House of Commons Library briefing explains how the UK can exclude foreign nationals for the “public good”

House of Commons
Library

Visa bans: exclusion of foreign nationals for the "public good"

Research Briefing

16 June 2026

By CJ McKinney, Melanie Gower, Grace Alston

Summary
1 Overview of powers to ban people from entering the UK
2 Exclusion ordered by the Home Secretary
3 Refusal of entry over character, conduct or associations
4 Use of visa ban powers

commonslibrary.parliament.uk

Number 7035

Image Credits

Adobe Stock image – no copyright required / image cropped

Disclaimer

The Commons Library does not intend the information in our research publications and briefings to address the specific circumstances of any particular individual. We have published it to support the work of MPs. You should not rely upon it as legal or professional advice, or as a substitute for it. We do not accept any liability whatsoever for any errors, omissions or misstatements contained herein. You should consult a suitably qualified professional if you require specific advice or information. Read our briefing 'Legal help: where to go and how to pay' for further information about sources of legal advice and help. This information is provided subject to the conditions of the Open Parliament Licence.

Sources and subscriptions for MPs and staff

We try to use sources in our research that everyone can access, but sometimes only information that exists behind a paywall or via a subscription is available. We provide access to many online subscriptions to MPs and parliamentary staff, please contact hoclibraryonline@parliament.uk or visit commonslibrary.parliament.uk/resources for more information.

Feedback

Every effort is made to ensure that the information contained in these publicly available briefings is correct at the time of publication. Readers should be aware however that briefings are not necessarily updated to reflect subsequent changes.

If you have any comments on our briefings please email papers@parliament.uk. Please note that authors are not always able to engage in discussions with members of the public who express opinions about the content of our research, although we will carefully consider and correct any factual errors.

You can read our feedback and complaints policy and our editorial policy at commonslibrary.parliament.uk. If you have general questions about the work of the House of Commons email hcenquiries@parliament.uk.

Contents
Summary
1 Overview of powers to ban people from entering the UK
1.1 Legal framework
1.2 Policy on use of visa bans
2 Exclusion ordered by the Home Secretary
2.1 When might exclusion be ordered?
2.2 Unacceptable behaviours policy
2.3 Policy on naming those excluded
2.4 Challenging exclusion
3 Refusal of entry over character, conduct or associations
3.1 When might entry be refused by officials?
3.2 Challenging the refusal
4 Use of visa ban powers
4.1 Examples of visa bans
4.2 Statistics on visa bans

Summary

The government has wide discretion to ban foreign nationals from entering the UK if it is "conducive to the public good". This is on top of rules barring entry for specific kinds of misconduct, such as criminal convictions.

A visa ban can be ordered by the Home Secretary personally

Someone whose presence would not be conducive to the public good can be excluded from the UK by personal decision of the Home Secretary. The circumstances in which this power can be used are not limited by legislation but guidance states that it will normally involve serious issues such asnational security, war crimes, corruption or extremism.

Since 2005, "unacceptable behaviours" can also lead to exclusion by the Home Secretary. These behaviours include expressing views which provoke, justify or glorify terrorist violence or foster hatred which might lead to inter-community violence in the UK.

The power can be used to refuse or cancel visas and electronic travel authorisation. Those excluded can write to the Home Office to ask for the ban to be lifted. In most cases there is no formal right of appeal but someone affected could apply for a different court process called judicial review.

Officials can also refuse entry over someone's conduct, character or associations

Immigration officials are required to refuse entry if the person's presence in the UK is not conducive to the public good "because of their conduct,character, associations or other reasons". Potential reasons for refusal on this basis are similar to those for exclusion by the Home Secretary personally, but there are several additional grounds, such as anticipated incitement ofpublic disorder.

As with exclusion by the Home Secretary, refusal under this rule can be challenged by applying for judicial review, although the courts have held thatthe Home Office has broad discretion in this area.

