepted as evidence that the person is re-admissible to the country of return.  Whether or not they are stateless, they will not be granted a residence permit.
  • Applicants do not have the right to work and may be detained, although this is unlawful if detention is for the purposes of removal and removal is not imminent.
  • Applicants who have been refused asylum and are destitute (or imminently so) are potentially eligible for very basic shelter and support.
  • There is no time limit for the procedure in law. The Government has stated it is working to reduce delays in decision-making and may introduce non-mandatory guidance on discretionary timeframes.
  • There is no automatic right of appeal against a decision to refuse a grant of leave to remain on the grounds of statelessness, but administrative and judicial reviews are possible.
  • In all UK jurisdictions, legal aid is potentially available for judicial review, but not necessarily for administrative review (in England and Wales), and the case must meet an eligibility test on income and merits. Judicial reviews are subject to court fees, but fee waivers may be available, and fees may be covered by legal aid, where approved. Court fees may vary in different jurisdictions. There are some restrictions on legal aid for judicial review (for example, in England, legal advisers may not be paid under legal aid if the court does not grant permission for the judicial review or does not order payment of their costs). There is no fee for an administrative review as there is no fee for the statelessness residence permit application itself.
  • There is some evidence of errors in decision-making, for example, cases decided at judicial review have found errors of law and further cases are pending; and errors have also been identified by the Home Office through the administrative review process. Following criticism of the quality of initial decisions made by the Statelessness Team, they have committed to a revised internal review process. UNHCR has conducted two audits of decision-making.  An audit conducted in 2018 is to be made public but is yet to be published (as at January 2020).
  • People recognised as stateless may be granted permission to remain in the UK if they meet additional requirements, but those admissible to another country for permanent residence are barred from leave to remain in the UK. The exclusion clauses of the Convention pertaining to character and conduct are applied in addition to further, general grounds for refusal in the immigration rules, which apply to all applicants for visas or residence permits.
  • If eligible for protection as a stateless person, a renewable right to reside for 60 months is granted, after which an application for permanent residence can be made. A travel document can be requested (for a fee of 75 GBP (81 EUR)) but is not issued automatically.
  • Residence can be revoked if it is considered the applicant poses a danger to public safety or security or that they have made false representations and therefore should not have been granted a statelessness residence permit.
  • Family reunion is available with a spouse, civil partner, unmarried partner, and/or child under 18 years-old; however, there are significant delays and procedural and evidential hurdles for some applicants.
  • People granted stateless status have the right to work and to access primary, secondary and higher education. In England and Wales, stateless people must comply with residence conditions for higher education entitlements. Stateless students in England have been included as eligible for student loans since August 2018. In Wales, people with stateless leave must meet a three-year residency requirement before starting a higher education course. In Scotland, amendments to the regulations introduced in 2018 extend entitlement to stateless people and their families to access student funding and restrict the level of fees they may be charged for access to higher education. Stateless people are eligible for social security and access to healthcare (but in England and Wales they may be required to pay for non-urgent healthcare and there are some restrictions on housing assistance). People granted refugee status or subsidiary protection are eligible for integration loans (England), but people granted leave to remain under the immigration rules for statelessness residence permits are not.
  • Stateless people are eligible to apply for naturalisation generally after five years’ lawful residence and one additional year of permanent residence, in line with refugees and people with subsidiary protection (if they meet other criteria for naturalisation). This does not put them in a more advantageous position than most other people applying for naturalisation.
  • The standard naturalisation fees are prohibitively high (1330 GBP / 1435 EUR) and there are no exemptions for stateless people.
  • A 'good character' requirement is imposed, creating a further barrier, especially for those with criminal convictions or 'reasonable grounds to suspect they have been involved in a crime'.
  • There is no minimum income requirement, but there are citizenship and language tests, which can be waived in certain exceptional circumstances, but not on grounds of statelessness.
  • Children recognised as stateless are potentially eligible to register as British nationals when their parents naturalise; or, if recognised as stateless under the immigration rules as unaccompanied minors, to register as British nationals after five years’ lawful residence and one additional year of permanent residence. Children born in the UK and remaining stateless until they are five years-old may apply to register. The fees applied to all these types of applications are also prohibitively high: 1012 GBP (1092 EUR) increased if the child turns 18 during the application process.


Analyses law, policy and practice relating to immigration detention generally, focusing in on protections in place to prevent the arbitrary detention of stateless people during removal and deportation procedures. Subthemes examine areas such as detention decision-making, whether alternatives to detention are legislated for and implemented, procedural safeguards such as time limits, judicial oversight and effective remedies, as well as protections on release and whether statelessness is considered juridically relevant in bilateral return and readmission agreements.

