British jihadi bride loses bid to restore citizenship

A British woman who travelled to Syria as a schoolgirl to join Islamic State yesterday lost the first round of her legal challenge against a decision to revoke her citizenship.

The Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC) ruled that the government decision to strip 20-year-old Shamima Begum of her citizenship “did not make her stateless” as she was a citizen of Bangladesh by descent.

“The appellant (Begum) was in that situation as a result of her own choices, and of the actions of others, but not because of anything the Secretary of State had done,” said judge Doron Blum referring to then-interior minister Sajid Javid. The judgment was made despite SIAC finding that Begum could not have “a fair and effective appeal” against the decision as she is currently in a Syrian refugee camp.

Begum’s lawyer Daniel Furner said she would “immediately initiate an appeal” against the decision.

“The logic of the decision will appear baffling, accepting as it does the key underlying factual assessments of extreme danger and extreme unfairness and yet declining to provide any legal remedy,” he said.

 

British jihadi bride loses bid to restore citizenship

A British woman who travelled to Syria as a schoolgirl to join Islamic State yesterday lost the first round of her legal challenge against a decision to revoke her citizenship. The Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC) ruled that the government decision to strip 20-year-old Shamima Begum of her citizenship did not make her stateless as she was a citizen of Bangladesh by descent. The appellant (Begum) was in that situation as a result of her own choices, and of the actions of others, but not because of anything the Secretary of State had done, said judge Doron Blum referring to then-interior minister Sajid Javid. The judgment was made despite SIAC finding that Begum could not have a fair and effective appeal against the decision as she is currently in a Syrian refugee camp. Begums lawyer Daniel Furner said she would immediately initiate an appeal against the decision. The logic of the decision will appear baffling, accepting as it does the key underlying factual assessments of extreme danger and extreme unfairness and yet declining to provide any legal remedy, he said.