1. Understanding the Home Office’s New Good Character Guidance

The Home Office’s new good character guidance for British citizenship applications (‘the new guidance’) has been controversial since its publication in February 2025, and widely perceived as a ban on citizenship for refugees. It has also been the subject of a number of legal challenges, but despite these, the major issues with the policy remain unaddressed. Although the Home Office committed to making changes to the policy a number of months ago, the timeline and scope of these remains unknown. 

In this article, we will explain the changes to the guidance and how they impact people applying for British citizenship now. We will also explore the reasons the policy has been challenged and the changes that should be made.

As it stands, the position in relation to the new guidance is, in short, fundamentally unclear. British citizenship applications are already costly and can be complex. If you are considering applying for British citizenship but have concerns around potential character issues, you may wish to seek legal advice before applying. 

2. The Good Character Requirement in Law

Most applicants for British citizenship (who are aged over 10 years old) are required to meet a requirement to be of ‘good character’ which is contained in the British Nationality Act 1981 (BNA 1981). This article will focus on applications to naturalise, but this requirement also applies to applications to register as a British citizen. 

The relevant sections of the BNA 1981 Section 6(1-2) states that if someone meets the requirements, the Secretary of State “may” grant naturalisation “if he thinks fit”. This language makes it clear that this is discretionary – the Home Office sees British citizenship by naturalisation as a privilege rather than a right.  

3. Home Office Criteria for Good Character in Citizenship Applications

There is no statutory definition of good character for immigration purposes. Instead, the new guidance indicates that each application is to be considered on an ‘individual basis’:

• Consideration must be given to all aspects of a person’s character, including both negative factors, for example criminality, immigration law breaches and deception, and positive factors, for example contributions a person has made to society. The list of factors is not exhaustive. 
• Each application must be carefully considered on an individual basis on its own merits. You must be satisfied that an applicant is of good character on the. [sic]” (p.9)

In previous versions of the guidance the final phrase was completed by “the balance of probabilities” and it is probable that this phrase was unintentionally omitted. This means that an applicant must show that it is more likely than not that they are of good character.

A person will not normally be considered to be of good character if there is information to suggest that any of the following apply: 

• criminality: if they have not respected or are not prepared to abide by the law – for example, they have been convicted of a crime or there are reasonable grounds to suspect, meaning it is more likely than not, they have been involved in crime; 
• international crimes, terrorism and other non-conducive activity: if they have been involved in or associated with war crimes, crimes against humanity or genocide, terrorism, or other actions that are considered not to be conducive to the public good;
• financial soundness: if their financial affairs have not been in appropriate order – for example, they have failed to pay taxes for which they were liable or have accrued significant debt; 
• notoriety: if their activities have been notorious and cast serious doubt on their standing in the local community. A person does not need to have been convicted of a criminal offence to be notorious, but the scale and level of behaviour must reflect so poorly on their character that it would not be appropriate to grant them British citizenship;
• deception and dishonesty: if they have been deliberately dishonest or deceptive in their dealings with the UK government, for example they have made false claims in order to obtain benefits;
• immigration-related matters: if they have breached immigration laws, for example by overstaying, working in breach of conditions or assisting in the evasion of immigration control;
• deprivation: if a person has previously been deprived of British citizenship on grounds of fraud, false representation or the concealment of material fact, any new applications made within 10 years of the deprivation order will normally be refused. If the grounds were that deprivation was conducive to the public good, any fresh application will normally be refused no matter how long since the order. 

Please note that the above is a summary and there is more detailed consideration of each in the good character guidance itself. 

4. How Good Character Was Assessed Under the Previous Guidance

In the old guidance, most of the issues (with some exceptions) above would be discounted from consideration if 10 years have passed since either the incident or its discovery. Individuals who applied for citizenship before 10 February 2025 are unaffected by the new guidance – for them the position remains the same as in previous guidance. If they entered illegally more than ten years ago, this should be discounted when considering their character. If they entered illegally in the past ten years, they will normally be refused, unless they have a defence under section 31(1) of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (“the 1999 Act”). This defence requires showing that, having come to the UK directly from a country where their life or freedom was threatened (within the meaning of the Refugee Convention), they presented themselves to the authorities in the United Kingdom without delay; showed good cause for their illegal entry or presence; and made a claim for asylum as soon as was reasonably practicable after their arrival in the United Kingdom.