There are few positive aspects to law, policy and practice on immigration detention in the UK. Powers to detain are provided for in law and policy guidance, which states that detention should be a last resort, and detainees have recourse to legal aid and judicial review of their detention. However, there is no time limit on immigration detention in the UK and prolonged periods of detention have been found to be lawful in some cases (though unlawful in others). Many people enter detention who are later released, and in many cases re-detained; case reviews are often cursory, alternatives are not adequately considered prior to detention, and few protections are provided on release. Statelessness is not identified as giving rise to vulnerability and is not adequately considered as a juridically relevant fact in decisions to detain.

  • Powers for immigration detention are provided in law. Detention is permitted on various grounds including when removal from the UK is allegedly ‘imminent’. By law, detention must be for a reasonable period and the authorities must exercise diligence and expedition in seeking to remove. Detention must end if removal will not occur within a reasonable period. However, prolonged periods of detention (for example, 10 months) have been found to be lawful in some cases.
  • The law does not state whether a country of removal must be identified prior to detention.
  • Statelessness is not explicitly referred to in UK law or policy as a juridically relevant fact in relation to detention, but it can be raised by detainees and is a relevant fact according to case law. In practice, there is evidence that the authorities do not always adequately consider statelessness.
  • The authorities do not refer people in detention to the immigration procedure for stateless people, though a detainee can make a statelessness application from detention.
  • Some stateless people are detained, including some who are not acknowledged to be stateless.
  • Individual vulnerability assessments are required under UK law and policy but are not always thorough and do not consistently prevent detention in practice. Statelessness is not identified as giving rise to vulnerability.
  • There are various alternatives to detention and alternative forms of detention used in the UK, including curfews and electronic tagging, and these are required to be considered prior to detention, but in practice, they are not often adequately considered.
  • The law provides that immigration detention should only be used as a last resort, but this is not observed in practice; many people enter immigration detention each year who are later released.
  • There is no time limit on immigration detention in the UK.
  • Written reasons for detention are provided to the detainee at the time of detention, but these are in tick-box form and are not individualised.
  • Detainees are usually informed of how to access legal advice and bail when detained and in monthly reviews of their detention, but this does not include how to access the immigration procedure for stateless persons.
  • The Home Office internally reviews the need for immigration detention every 28 days, but this is often a cursory review. The Immigration Act 2016 introduced automatic periodic bail hearings for people who have not had a bail hearing for four months, and the UK Government is presently trialling an automatic bail hearing pilot for people who have not had a bail hearing for two months.
  • Detainees can apply for bail, seek judicial review of unlawful detention or bring a habeas corpus action before a judge.
  • Free legal aid exists to challenge detention, but evidence suggests there are barriers to accessing it in practice and there are reports of poor-quality advice being provided.
  • A person released from detention is not routinely issued with residency documents unless they have applied for and been granted stateless (or another) status from within detention.
  • If the person is released, they are normally granted Immigration Bail. They may be eligible for basic support, accommodation and healthcare (although they may be required to pay for non-urgent healthcare in England and Wales) but are not permitted to work.
  • As there is no time limit on detention, cumulative time spent in detention does not count towards any limit. Some people are detained for very lengthy periods and some people are detained multiple times.
  • Very little information is available publicly on the content of bilateral return or readmission agreements entered into by the UK Government, and there is no information as to whether stateless people are returned under such agreements in practice.
  • The UK has been party to EU readmission agreements but will cease to be so after the transition period following its exit from the EU, unless other arrangements are made. When considering whether a person could be refused leave to remain as a stateless person under the Immigration Rules, the relevant criterion is ‘admissibility’ (Part 14). Government guidance states that ‘Applications for leave to remain as a stateless person will normally be decided and the decision communicated to the applicant before removal arrangements are made.’  It asserts that where a person holds a current passport or is issued an Emergency Travel Document then that is evidence that they are readmissible for the purposes of permanent residence.

Prevention and Reduction

Assesses the adequacy of safeguards in nationality laws to prevent and reduce statelessness, including protections for otherwise stateless children born on the territory or to nationals abroad, foundlings and adopted children. Examines law, policy and practice on birth registration, including access to late birth registration, reduction measures taken by states to prevent statelessness among groups at high risk, and provisions regarding withdrawal of nationality.

There are safeguards in UK nationality law to prevent statelessness in most cases, but some gaps and practical barriers persist. Children born and remaining stateless in the UK can register as British nationals after five years of living in the UK, before the age of 22, but there is a prohibitively high fee for registration. There are partial safeguards in law for children born abroad to British nationals, children adopted by British nationals in certain circumstances, and for foundlings. There is no statutory age limit for the acquisition of nationality by foundlings, but policy guidance is not clear about whether a foundling's nationality could later be lost should circumstances change or new facts come to light. All births must be registered in the UK irrespective of parents’ status, but health services are required to report unpaid healthcare charges to the authorities, which may deter undocumented migrants from accessing services.

