Position as at 9 July 2026.
Many people who reached safety in the UK by irregular means, and who have since been given permission to stay, now ask the same anxious question. If I entered without permission, or I came across the Channel in a small boat, has that closed the door on ever becoming British. Since early 2025 a good number of applications have been turned down for precisely this reason, so the worry is well founded. The full picture, though, is more nuanced than the headlines allow, and it needs careful understanding before any decision is taken.
Although it remains possible to make an application for naturalisation and succeed, there are challenges.
In short
- How a person first arrived in the UK can now result in a citizenship application being refused, sometimes many years later.
- For applications made on or after 10 February 2025, an unlawful entry or a dangerous journey will usually lead to refusal, with no ten-year cut-off.
- The rule is a strong presumption rather than a flat no. Discretion survives, and some situations can fall into exceptions.
- The policy was tested in court but not overturned.
How character is judged, and why the guidance carries so much weight
To naturalise as a British citizen you have to satisfy the Home Office that you are of good character, and the same test applies to most people aged 10 or over who apply to register. The requirement sits in Schedule 1 to the British Nationality Act 1981, yet the Act never says what good character actually means. That gap is filled by Home Office caseworker guidance, which lists the matters that tell against an applicant, from criminal convictions and dishonesty to breaches of immigration law. Because the meaning lives in guidance rather than in statute, a minister can move the line by rewriting the guidance, and a rewrite can change who qualifies from one day to the next. That is exactly what happened here.
The change in February 2025: from a ten-year period to no limit at all
Until early 2025 an unlawful entry was considered if it had happened in the last 10 years, and did not always lead to a refusal. If it had happened within the previous decade it would usually count against the applicant, and once ten years had gone by it dropped out of the assessment. From 10 February 2025 that time limit disappeared for new applications. The guidance now directs caseworkers that a person who entered the country illegally will “normally” be refused, and it makes clear that this holds however many years have passed since the entry. Someone who came into the UK unlawfully long ago, has lived here lawfully ever since and has held settled status for years, can still be refused today on the basis of that first entry.
Small boats, lorries and the “dangerous journey” test
A second, parallel rule was introduced at the same time for those who arrived without the entry clearance or electronic travel authorisation they needed, having made what the guidance calls a dangerous journey. Here too the presumption is refusal, and here too it bites regardless of how long ago the journey took place. The guidance treats a crossing by small boat, or travelling concealed in a lorry or other vehicle, as falling within the rule, while arriving as an ordinary fare paying passenger on a commercial flight does not. In practice the test reaches the very routes that people fleeing danger have most often had no safe or lawful way to avoid, the Channel crossings and the concealed road journeys that fill the news.
Why settled refugees are the ones most affected
Although the rule is written in general terms, its sharpest effect falls on people who were accepted as refugees, or granted leave on human rights grounds, because they could not safely return home. The familiar sequence is that a person arrives by an irregular route, claims asylum, is recognised as a refugee, later qualifies for indefinite leave to remain and would ordinarily expect citizenship to follow. For anyone in that position who applies on or after 10 February 2025, the way they first arrived can now block the final step, whatever the length or quality of the life they have since built here. This is the feature that has drawn the most attention, because it can leave a person whose need for protection the UK has already accepted unable to complete their integration by becoming a citizen.
Why “normally” is doing a great deal of work
The wording of the guidance needs close attention. It says these applications will “normally” be refused, not that they must be, and that single word preserves a discretion to grant citizenship where the circumstances are exceptional, compelling or mitigating. A carefully built application can bring those circumstances to the front of the caseworker’s mind rather than leaving them to be guessed at. The current version of the guidance, in force since 30 April 2026, goes further and marks out situations in which the entry or journey should not be held against the applicant at all. Where the breach was genuinely beyond the person’s control it should normally be left out of account, and the guidance points in particular to victims of trafficking, especially those with a positive decision under the National Referral Mechanism, with comparable allowance for those who were children when it happened. It also recognises the defence under section 31 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, which carries into domestic law the refugee’s protection against penalties for arriving irregularly, so long as the person came straight from danger, came forward promptly and had good reason for the way they arrived. These are genuine openings, but none of them applies automatically. Each has to be spotted, argued and supported with evidence.
