Citizenship Appeals: What the New Bill Means for You
Mohammed was born and raised in the UK. He had British citizenship from birth. A few years ago, while visiting family abroad, the Home Office removed his citizenship. They claimed he posed a threat to national security. He found out only after the decision had already been made.
Mohammed appealed to the First-tier Tribunal and won. The Tribunal ruled that the decision was unlawful. As soon as he won, he was treated as British again. He could return to the UK, apply for a passport, and access services. Legally, it was as if he had never lost his citizenship.
The Secretary of State disagreed with the Tribunal’s decision. The government asked for permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal. That process takes time. But even while the case moved to the Upper Tribunal, Mohammed continued to be treated as a British citizen. That’s because he had already won his first appeal.
This made a big difference. While waiting for the next stage of the legal process, Mohammed’s visa national wife gave birth to their son. Because Mohammed was legally British at that point, their child was recognised as British too. The family avoided further stress and delays over their baby’s nationality.
Mohammed’s story shows how the current system works. Once you win at the First-tier Tribunal, your citizenship is legally restored. You are treated as British straight away, even if the government continues to appeal.
But now the government wants to change this rule. If the new law goes ahead, people like Mohammed will not be treated as British until the very end of all appeals. This article explains what the government is planning and why.
What Happens Now When Citizenship Is Removed
If the Home Office believes someone poses a threat or gained British citizenship dishonestly, it can remove their citizenship. You can appeal this decision.
If you win your appeal, the law treats your citizenship as never having been taken away. That means you regain all your rights immediately, even if the government is still trying to appeal the result.
But this rule caused problems. Some people regained their rights while the government was still challenging the outcome. This included the right to return to the UK, apply for a British passport, and access services.
If the Secretary of State decided to deprive a person of their British citizenship, they can appeal against the decision.
What Happens If You Appeal?
If the Home Office removes your citizenship and you decide to appeal, your journey begins at the First-tier Tribunal. This is the court that hears most immigration appeals. You don’t need special permission to bring your case here. You simply file your appeal within the deadline. It’s 14 days if you’re inside the UK, or 28 days if you’re outside.
If you win at the First-tier Tribunal, the current rules say that you are legally British again from that moment. But the Home Office doesn’t always stop there. It can ask for permission to appeal the decision to the Upper Tribunal. First, it has to ask the First-tier Tribunal for permission. If that fails, it can go directly to the Upper Tribunal to ask again.
If the case moves forward, and either side loses again, they can try to take it to the Court of Appeal. That also requires permission: first from the Upper Tribunal, and then from the Court of Appeal itself if needed. Most cases stop at this stage. But in rare situations, the losing party may ask to go all the way to the Supreme Court. To get there, the case must raise a legal issue of major public importance.
How Often Is Citizenship Removed in the UK?
Deprivation of citizenship is not a rare event. Since 2010, over 1,000 people have lost their British citizenship. Most cases involved fraud, while others were due to national security concerns. Between 2010 and 2018, around 17 people a year lost citizenship because they were found to have obtained it dishonestly. During the same period, about 19 people each year lost it on public-good grounds, such as links to terrorism or hostile activity.
The highest number of public-good cases came in 2017, with 104 orders. This spike followed the rise of Isis and British-linked fighters abroad. Since then, the numbers have dropped, but the power is still in regular use. Each decision affects not just the person but their family too, especially if they are overseas, separated, or have children whose rights depend on their parent’s status.
These figures show that deprivation is a real and continuing part of the UK’s immigration system. The new law, if passed, would affect every person appealing one of these decisions in future.
One Case That Changed the Rules
The statistics show that deprivation of citizenship is not unusual and it affects more than just numbers. Every case can impact families, children, and legal status for years. But until recently, it wasn’t clear what should happen when someone wins their appeal. Do they get their citizenship back immediately? Or do they have to wait until all appeals finish?
A recent Supreme Court case answered that question. It showed just how complex these cases can be and why the government is now trying to change the law. Here’s what happened.
Supreme Court case: N3 & ZA v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2025] UKSC 6
What is the case about?
The case focused on whether a citizenship deprivation order, later withdrawn by the Home Office, should be treated as if it never happened. It involved N3, deprived of citizenship in 2017 over alleged terrorist links, and ZA, his daughter, born during that deprivation period.
The dilemma
Key question: If the Home Office withdraws a deprivation order (because it might have caused statelessness), does that mean the order never had legal effect?