Those banned include Islamist extremists, foreign politicians and famous musicians

Successive governments have used visa bans against extremists and 'hate preachers', often with a focus on Islamists said to support terrorism or sectarian violence. The Starmer government's social cohesion strategy said that it would expand a Home Office taskforce "to block hate preachers andextremists of all kinds from entering the UK".

High-profile examples include Dr Zakir Naik, excluded by Theresa May in 2010under the unacceptable behaviours policy, and Hezbollah spokesman Dr Ibrahim Moussawi, refused a visa in 2009 over concerns that his presencewould increase tension between British Jews and Muslims. The current Home Secretary, Shabana Mahmood, has reportedly also banned people overallegedly extremist comments about Israel and the conflict in Gaza.

Ministers have stressed that visa bans are used against extremists of various persuasions. Recent examples have included eleven "far-right agitators" dueto attend a Unite the Kingdom rally and the left-wing political commentatorHasan Piker. In April 2026, the rapper Ye, or Kanye West, was banned fromentering to headline a music festival. The government generally declines tocomment officially on the exact reason or trigger for individual bans.

Other known cases of visa bans include former Albanian Prime Minister Sali Berisha, Iranian dissident Maryam Rajavi, rapper Snoop Dogg, Dutch politician Geert Wilders and religious leader Sun Myung Moon (although some were later overturned).

Almost 400 people have been excluded by the Home Secretary personally since 2010

Successive Home Secretaries ordered the exclusion of 392 people from the UK between May 2010 and December 2024, according to annual reports on theuse of anti-terrorism powers.

No data is available for refusals by immigration officials.

Related issues

This briefing does not cover powers to stop British people returning to the UK by taking away their citizenship or manage their return through a temporaryexclusion order. It also does not cover travel bans arising from internationalsanctions applied by the Foreign Office or United Nations.

1 Overview of powers to ban people from entering the UK

The government has wide discretion to ban foreign nationals from entering the UK. Entry can be refused, or a visa revoked, if someone's presence is considered "not conducive to the public good" by an immigration official or the Home Secretary acting personally.

1.1 Legal framework

Under the Immigration Act 1971, most foreign nationals need permission to enter the UK. The Home Secretary is required to publish immigration rules giving details on when permission will be granted or refused. [1]

Details on when permission to enter will be refused for various types of misconduct are in Part Suitability of the immigration rules. This is also known as the 'general grounds for refusal'.

The general grounds for refusal include specific types of misconduct, such as criminal convictions or past visa overstaying. This briefing does not cover all possible reasons for a ban. It focuses instead on two rules allowing discretionary refusal for misconduct not caught by the more specific rules:

1. The Home Secretary can personally direct that someone be excluded from the UK

2. Immigration officials can decide that a person's presence in the UK is not conducive to the public good

If either of these provisions apply, the person must be refused entry to the UK and any existing immigration permission must be revoked. This includes permission to travel to the UK on an electronic travel authorisation. [2]

The leading immigration law textbook comments that the discretion on when to apply these visa bans "has been deliberately left in broad terms". [3]

The general grounds for refusal apply to many common immigration categories, such as work and study, but the visa ban provisions are usually associated with excluding would-be visitors.

Similar powers have been in the immigration rules since at least 1973. [4]

1.2 Policy on use of visa bans

Karen Bradley, then a junior minister at the Home Office, summarised the department's approach to visa bans in 2014. She said that the power to deny entry "has the potential to support key Government objectives across a range of matters including national security, terrorism, criminality, war crimes and human rights abuses".

She argued that no specific religious or political group was targeted: "individuals excluded have included serious criminals, far-right extremists, homophobic extremists, and Christian, Jewish and Islamic extremists". [5]

Speaking for the government in the House of Lords in 2017, Baroness Williams of Trafford said of exclusion that "such a power is serious and no decision is taken lightly". She further explained that decisions must be "based on sound evidence and must be proportionate, reasonable and consistent". [6]

Home Office guidance documents go into more detail on the use of visa ban powers, as discussed below. [7]

Preventing British citizens from entering the UK

Visa bans are for foreign nationals. British citizens can be prevented from entering the UK through a temporary exclusion order or even by removing their citizenship. [8] These measures are generally reserved for people assessed to be a national security risk.