What the court proceedings did and did not settle
The change was contentious from the day it appeared, and it was challenged in the High Court by people directly affected by it. The heart of the challenge was that penalising a refugee for the manner of their arrival is hard to square with the UK’s obligations towards refugees, both the protection against penalties for irregular entry and the commitment to help refugees naturalise so far as is reasonably possible, and that the approach was irrational. The proceedings did not produce a judgment on any of that. Before the court ruled, the Home Office reissued its guidance in the revised form that is now in force and agreed to look again at the refusals under challenge, and the claims then came to an end. For anyone applying now the practical position is plain enough. The policy was not struck down, it continues to apply, and the arguments against it remain available to be run in a suitable individual case.
If you have been refused, or you are weighing up an application
A refusal of citizenship carries no right of appeal, which makes the route different from an ordinary visa refusal. What you can do is ask the Home Office to reconsider the decision, currently for a fee of £513, or challenge it by judicial review. Both are governed by strict time limits and need to be approached with care, and judicial review in particular is specialist work. If you have not yet applied, the way you arrived does not doom the application, but it does mean the application should be built around that issue from the outset. In practice that means confronting head on whether the breach was beyond your control, whether you were a child or a victim of trafficking, whether the refugee protection against penalties applies to you, and what exceptional, compelling or mitigating features weigh in your favour, each supported by evidence rather than assertion. It is worth keeping the cost in view, because the fee to naturalise is £1,839 and, apart from the ceremony element, it is not returned if the application fails. It is far better to deal with the difficulty before applying than to lose both the fee and the waiting time.
Every case turns on its own facts. If the manner of your arrival is part of your history, it is sensible to take advice on your own position before committing to an application.
Frequently asked questions
Can someone who entered the UK unlawfully ever become British?
In principle yes. There is no outright, lifelong bar. The guidance sets a presumption of refusal, but caseworkers keep a discretion to grant citizenship where the circumstances are exceptional, compelling or mitigating. Whether that discretion is realistic in a given case depends on the whole history, which is why individual advice matters.
I have been here lawfully for well over ten years. Does that put me in the clear?
Not on its own, for any application made on or after 10 February 2025. The former ten-year period, after which an old entry stopped counting, has gone. Under the current guidance the manner of entry can weigh against you no matter how long ago it was.
Does this really apply to recognised refugees?
It can, which is the reason it has drawn such attention. That said, the refugee’s protection against penalties for irregular arrival, and the statutory defence that reflects it, are directly in play, and the guidance itself accepts that some cases should be set aside. A refugee affected by the rule should take advice rather than treat citizenship as lost.
What makes a journey a dangerous journey?
The guidance points to crossings by small boat and to travelling concealed in a vehicle. Arriving as an ordinary passenger on a commercial flight is not treated as a dangerous journey. The examples are not a closed list, so other comparable journeys can fall within it.
What if the entry was not my fault, or I was trafficked, or I was a child at the time?
The guidance says a breach that was beyond your control should normally be left out of account, and it gives trafficking, in particular a positive National Referral Mechanism decision, as an example. There is similar allowance where you were a child at the time. These points do not apply themselves, so they need to be raised and evidenced.
Is there a right of appeal against a citizenship refusal?
No. There is no statutory appeal against a refusal to naturalise. The options are to request a reconsideration or to bring a judicial review.
Is it better to apply now or wait?
It depends entirely on the case. Some people are right to apply now with a well prepared application, while others are better resolving a particular obstacle first. Because the fee is high and is not refunded on a refusal, it is worth taking advice on your own circumstances before you commit.
Contact us
If you have been refused citizenship because of how you entered the UK, or you are worried about applying, speak to us before you take the next step. We offer a free initial consultation, fixed fees and direct access to a qualified lawyer who will look at your situation and explain your options clearly. Call 0330 174 4233, email enquiries@bankfieldheath.co.uk, or request a call back through our contact page. This post is general information and not legal advice for any individual case.
Related services
- British Citizenship and Naturalisation
- Settlement for Refugees
- Asylum Claims
- Human Rights Claims
- Judicial Review
- Immigration Appeals
Related reading
New Citizenship Rules Create Additional Barriers
Sources
Home Office, Nationality: good character requirement, Version 7.0, published 30 April 2026: gov.uk
British Nationality Act 1981, Schedule 1: legislation.gov.uk
Home Office, Fees for citizenship applications and the right of abode, updated 8 April 2026: gov.uk