The old guidance also had specific exceptions for children. These remain in the new guidance, but it is unclear whether they are overridden by the new guidance on illegal entry. For children under 10, good character is not considered. For children over 10, the guidance states at page 49:

• It will normally be appropriate to disregard immigration breaches if it is accepted this was outside of their control. For example, where a parent applied for the child to come to the UK as their dependant but failed to apply for an extension of leave when the child’s temporary leave expired, the child should not be penalised.

5. Understanding the New Rules on Good Character for British Citizens

The primary change in the new guidance was the addition of the following new material at page 50, which was questionably described as a ‘clarification’ rather than a change: 

Illegal Entry 

Any person applying for citizenship from 10 February 2025, who previously entered the UK illegally will normally be refused, regardless of the time that has passed since the illegal entry took place. 

Any person applying for citizenship before 10 February 2025 where illegal entry is a factor, will continue to have their application reviewed to determine whether that immigration breach should be disregarded for the purpose of the character assessment.

It continues:

Regarding arrival without a required valid entry clearance or electronic travel authorisation, having made a dangerous journey
A person who applies for citizenship from 10 February 2025 who has previously arrived without a required valid entry clearance or electronic travel authorisation, having made a dangerous journey will normally be refused citizenship. A dangerous journey includes, but is not limited to, travelling by small boat or concealed in a vehicle or other conveyance. It does not include, for example, arrival as a passenger with a commercial airline.

What exactly this means in practice is unclear. It appears that the default position is that new applicants who entered illegally will be refused. The guidance does refer to exceptions and the possibility of discretion, which we  will go on to discuss, but these are also vague and it is difficult to predict how they will be applied. This vagueness makes it difficult for an individual to know whether their application is likely to be successful, and, coupled with the high and non-refundable application fees, the new guidance discourages people who had previously entered illegally from ever applying for citizenship, however exemplary their character might have been since arrival. Of all of the changes, this is the element that most obviously would benefit from clarification. 

Bear in mind that an application for naturalisation currently costs £1630 per adult (and the fees rise frequently). If refused, there is no automatic right of appeal. The remedies available are reconsideration, which costs £450 (refundable if successful) and/or Judicial Review, a complex procedure which requires legal advice and can potentially cost thousands of pounds. If an application is refused, the fees will not be refunded. Many applicants will be put off from risking the high application fees on the chance that their circumstances will be considered sufficiently mitigating.

The guidance does allow for “exceptional grants” of citizenship where there are “mitigating circumstances which would mean it would be appropriate to grant”, and gives the following example in relation to illegal entry: 

• A person who entered illegally 14 years ago would normally require refusal of citizenship as an illegal entrant but has been recognised as a victim of trafficking and subsequently granted refugee status. They haven’t acquired any other notable adverse character issues during their residency, indicative that on a balance of probabilities they are now of good character (page 58).

However, this example does not really clarify the situation adequately. Usefully, it does confirm that the balance of probabilities test – ‘more likely than not’ – is still applicable to good character assessments, indicating that refusal should not be mandatory. It is unclear how much weight is being afforded to different mitigating factors, such as: the time since the applicant’s entry; the applicant’s refugee status (which many applicants who entered illegally may have been granted); or their status as a recognised victim of trafficking (which is rarer). The Home Office have also clarified, in response to a pre-action letter, that having a defence under s31 of the 1999 Act will be a “relevant factor” for decision-makers – but again, how much weight applies to this is unclear, and there is always a chance that a caseworker will simply opt not to exercise their discretion for this particular applicant.

Given the strong correlation between arriving in the UK by a ‘dangerous journey’ and subsequently claiming asylum, the policy is clearly directed at asylum seekers and places many such individuals in an impossible position. Since for many nationalities there simply are no safe and legal routes to enter the UK, an individual wishing to claim asylum in the UK will have to choose between entering illegally and risking a bad character finding, or lying when making a visa application and risking a bad character finding for deception. This policy therefore does amount to something close to a blanket ban on citizenship for refugees.  