2 Exclusion ordered by the Home Secretary

Paragraph SUI 2.1 of the immigration rules says:

An application for entry clearance or permission must be refused where:

(a) the Secretary of State has personally directed that the applicant be excluded from the UK… [9]

Someone can be excluded without having applied for a visa or expressed any intention to visit the UK. [10] The purpose is to rule out in advance any attempt to travel. Carriers, such as airlines, will be ordered not to bring an excluded person to the UK under the Authority to Carry Scheme. [11]

A senior Home Office official, giving evidence to the High Court in 2021, said that the vast majority of cases considered for exclusion arise out of referrals by other government departments or the police. [12]

2.1 When might exclusion be ordered?

The circumstances in which the Home Secretary can exercise their personal power to exclude are not constrained by statute. The Home Office considers it a prerogative power. [13] Such powers are exercised by the government without having been granted by Parliament, subject to judicial review by the courts. [14]

Government guidance gives more information on the circumstances in which this power to exclude will "normally" be exercised:

• National security threats, such as terrorism or hostile state activity

• Serious criminality, although this can normally be dealt with by refusal of entry under routine powers

• War crimes, crimes against humanity or genocide

• Corruption, examples of which are listed

• Extremism, defined with reference to the 2024 definition of extremism

• Links to the Russian state, if the person is an "elite" such as a senior Russian politician or director of a large company in Russian

• Negative impact on foreign policy

• "Unacceptable behaviour", including but not limited to provocation or glorification of terrorism, considered in more detail below [15]

The test for whether exclusion is appropriate in these circumstances is that it is "conducive to the public good". The guidance says this means "it is undesirable to admit the person… because they pose a threat to UK society".

A higher threshold applies to EU citizens and their family members with enhanced rights under the post-Brexit withdrawal agreements, if their misconduct took place before 31 December 2020 (the effective date of Brexit). Such people can only be excluded on grounds of public policy, public securityor public health.

Exclusion is used to stop people from entering the UK. If someone meets the threshold for exclusion but is already in the UK, the appropriate power is deportation under the Immigration Act 1971, according to the guidance. [16] When someone being considered for deportation leaves the UK before the order is finalised, an exclusion order can be made instead. [17]

2.2 Unacceptable behaviours policy

The "unacceptable behaviours" policy emerged from a review of exclusion conducted in the aftermath of the July 2005 London bombings. The then Home Secretary, Charles Clarke, decided to widen the application of exclusion powers so that they could be used against people "who foment terrorism, or seek to provoke others to commit terrorist acts". [18]

In August 2005, after a short consultation, the Home Office published an indicative list of unacceptable behaviours which would trigger consideration of exclusion. [19] The list of behaviours has remained in force, with minor textual amendments, ever since:

Unacceptable behaviour covers any non-UK national whether in the UK or abroad who uses any means or medium including:

• writing, producing, publishing or distributing material

• public speaking including preaching

• running a website

• using a position of responsibility such as a teacher, community or youth leader to express views which:

• provoke, justify or glorify terrorist violence in furtherance of particular beliefs

• seek to provoke others to terrorist acts

• provoke other serious criminal activity or seek to provoke others to serious criminal acts

• foster hatred which might lead to inter-community violence in the UK This list is indicative rather than exhaustive. [20]

Charles Clarke also described the potential consequences of engaging in unacceptable behaviours. He said that officials from the Home Office, Foreign Office and intelligence agencies would establish "a full database of individuals around the world who have demonstrated the relevant behaviours". This information would be available to visa and border staff and added to the UK's immigration watchlist, the 'warnings index'. Inclusion on the database would trigger the possibility of a ministerial decision to exclude. [21]

The Brown government announced some adjustments to exclusion policy in 2008. These included a presumption of exclusion for those engaged in unacceptable behaviours. [22]

2.3 Policy on naming those excluded

At present, the government does not routinely name those excluded from the UK. Ministers may sometimes confirm that someone has been banned if there is a clear public interest in naming them or their identity is already in the public domain.

Karen Bradley, then a junior Home Office minister, explained the policy in 2014. She emphasised that publicity may not help to change behaviours and that the Home Office has a duty of confidentiality:

It is important that we use those powers to achieve the best results in protecting the UK and the British public. That is most often achieved without the glare of publicity, particularly when we are seeking to cause a change in behaviour… once it has been made public that a person has been banned from or refused entry to the UK—and so their reputation has been affected—they have less to gain by moderating their behaviour.

Furthermore, the Home Office has a duty of confidentiality, and the details of individual immigration cases will not routinely be made public. Where it is considered that there is a strong public interest in doing so, which clearly outweighs our duty to individuals, and there is sufficient information to confirm individual identity, the Home Office will disclose names. In exceptional circumstances, we occasionally confirm that an individual has been denied entry to the UK when the information is already in the public domain or there is a legitimate public interest in doing so, but it is certainly not routine or regular. [23]

The names of people excluded from the UK do come into the public domain from time to time, including if they identify themselves or challenge the ban in court. See section 4 below for examples and statistics.

Previous 'name and shame' policy

The Brown government did briefly adopt a policy of naming people excluded for unacceptable behaviour. In 2009, the Home Office 'named and shamed' 16 people who had been excluded over the previous six months "for fostering extremism or hatred". [24]

American radio presenter Michael Savage was one of those identified. He objected to his inclusion on the list and threatened to sue the then Home Secretary, Jacqui Smith, for defamation. [25] The Home Office has not published a similar list of names since then. [26]

2.4 Challenging exclusion

An exclusion decision remains in place indefinitely unless the Home Secretary decides to lift it or a court orders it to be lifted. [27] The immigration minister said in 2010 that decisions to exclude are usually reviewed every three years. [28]

Those excluded can write to the Home Office to ask for the ban to be lifted. [29] In most cases there is no formal right of appeal, although someone affected could apply for judicial review. It may also be possible to apply for a visa despite the ban and appeal the inevitable refusal on human rights grounds (if applicable). [30]

A high-profile judicial review took place in 2010, when Dr Zakir Naik challenged Theresa May's decision to ban him from the UK for allegedly making "statements that attempt to justify terrorist activity and fostering hatred". The High Court dismissed the challenge. [31]

3 Refusal of entry over character, conduct or associations

Paragraph SUI 3.1 of the immigration rules says:

An application for entry clearance or permission must be refused where the applicant's presence in the UK is not conducive to the public good because of their conduct, character, associations or other reasons (including convictions which do not fall within the criminality grounds). [32]

Unlike the Home Secretary's personal power to exclude, this power is exercised by immigration officials on the minister's behalf. It allows both visas and electronic travel authorisations to be refused or cancelled, and for permission to enter to be refused at the border.

The power can also be used to bar someone already in the UK from extending their immigration permission or securing permanent residence. This happened, for instance, to people on self-employed work visas found to have lied about their income. [33] Only refusal of entry is covered in this briefing.

3.1 When might entry be refused by officials?

The test is that the person's presence in the UK is not conducive to the public good. This means "it is undesirable to admit the person to the UK, based on their character, conduct or associations because they pose a threat to UK society", according to Home Office guidance. [34]

The guidance adds that this test is "intentionally broad" but that decisions must be reasonable, proportionate and evidence-based. It gives some examples of what might not be conducive to the public good:

• National security threats, such as terrorism

• Extremism and unacceptable behaviour (see section 2.2 above)

• Association with people involved in terrorism, extremism or war crimes

• Negative impact on foreign policy

• War crimes, crimes against humanity or genocide

• Past immigration offending, such as human trafficking

• Past or anticipated incitement of public disorder

• Involvement with criminals and gangs

• Corruption, particularly if high-level or state-sanctioned [35]

Many of these are identical or similar to the listed reasons for exclusion by the Home Secretary personally, but there are some extra grounds. The exclusion policy does not mention extremist associations, immigration offending or public disorder.

International sanctions

People subject to United Nations or United Kingdom sanctions imposing a travel ban are automatically barred from the UK. [36]

Travel bans imposed under the UN or domestic sanctions regime are a foreign policy tool. [37] The focus is on the person's actions abroad, such as their role in a corrupt or dictatorial regime. Decisions on travel bans are normally made by the Foreign Office under different legal powers. [38]

By contrast, the visa ban powers discussed elsewhere in this briefing are mainly a domestic policy tool for the Home Office, and the concern is usually the person's potential conduct while in the UK.

3.2 Challenging the refusal

Again, refusal by an immigration or entry clearance officer can be challenged by judicial review. The burden of proof in such proceedings is on the Home Office, but the courts accept that its decision-makers have broad discretion. [39]

4 Use of visa ban powers

The Home Office does not routinely publish the names of people banned from the UK. The number of exclusion decisions made by the Home Secretary in recent years is available, but there is no detailed breakdown of what kinds of people are excluded and why. As a result, the examples that follow (drawn from press coverage and court judgments) may not be representative.

4.1 Examples of visa bans

Extremists and "hate preachers"

The Starmer government's social cohesion strategy included measures to "block hate preachers and extremists of all kinds from entering the UK". [40] This has been a long-standing aim under successive governments, often with a focus on Islamist extremists said to support terrorism or sectarian violence.

Recent examples of bans under Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood reportedly include Dr Shadee Elmasry and Tuaha Ibn Jalil following comments about Hamas, Israel and the conflict in Gaza. [41]

Over 100 hate preachers were excluded from the UK by Theresa May during her tenure as Home Secretary from 2010 to 2016. [42] These included Zakir Naik and Abu Ameenah Bilal Philips, who were excluded for justifying terrorism. [43]

Of the 16 named people excluded by Jacqui Smith in 2009, five were described as a preacher or speaker glorifying terrorist violence. [44]

A ban was imposed on Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan in 1986. The Conservative Home Secretary, Douglas Hurd, felt that Farrakhan was "likely to cause racial disharmony and possibly commit the offence of inciting racial hatred". The Court of Appeal upheld the exclusion in 2002. [45]

However, ministers have stressed that visa bans are used against extremists of various persuasions. In May 2026, the Starmer government announced bans on "eleven foreign far-right agitators" ahead of a Unite the Kingdom rally, naming one of them (Valentina Gomez). [46]

Later that month, left-wing political commentators Hasan Piker and Cenk Uygur posted about their own bans. [47] The Home Office reportedly confirmed that their electronic travel authorisations were cancelled because their presence was not conducive to the public good. [48]

The singer Ye, or Kanye West, also had an electronic travel authorisation refused or cancelled in early 2026. [49] The Home Office declined to comment on why his presence was considered contrary to the public good. [50]

In 2013, Theresa May directed the exclusion of Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer over anti-Muslim views. The pair had been planning to attend an English Defence League rally following the murder of Lee Rigby, a British soldier. The courts refused an application for judicial review of the decision. [51]

Jacqui Smith's 2009 list included far-right figures such as Stephen Donald Black, founder of the Stormfront website, and the leaders of the Westboro Baptist Church in Kansas, United States. The document also said that the unacceptable behaviours policy had been used against animal rights, anti-abortion and homophobic extremists since 2005. [52]

Corruption

Sali Berisha, a former Prime Minister of Albania, revealed in July 2022 that he had been banned over alleged involvement in organised crime and corruption. [53] His judicial review challenge to the decision failed. [54]

In 2019, the Home Office cancelled the visitor visas of two Pakistani nationals, father and son Malik Riaz Hussain and Ahmed Ali Riaz. The ban arose out of alleged corruption and financial misconduct connected to the family's property development company, Bahria Town. [55]

National security

In 2023, a Chinese citizen was excluded from the UK (and had his permanent residence status revoked) over "covert and deceptive activity" on behalf of China's United Front Work Department. A tribunal upheld the ban at judicial review. [56] Although anonymised in the judgment, he was later named as Yang Tengbo. [57]

