Where a person’s presence in the UK is not conducive to the public good, Part Suitability of the Immigration Rules provides a mandatory ground for refusing an application or cancelling entry clearance or permission. The assessment is broad, fact-sensitive and evidence-based. A criminal conviction is not required, but the Home Office must have sufficiently reliable information and must make a reasonable and proportionate decision on the individual facts.

The current rules are found at paragraphs SUI 3.1 and SUI 3.2. Part Suitability applies to most, but not all, immigration routes. 

A related but legally distinct power permits deprivation of British citizenship where the Secretary of State is satisfied that deprivation is conducive to the public good. That power is contained in section 40(2) of the British Nationality Act 1981 and is subject to the statutory restrictions in section 40, including provisions concerning statelessness.

1. Meaning of ‘Not Conducive to the Public Good’

The Home Office guidance describes a person’s presence as non-conducive where it is undesirable to admit or allow the person to remain in the UK because their character, conduct, associations or other circumstances mean that they pose a threat to UK society. Conduct in the UK and overseas may be relevant.

The test is deliberately broad so that it can be applied proportionately on a case-by-case basis. Relevant conduct can include reprehensible behaviour falling short of a criminal conviction, although a refusal cannot lawfully rest on vague or unsubstantiated generalisations alone.

2. The Burden and Standard of Proof

The Home Office must be able to show, on the balance of probabilities, that a refusal is based on sufficiently reliable information. In practical terms, the decision-maker must be satisfied that it is more likely than not that the person’s presence is not conducive to the public good.

Each case must be considered on its own merits. Allegations, unsubstantiated assertions and vague generalisations are not sufficient. However, reliable intelligence from law-enforcement agencies or relevant and reliable open-source information may be capable of meeting the required standard.

3. Factors Considered by the Home Office

The published guidance identifies factors that may be relevant, including:

• the nature and seriousness of the behaviour;
• the level of difficulty that admitting or allowing the person to remain could cause in the UK;
• the frequency of the behaviour; and
• any other relevant circumstances concerning the individual.

The list is not exhaustive. The decision-maker should identify the threat said to be posed, weigh relevant positive and negative factors, and reach a reasonable, proportionate and evidence-based conclusion. The ground may apply even where there has been no criminal conviction.

Threats to National Security

National-security cases often concern terrorism, membership of proscribed organisations, hostile-state activity or related conduct. The published guidance adopts the statutory concept of terrorist activity, including serious violence, danger to life, serious risks to public health or safety, serious property damage, or serious disruption of electronic systems where the conduct is designed to influence government or intimidate the public for a political, religious, racial or ideological cause.

Extremism and Unacceptable Behaviour

Extremist or other unacceptable behaviour may justify refusal or cancellation. The guidance refers to conduct such as inciting, justifying or glorifying terrorist violence, provoking terrorist or serious criminal acts, or fostering hatred that might lead to inter-community violence in the UK.

Where the conduct or views are historical, the decision-maker must consider relevant later developments, including whether the person has publicly retracted the views and has not re-engaged in the behaviour. The assessment remains individual and proportionate.

Association With Individuals Involved in Terrorism, Extremism or War Crimes

Association can be relevant, but mere acquaintance or a family connection is not automatically always enough. The Home Office should consider the nature, duration and voluntariness of the association, what the person knew, whether the association indicates approval, and what action was taken once the other person’s activities became known.

Where there is evidence that a person did not accept, tolerate or support the relevant activities, or clearly distanced themselves from them, association alone should not found a refusal. Family association with war criminals must be disregarded in the case of minors.

Foreign-Policy Considerations

A person’s admission may be considered capable of adversely affecting the conduct of the UK’s foreign policy. In such a case, the immigration decision-maker must seek advice from the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office before deciding whether to refuse or cancel permission. The decision is not delegated to the FCDO.

4. War Crimes, Crimes Against Humanity and Genocide

Schedule 8 to the International Criminal Court Act 2001 contains relevant statutory definitions of war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide for the purposes of that Act. The Home Office guidance requires careful assessment of evidence linking the individual to such activities, including reputable country and organisational information, the person’s role, the duration and seniority of any membership, and any applicable mitigating circumstances or defences.

Factors identified in the guidance include:

• an admission or allegation of involvement in international crimes;
• an admission or allegation of involvement in groups known to have committed such crimes;
• the time since the involvement and any evidence of rehabilitation; and
• whether the person supported the commission of the crimes or supported a group whose main purpose or mode of operation involved such crimes, even without making a direct contribution.

An allegation is not, by itself, proof. The sources, reliability and strength of the information, the individual’s own conduct and the legal significance of any association all require close analysis.