6. Outstanding Concerns and Calls for Reform

Following a legal challenge, the Home Office committed to amending the policy by the end of May to clarify the position in relation to a s31 defence. At the time of writing in early July 2025, the policy has not been amended and the timeline for any such amendments is section 31 defences, or whether they might go further. 

The issues with the new good character guidance run deeper than poor drafting, striking at the heart of community cohesion and the right to belong. A refugee applying for British citizenship will normally have spent a minimum of six years in the UK – often much longer – and have integrated sufficiently into the community to meet the citizenship requirements (such as having referees of suitable professional standing, speaking English to a sufficient level, having the money to pay the steep application fees). They are also significantly more likely to be vulnerable than the general population, not least due to the dangerous journeys they may have taken to seek safety here.

While people affected by the new policy are still able to obtain indefinite leave to remain (ILR) and settle in the UK,  indefinite leave to remain is not hereditary and is much easier to lose than citizenship. Practically speaking, the new good character guidance denies total social and political belonging and participation to people who may have lived most of their lives in the UK. Clarification is badly needed, but its issues cannot be resolved through rephrasing alone  – the illegal entry/dangerous journey exceptions should be removed from the guidance.

For now, applicants with potential character issues would be advised to seek legal advice before applying for British citizenship.  We await developments and will provide an update as these emerge. 

7. Contact Our Immigration Barristers 

The good character requirement remains a complex and often uncertain aspect of British citizenship applications, particularly in light of the recent changes and ongoing legal challenges. If you have concerns about how these policies might affect your application, it is crucial to seek expert legal advice tailored to your individual circumstances. 

Our specialist immigration barristers can provide guidance. Contact us on 0203 617 9173 or via the enquiry form below.

8. Frequently Asked Questions

What is the 'good character' requirement for British citizenship?

The ‘good character’ requirement is a statutory condition that must be met for an individual to be granted British citizenship, set out in Schedule 1 to the British Nationality Act (BNA) 1981. ‘Good character’ is not defined in the statute but relevant factors to be considered are set out in Home Office guidance.  This includes consideration of immigration history, criminality, and other behaviours deemed relevant.

What changes did the Home Office make to its 'good character' guidance?

On 11 February 2025, the Home Office updated its good character guidance to state that anyone who has entered the UK illegally is presumed not to be of good character and will generally be refused British citizenship. This includes individuals who later obtained leave to remain or indefinite leave to remain.

Does the new guidance affect refugees and victims of trafficking?

Yes. The updated guidance can adversely affect refugees, asylum seekers, and victims of trafficking or modern slavery, including those who entered the UK illegally. These individuals may now be refused British citizenship even after being granted protection or leave to remain.

Can a person still be granted citizenship if they entered the UK illegally?

In principle, yes. The guidance acknowledges that each application must be considered on its merits. However, it also states that discretion to grant citizenship in such cases “should rarely be exercised.” Therefore, applications involving previous unlawful entry or stay are likely to be refused unless exceptional circumstances exist.

Is this policy consistent with the Refugee Convention?

There are concerns that the guidance is inconsistent with the UK’s obligations under the 1951 Refugee Convention. Article 31 of the Convention provides protection for refugees who enter a country irregularly in order to seek asylum. This was incorporated into UK law as 31(1) of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. The guidance does not mention this provision and applies a blanket presumption against individuals with a history of illegal entry or stay, even where international law may offer protection.

Can the Home Office refuse citizenship to someone who has indefinite leave to remain?

Yes. Indefinite leave to remain (ILR) does not guarantee that a person will meet the good character requirement for naturalisation. The updated guidance confirms that individuals may be refused citizenship even if they currently hold lawful status, including ILR.

Have there been legal challenges in response to this policy?

A number of legal challenges have been raised in response to the policy. The Home Office has responded to at least one pre-action letter, but further developments are expected.