Foreign policy

Iranian dissident Maryam Rajavi has been excluded from the UK since 1997. Reiterating the ban in 2011, the Home Secretary referred to her organisation's past involvement in terrorism and the likelihood that lifting the ban would severely damage relations between the UK and Iran. [58]

Criminality

People with a criminal record are usually barred from the UK under other provisions of the immigration rules, with visa bans normally reserved for the most serious cases. [59] But people convicted of false documents offences who then leave the UK voluntarily have been excluded by personal decision of the Home Secretary. [60]

In 2023, a man with a nine-month sentence for possession of cannabis with intent to supply was reportedly excluded after leaving the UK for a family holiday. The decision was rescinded after 18 months. [61]

Bans rescinded or overturned

Rapper Calvin Broadus, who performs as Snoop Dogg, was refused a visa in 2007 over (among other things) an incident of public disorder in Heathrow Airport. The immigration tribunal ultimately overturned the ban in 2010. [62]

In 2009 the Dutch MP Geert Wilders successfully appealed against refusal of entry based on concerns that his presence could "foster hate and lead to inter-community violence". [63] At the time, EU citizens had enhanced protection against visa bans under free movement law.

The Reverend Sun Myung Moon, whose Unification Church was accused of being a cult, was first banned in 1989 but won an appeal. A second ban was declared unlawful by the High Court in 1995 but Home Secretary Michael Howard maintained Reverend Moon's exclusion. A renewed ban in 2003 was upheld on appeal but lifted by Charles Clarke in 2005. [64]

A ban affecting Scientologists was in place from 1968 to 1980. All foreign nationals were refused visas to work or study at the Scientology headquarters in East Grinstead, Sussex. The government felt that the "pseudo-philosophical cult" was socially harmful and its methods "a serious danger to the health of those who submit to them. [65] By December 1975 there had been 181 such refusals, including that of Dutch Scientologist Yvonne van Duyn, who unsuccessfully challenged the policy at the European Court of Justice. [66]

Unsuccessful campaigns

In late 2015, an online petition called for Donald Trump to be banned from the UK attracted over half a million signatures. [67] At the time, Mr Trump was a candidate for the Republican nomination for President of the United States.

The government declined to comment directly on whether a ban had been considered but said it was in the UK's interest to engage with all presidential candidates, even those it disagreed with. [68]

In 2021, the High Court gave judgment in a case about an attempt to have Prince Nasser of Bahrain banned from the UK. The claimant, a refugee known as FF, argued that the Home Office was obliged to consider the evidence he had gathered in support of a ban, and to notify him of the outcome. Mr Justice Dove held that civil servants were required to consider material submitted by a third party, but not to communicate the eventual decision to that third party. [69]

4.2 Statistics on visa bans

The Home Secretary personally ordered the exclusion of 392 people from May 2010 to December 2024, according to annual reports on the use of anti-terrorism powers. [70] That is an average of around 26 people per year, similar to the late 1990s. [71]

No data is available for refusals by immigration officials.

Exclusion based on the unacceptable behaviours policy (see section 2.2 above) appears to have declined: it was ordered in at least 198 cases from 2005 to 2015, but in 20 cases from 2017 to 2022. [72]

Exclusion for corruption also appears rare, affecting nine people between 2005 and 2014. [73]

___________________________

The House of Commons Library is a research and information service based in the UK Parliament. Our impartial analysis, statistical research and resources help MPs and their staff scrutinise legislation, develop policy, and support constituents.

Our published material is available to everyone on commonslibrary.parliament.uk.

Get our latest research delivered straight to your inbox. Subscribe at commonslibrary.parliament.uk/subscribe or scan the code below:

commonslibrary.parliament.uk

@commonslibrary

(End)

[73] PQ 213826 [on Travel Restrictions], answered on 6 November 2014; PQ 5608 [on Corruption], answered on 7 July 2010. It is not clear whether these would be included in the figures shown in the table above or represent additional cases.