Why it matters: If the order is treated as never effective, N3 and his daughter ZA would have been citizens all along, even during the period of deprivation.
What the court decided
The Supreme Court ruled yes, the withdrawal means the order legally never existed. N3 and WA were considered British throughout. That meant ZA automatically had British citizenship at birth. Supreme Court judges confirmed that, once a deprivation order is withdrawn, it’s treated as if it never existed. The people affected always had their British citizenship.
What the Court’s Decision Meant for N3 and His Family
Under the current rules, once someone wins at the First-tier Tribunal, their British citizenship is restored immediately. This applies even if the Home Office later appeals to a higher court. The result is clear: the person is treated as British straight away, with all their rights fully returned.
That’s exactly what happened in N3’s case. As soon as he won his appeal, he regained his citizenship. More importantly, his daughter, born during the time he was considered “not British”, was automatically recognised as British from birth. The court’s decision gave the family legal certainty and allowed them to move forward with their lives without waiting for more appeals.
What the Government Wants to Change
To change the current rules, the government has introduced a new draft law. It’s called the Deprivation of Citizenship Orders (Effect during Appeal) Bill. A Bill is like an unborn child. It has been created, it’s growing, and everyone knows what it’s meant to become. But it isn’t fully formed yet.
Just like a pregnancy, the Bill has to go through several stages. These are called “readings” and “debates” in Parliament. Only after it completes all those stages and both the House of Commons and the House of Lords agree can the Bill be “born” and become a real law, known as an Act of Parliament. Once both Houses approve the final version, the Bill is sent to the King for Royal Assent. This is the formal agreement by the monarch. Once Royal Assent is given, the Bill officially becomes law and takes full legal effect.
The Journey
Right now, this Bill is still going through that journey. But if it becomes law, it will stop people from getting their citizenship back straight after a successful first appeal. Instead, they’ll have to wait until every appeal is over.
If this Bill becomes law, your citizenship will stay removed until every single stage of the appeal process is finished, even if you win at the First-tier Tribunal. The Home Office will still be allowed to appeal. And during that time, you’ll continue to be treated as “not British.” Only once all appeals are complete and only if you’ve won will you get your citizenship and rights back fully.
What This Means in Practice
If the new law is approved, you will still have the right to appeal if the Home Office removes your citizenship. That part will not change. However, if you win at the First-tier Tribunal, you won’t be treated as British straight away.
Instead, you will have to wait until the full legal process is over. This includes any appeals the Secretary of State might make to the Upper Tribunal, the Court of Appeal, or even the Supreme Court. Only after you win at every stage will your citizenship and rights be fully restored.
This process can take a long time. Some cases move through the courts for several years. Under the new law, during this time, you would be treated as “not British”—even if the First-tier Tribunal already agreed that your citizenship should not have been taken away.
Why the Government Wants This Change and What It Could Mean for You
The government says this new law is necessary to protect national security, avoid legal confusion, and prevent people from becoming stateless by accident. Right now, someone who wins at the first appeal stage gets their citizenship back immediately, even if the government still plans to challenge that decision. It is argued that this creates uncertainty and risk, especially if the person later loses at a higher court. They describe the change as a small technical fix, but for those affected, the impact would be far from minor.
If this law is approved, you or someone you know could feel the effects. You would still be able to appeal if the Home Office tries to remove your citizenship. That right will remain. But the process would become slower, and the uncertainty would last longer. You wouldn’t be treated as British until every stage of the appeal process is over. This could affect your ability to return to the UK, apply for a passport, or access public services in the meantime.
For many, that delay could disrupt travel, separate families, block access to work or housing, and cause months, if not years, of stress. So while the legal right to appeal stays in place, the practical reality could become far harder.
What Would This Mean for Mohammed and His Family?
If this new law goes ahead, Mohammed’s story would have played out very differently. He still could have appealed the Home Office’s decision to remove his citizenship. He still could have won at the First-tier Tribunal. But the outcome would have felt very different.
Under the new rules, Mohammed wouldn’t have been treated as British after his first appeal win. He would have remained legally “not British” while the Home Office appealed to the Upper Tribunal, and possibly beyond. That means he wouldn’t have been able to return to the UK, apply for a passport, or access services straight away. Most importantly, his son, born during this uncertain period, might not have been recognised as British at birth. The family would have faced more delays, more stress, and greater legal uncertainty, even though the court had already said Mohammed should never have lost his citizenship.
This is what the government now wants to change: not the right to appeal, but the right to be treated as British while the appeals process is still going on.