International Travel Bans

Section 8B of the Immigration Act 1971 addresses persons subject to specified international travel bans, including relevant United Nations, European Union and UK sanctions designations. The statutory scheme generally requires refusal of entry clearance or entry and cancellation of permission, but it contains defined exceptions and should be read together with the specific rules in Part Suitability.

Immigration Offending

Reliable evidence of serious immigration offending, including human trafficking, facilitation or knowingly providing false documents to assist another person’s application, may require refusal or cancellation on non-conducive grounds. Before reaching that conclusion, the decision-maker should be satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the person knowingly participated in the offence or directly enabled it through their conduct.

Inciting Public Disorder

The ground may apply where a person has engaged, or intends to engage, in conduct that resulted in public disorder or is likely to give rise to it. The behaviour need not be politically motivated and may include inciting discriminatory violence, advocating rioting or violent disorder, or conduct creating a material risk of civil unrest.

Involvement With Criminals and Gangs

The Home Office should examine the degree and nature of the person’s involvement, rather than refusing simply because the person knows a criminal or gang member. Active membership, seniority, duration of involvement, knowledge of the group’s activities and the impact of those activities may all be relevant.

Proceeds of Crime and Corruption

Refusal or cancellation may be considered where reliable information shows that a person has been involved or complicit in high-level or state-sanctioned corruption, or has benefited from the proceeds of crime. It is not necessary for proceedings to have been taken under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, but the information relied on must still be sufficiently reliable and the overall decision proportionate.

5. Cancellation at the Border 

Paragraph 2A of Schedule 2 to the Immigration Act 1971 provides a power to cancel permission at the border. The published guidance also requires consideration of the specific cancellation provisions in Part Suitability and whether cancellation is conducive to the public good in the circumstances.

6. Electronic Travel Authorisations

Part Suitability does not apply directly to an application for an Electronic Travel Authorisation. Appendix Electronic Travel Authorisation contains its own mandatory non-conducive grounds for refusing or cancelling an ETA. An ETA is permission to travel, not permission to enter the UK.

7. Challenging a ‘Not Conducive’ Refusal or Cancellation

The available remedy depends on the type of decision, the immigration route and whether a human-rights, protection or citizens’ rights decision has been made. Some decisions carry a statutory right of appeal. Administrative review is available only for an eligible decision under the relevant Immigration Rules and is directed to caseworking error. Other decisions may be challengeable by judicial review if they are unlawful and no adequate alternative remedy is available.

Potential issues may include reliance on unreliable material, failure to disclose the substance of the case sufficiently to permit a meaningful response, factual error, failure to consider relevant evidence, irrational assessment of association or threat, failure to apply the correct legal test, disproportionality, or inadequate reasons. National-security and sensitive-information cases can involve special procedures and require specialist advice.

Time limits can be short. The decision letter should be reviewed immediately to identify any appeal or review right, the applicable deadline, whether a fresh application is appropriate and whether urgent interim protection is required.

8. Contact Our Immigration Barristers

For expert advice regarding the refusal or cancellation of an application on the ground that a person’s presence is not conducive to the public good, or any other issue concerning the suitability requirements, contact our immigration barristers in London on 0203 617 9173 or via our enquiry form.

9. Frequently Asked Questions: Refusals on ‘Not Conducive to the Public Good’ Grounds

What does 'not conducive to the public good' mean?

It means that the Home Office considers it undesirable to admit or allow a person to remain in the UK because their conduct, character, associations or other circumstances mean that they pose a threat to UK society. The assessment must be made on the individual facts and supported by sufficiently reliable information.

Is a criminal conviction required?

No. Reprehensible conduct falling short of a conviction may be sufficient, but unsubstantiated allegations or vague generalisations are not enough. The Home Office must apply the balance-of-probabilities standard to sufficiently reliable information.

Is refusal or cancellation mandatory?

Under SUI 3.1 and SUI 3.2, refusal or cancellation is mandatory once the decision-maker lawfully concludes that the non-conducive ground is met. The underlying assessment must still be reasonable, proportionate, evidence-based and made under the correct legal framework.

Can an ETA be refused on non-conducive grounds?

Yes. Appendix Electronic Travel Authorisation contains a mandatory non-conducive ground for refusing an ETA and a corresponding ground for cancellation. An ETA permits travel to the UK but does not itself grant permission to enter.

Can the decision be appealed?

Sometimes. Appeal rights depend on the legal character of the decision, including whether it determines a human-rights, protection or citizens’ rights claim. Other decisions may instead carry administrative review or be challengeable by judicial review.

What evidence may be relevant to a challenge?

Relevant material may include evidence addressing the reliability or context of the allegation, the person’s knowledge and role, voluntariness of associations, retraction or disengagement, rehabilitation, passage of time, positive conduct, family circumstances and the proportionality of the decision. The appropriate evidence depends on the ground relied on and the available remedy.