UK Adds 15 More Countries to Rapid Deportation List Targeting Foreign Offenders

The UK has widened its rapid deportation scheme for convicted foreign offenders, adding 15 new countries to a policy designed to remove individuals before they can appeal their cases from within Britain.

The policy known as “Deport Now, Appeal Later” now covers 23 nations, up from just eight when it was first launched in 2014 under then-Home Secretary Theresa May. 

Countries newly added include India, Canada, Australia, Malaysia, and Kenya, alongside others such as Angola, Bulgaria, and Lebanon.

Home Secretary Yvette Cooper said the expansion is meant to stop criminals from “exploiting our immigration system” and to ensure removals happen without lengthy legal delays. The scheme allows those facing deportation to challenge the decision but only after they have returned to their home country.

It is a strategy to tighten immigration enforcement

Officials say the move is part of a broader push to overhaul immigration controls and reduce the number of foreign nationals staying in the UK after serving prison sentences. 

The legal foundation comes from Section 94B of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 legislation once linked to the government’s “hostile environment” strategy toward illegal migration.

The newly added nations in August 2025 are: Angola, Australia, Botswana, Brunei, Bulgaria, Canada, Guyana, India, Indonesia, Kenya, Latvia, Lebanon, Malaysia, Uganda, and Zambia. These join the original list of Albania, Belize, Estonia, Finland, Kosovo, Mauritius, Nigeria, and Tanzania.

According to the Home Office, more countries may be included in the coming months if diplomatic agreements allow.

While the government frames the policy as a matter of law enforcement, human rights advocates warn it risks denying people a fair hearing. 

Critics say forcing appeals from overseas puts defendants at a severe disadvantage, with obstacles such as poor internet connectivity, language barriers, and limited access to legal representation.

Advocacy groups argue that the measure effectively silences many legitimate appeals, especially for those who cannot afford adequate support once they are back in their home countries.