  • Otherwise stateless children born in the UK to a parent holding a form of British nationality (British Citizenship; British Overseas Territories Citizenship; British Overseas Citizenship; British Subject), acquire British nationality automatically.
  • Children born stateless in the UK with no British (or permanently resident) parent are entitled to register for British nationality on application after five years’ continuous residence prior to the age of 22. This does not need to be lawful residence, but the child must not have been absent for more than 450 days during this period.
  • There is a fee of 1012 GBP (1092 EUR) for registration of a child as a British national, which is a significant barrier for many.
  • Children are not required to prove they cannot access another nationality (unlike in the immigration procedure), only that they are, and always have been, stateless. The standard of proof is 'balance of probabilities' and the burden of proof is on the applicant.
  • There are no specific provisions to protect the right to a nationality of children born to refugees.
  • Foundlings are presumed in law to have been born to a British national and acquire British nationality automatically.
  • The law refers to 'new-born infants'. UK Government guidance previously indicated that the reference to new-born infants should be interpreted generously and included babies up to one year old; however, this was omitted from updated guidance.
  • There is no statutory age limit for the acquisition of nationality by foundlings, but policy guidance is not clear about whether a foundling's nationality could later be lost should circumstances change or new facts come to light.
  • An adopted child's acquisition of another foreign nationality does not result in loss of their British nationality.
  • The law provides for a child adopted by British nationals to acquire British nationality, but where it is not a Hague Convention adoption (for example, if it is a ‘de facto’ adoption where there are no papers) the child will not acquire the parent’s nationality automatically.
  • Children born to British national parents abroad can acquire a parent’s nationality by descent (ius sanguinis) if in the first generation, and subsequent generations under certain conditions. British nationals by descent born overseas cannot in principle pass their nationality to their children also born overseas.  Where a child is stateless, that child can be registered as British if the parents are resident in the UK for three years after the birth. Conditions are not discriminatory in nature.
  • Births must be reported to the birth registrar within 42 days in England, Wales and Northern Ireland and within 21 days in Scotland.
  • All births must be registered by law even if parents are undocumented or do not have any residence status.
  • There is no evidence of barriers to birth registration in practice due to lack of documentation or residence status; however, public health services are required to report certain immigration matters to the immigration authorities and some undocumented migrants are subject to charging for healthcare, which may deter them from accessing services and could prevent birth registration.
  • Late registration is possible in law and practice in all jurisdictions although it is discretionary after a year and there is provision in law for failure to register a birth to incur a fine (no more than 200 GBP (216 EUR)).
  • In England and Wales, a short form birth certificate is provided for free.  In Scotland a provision for free short form birth certificates was repealed in 2006. In Northern Ireland there is provision for payment of a fee for the short form certificate.
  • Nationality is not recorded on the birth registration document (neither of the parents nor the child) and there is no formal, standalone procedure for determining nationality. Most children will only have their nationality determined at the point of requesting a British passport.  Children who are subject to immigration procedures may have their nationality determined by the relevant Home Office authority dealing with their immigration application.
  • There is no evidence of targeted government campaigns to promote birth registration, though information on how to register births is provided on government websites.
  • Hospitals advise people to register births and there is generally high awareness of the need to do so. Still, there is some anecdotal evidence of births in very marginalised communities not being registered.
  • There is no evidence of specific groups being at particular risk of statelessness in the UK, and the UK Government has not taken any proactive reduction measures to reduce the risk of statelessness.
  • Powers exist in law for the Secretary of State to deprive British nationals of their nationality if certain tests are met.
  • No deprivation order may be made which would render a person stateless unless certain criteria are met. An order may be made which results in a person becoming stateless where: a) the person naturalised; and b) the Secretary of State considers that they have conducted themselves in a manner seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the state; and c) the Secretary of State has reasonable grounds for believing that the person may be able to acquire another nationality.
  • Procedural guarantees include the right to appeal. The Secretary of State may notify the person concerned while they are abroad, and by electronic means or ‘served to file’, which means that the person is not in fact served with the notice.
  • Withdrawal provisions are applied in practice, and increasingly.

Latest news on United Kingdom

UNHCR publishes audit of statelessness determination in the UK

UNHCR published an audit of the UK’s statelessness determination procedure.
19 Jan 2021 / Statelessness determination and status / United Kingdom

New INDEX thematic briefing: Birth registration and the prevention of statelessness in Europe

Read our new briefing on birth registration and the prevention of statelessness
5 May 2020 / Austria / Belgium / Bulgaria / Cyprus / Czech Republic / France / Germany / Greece / Hungary / Italy / Latvia / Malta / Moldova / Netherlands / North Macedonia / Norway / Poland / Portugal / Prevention and reduction / Serbia / Slovenia / Spain / Switzerland / Ukraine / United Kingdom

Urgent Reforms Needed to Improve UK's Approach to Statelessness

This joint briefing by Consonant, Liverpool Law Clinic and the European Network on Statelessness recommends three urgent reforms for the UK to commit...
28 Aug 2019 / Detention / International and Regional Instruments / Prevention and reduction / Statelessness determination and status / Statelessness population data / United Kingdom

Project funded by: