Introduction
Nationality is one of the closest legal and political bonds connecting an individual to the State. Accordingly, the Egyptian legislature seeks to balance the right of individuals to acquire nationality when its conditions are satisfied with the State’s right to protect its security and higher interests when considering certain applications for naturalization or acquisition of nationality.
During 2025, a number of decisions issued by the Ministry of Interior were published refusing applications to acquire Egyptian nationality on the basis of “security considerations.” This raised important questions concerning the limits of the administrative authority’s discretion, the extent of the nationality applicant’s right to know the reasons for refusal, and the distinction between nationality acquired by operation of law and cases in which the legislature grants the administration a role in accepting or rejecting the application.
This issue cannot be addressed accurately without distinguishing between original Egyptian nationality, which is established by birth to an Egyptian father or an Egyptian mother pursuant to Article 2 of the Nationality Law, and methods of acquiring nationality or naturalization, which are subject to different conditions and procedures and may involve a degree of administrative discretion.
First: Original Nationality Is Not the Same as Naturalization
Article 6 of the Egyptian Constitution provides that nationality is a right for anyone born to an Egyptian father or an Egyptian mother, which is consistent with Article 2 of Nationality Law No. 26 of 1975 as amended by Law No. 154 of 2004.
Accordingly, a person born to an Egyptian father or an Egyptian mother after the entry into force of the 2004 amendment is, in principle, Egyptian by operation of law, and the matter is not merely a discretionary naturalization application that the administration may accept or reject according to considerations of expediency.
This distinction is extremely important because some of the decisions published in 2025 concern persons born before Law No. 154 of 2004 entered into force. Their cases were therefore governed by the transitional regime stipulated in Article 3 of that Law, rather than by the current regime applicable to persons born to an Egyptian mother after the amendment entered into force.
Second: What Does Article 3 of Law No. 154 of 2004 Provide?
The legislature addressed the status of persons born to an Egyptian mother and a non-Egyptian father before 15 July 2004, namely before the effective date of the amendment that placed the Egyptian father and Egyptian mother on an equal footing in transmitting original nationality to their children.
Article 3 provides that any person born to an Egyptian mother and a non-Egyptian father before the date on which the Law entered into force may notify the Minister of Interior of their desire to enjoy Egyptian nationality.
The person concerned is deemed Egyptian in either of two cases:
- A decision is issued by the Minister of Interior granting the person Egyptian nationality.
- One year elapses from the date of notification of the desire to acquire nationality without the issuance of a reasoned refusal decision.
Accordingly, the Law granted the Minister of Interior the authority to issue a reasoned decision refusing the application within the prescribed period. This constituted the legal basis relied upon in several decisions issued during 2025 on security grounds.
Article 16 Does Not Regulate Refusal of Naturalization Applications
It is important to correct a common legal misconception concerning this issue.
Article 16 of Nationality Law No. 26 of 1975 does not concern refusal of an application to acquire nationality. Rather, it regulates cases involving deprivation of Egyptian nationality from a person who already possesses it, by a reasoned decision of the Council of Ministers, in the circumstances specified by the provision, including certain situations relating to service in foreign armed forces or working for the benefit of a foreign State in a manner harmful to national interests.
Accordingly, Article 16 may not be treated as a direct legal basis for refusing an application to acquire nationality. Each method of acquiring nationality has its own provisions, conditions, and competent authority responsible for issuing the relevant decision.
Actual Decisions Refusing Acquisition of Nationality During 2025
Refusal on security grounds was not merely a theoretical issue. Several express decisions to that effect were published in the Egyptian Official Gazette during 2025.
Decision No. 257 of 2025
The decision was issued on 8 February 2025 refusing an application by a Yemeni citizen, born in 1975, to acquire Egyptian nationality through his mother pursuant to Article 3 of Law No. 154 of 2004. The reason stated in the decision was: “for security considerations”.
Decision No. 564 of 2025
Issued on 26 March 2025, this decision refused an application by a Palestinian citizen, born in Palestine in 1994, to acquire Egyptian nationality through his Egyptian mother, pursuant to Article 3 of Law No. 154 of 2004, on security grounds.
Decision No. 698 of 2025
Issued on 19 April 2025, this decision refused an application by a Palestinian citizen born in 1991 to acquire Egyptian nationality through his mother, for the same reason and pursuant to Article 3 of Law No. 154 of 2004.
Decision No. 1133 of 2025
Issued on 21 June 2025, this decision refused an application by a Palestinian citizen born in Alexandria in 1993 to acquire Egyptian nationality through his mother, pursuant to Article 3 of Law No. 154 of 2004, on security grounds.
The dates of birth of the persons concerned reveal a fundamental legal point: all of them were born before the 2004 amendment entered into force. Their applications were therefore governed by the transitional regime under Article 3, rather than the current rule under which a person born to an Egyptian mother after the amendment entered into force is Egyptian by operation of law.
These Decisions Cannot Be Generalized to All Children of Egyptian Mothers
The existence of decisions in 2025 refusing applications by children of Egyptian mothers does not mean that the Ministry of Interior may refuse to recognize the nationality of a recently born child of an Egyptian mother merely because of security observations in the same manner.
A child born to an Egyptian mother after 15 July 2004 derives their legal status from Article 2 of the Nationality Law and Article 6 of the Constitution, rather than from the transitional regime set out in Article 3 of Law No. 154 of 2004.
The Supreme Administrative Court has confirmed in its judgments that the legislature placed the father and mother on an equal footing in transmitting original nationality and that the provision was drafted in general terms without an exception based on the father’s nationality.
Administrative Discretion Varies According to the Method of Acquiring Nationality
Not every nationality-related application is subject to the same degree of administrative discretion.
On the one hand, there are cases in which nationality is established by operation of law once the facts specified by the legislature are satisfied.
On the other hand, there are cases of naturalization requiring the satisfaction of a number of conditions, while the administration retains discretionary authority to determine whether granting nationality serves the public interest, according to the legal provision governing each case.
There are also special transitional cases – such as Article 3 of Law No. 154 of 2004 – in which the legislature granted the Minister of Interior the authority to issue a reasoned refusal decision within one year.
Accordingly, before challenging any decision, the legal basis of the application must first be identified, because describing the case as an “action to establish nationality” differs from describing it as a challenge to a “decision refusing naturalization.”
What Is Meant by “Security Considerations”?
The Nationality Law does not establish a closed and detailed list of matters falling within the concept of security considerations in decisions issued under Article 3 of Law No. 154 of 2004.
Decisions published in the Egyptian Official Gazette also generally limit their publicly stated reasoning to the phrase “for security considerations,” without publishing the details underlying the security investigations.
This creates a practical difficulty because the person concerned may know the legal outcome of the application without having access, from the published decision alone, to a complete account of the factual elements that led to refusal.
However, the fact that the details are not published in the decision does not mean that the administration’s authority is absolute or beyond judicial review.
Are Nationality Decisions Acts of Sovereignty?
For many years, the jurisprudence of the State Council has established that decisions issued by the executive authority in application of nationality laws are administrative decisions subject to review by the administrative courts, and do not become acts of sovereignty merely because nationality is connected with the higher interests of the State.
The State Council has jurisdiction over nationality disputes, whether in the form of an original action seeking recognition of nationality in cases where the right derives directly from law, or an action seeking annulment of an administrative decision issued in relation to an application for naturalization or acquisition of nationality, depending on the nature of the dispute.
Can a Refusal on Security Grounds Be Challenged?
Yes. As a matter of principle, an administrative decision refusing an application for nationality may be challenged before the State Council courts.
However, the prospects of a successful challenge differ according to the legal status of the person concerned.
If the matter concerns a naturalization case in which the Minister of Interior enjoys broad discretionary authority, judicial review does not mean that the court substitutes itself for the administration in deciding who should be granted nationality. Rather, it examines the legality of the decision, its factual basis, the accuracy of the underlying facts, and whether there has been an abuse of power.
However, where the person concerned relies on original nationality directly conferred by law, the scope of the dispute is different and the action may concern the establishment of an existing legal status rather than a request for a discretionary grant by the administration.
The Courts Have Previously Annulled Refusals Concerning Children of Egyptian Mothers
Administrative court judgments demonstrate the importance of not treating an administrative refusal as the end of the road.
In one case heard by the Administrative Court, the administrative authority refused to grant nationality to a person born to an Egyptian mother where the father was Palestinian, relying on considerations connected with the position concerning Palestinian nationality.
The Court annulled the decision, confirming that Law No. 154 of 2004 established the right of children of Egyptian mothers without any exception based on the father’s nationality, and that the administrative authority had failed to establish a legal reason preventing recognition of nationality in the case before it.
The Supreme Administrative Court has also confirmed in subsequent judgments that the 2004 amendment was intended to achieve equality between the father and mother in the acquisition of original nationality.
A Reasoned Decision Is Not Merely a Formal Expression
Article 3 of Law No. 154 of 2004 expressly requires the issuance of a reasoned refusal decision within one year. Otherwise, the person concerned is deemed Egyptian upon expiry of that period pursuant to the provision.
The term “reasoned” raises an important issue in judicial challenges, as the decision is expected to be based on a genuine reason that can legally be attributed to the protection of the public interest.
This does not necessarily mean that the details of security investigations must be published to the public. However, where judicial proceedings arise, the legality of the decision and the existence of its underlying reason remain matters subject to judicial review in accordance with the applicable rules of evidence and judicial procedure.
What Happens If One Year Passes Without a Decision?
This is one of the most important safeguards established by the legislature for children of Egyptian mothers born before the 2004 amendment.
If the person concerned notifies the Minister of Interior of the desire to enjoy Egyptian nationality pursuant to Article 3, and one full year passes without the issuance of a reasoned refusal decision, the provision deems that person Egyptian.
Accordingly, the date on which the notification was legally submitted and evidence proving its receipt by the competent authority are among the most important documents in this type of dispute.
It Is Not Always Enough to Say That the Conditions for Naturalization Are Satisfied
In methods of naturalization where the law grants the administration discretionary authority, mere completion of the required documents and formal conditions does not mean that the applicant has acquired a final right to a decision granting nationality.
Administrative jurisprudence has established a distinction between nationality acquired by operation of law and naturalization, which in some forms remains a legal grant subject to the State’s discretion within the limits of the law.
Accordingly, the review of a nationality file begins by identifying the statutory provision on which the applicant relies, rather than merely reviewing a checklist of documents.
The Most Important Practical Problems in Refusal Decisions
- Confusing establishment of nationality with naturalization: which may lead to pursuing an inappropriate legal route.
- The general nature of the stated reason for refusal: as the decision may simply state “for security considerations” without publicly disclosed details.
- Difficulty accessing the basis of security investigations: which increases the importance of judicial proceedings.
- Prolonged procedures: particularly where the person concerned does not accurately track the dates of the application and correspondence.
- Family impact: children or siblings may have different legal statuses depending on their dates of birth and the method through which nationality is acquired.
- Judicial time limits: an action seeking annulment of an administrative decision may be subject to deadlines different from those applicable to an original action seeking establishment of nationality.
Before Challenging… Determine the Type of Action
This is a particularly important point in nationality cases.
If the person is Egyptian by operation of law and seeks recognition of that status, the dispute may take the form of an original nationality action.
However, where the person submitted an application for naturalization subject to administrative discretion and an express refusal decision was issued, the dispute is, in principle, a challenge to an administrative decision. This results in different admissibility requirements and time limits.
An error in legally characterizing the action may result in loss of the right to challenge on procedural grounds even before the reasons for refusal are examined.
What Documents Should Be Retained?
In nationality files that may develop into litigation, it is preferable to retain an organized copy of:
- The nationality application or notification of desire and the date of its submission.
- The receipt or file number.
- The birth certificate of the person concerned.
- The Egyptian mother’s birth certificate and documents proving her nationality.
- Correspondence exchanged with the General Administration of Passports, Immigration and Nationality.
- The refusal decision, if any.
- The issue of the Egyptian Official Gazette in which the decision was published.
- Any other documents relating to the legal status on which the nationality application is based.
These documents are particularly important when examining whether the one-year period stipulated in Article 3 has elapsed or when determining the time limit for judicial challenge.
Does a Certificate of Good Conduct Help?
Providing clear documents concerning identity, residence, criminal record, and sources of information may be useful as part of the file where requested by the competent authority.
However, there is no single document – such as a certificate of good conduct – that guarantees the removal of any security concern or compels the administration to approve a discretionary naturalization application.
Accordingly, nationality applicants should not be given the impression that merely adding a collection of certificates to the file can, by itself, overcome a decision based on security considerations.
The Difference Between Refusal, Withdrawal, and Deprivation
It is also necessary to distinguish between three different legal situations:
- Refusal to acquire nationality or naturalization: issued before the person enters Egyptian nationality.
- Withdrawal of nationality: applicable in the cases regulated by law in respect of certain persons who have acquired nationality, subject to the conditions and periods prescribed.
- Deprivation of nationality: regulated by Article 16 in relation to a person who already enjoys Egyptian nationality, in the cases exhaustively specified by the provision.
Confusing these legal regimes leads to reliance on statutory provisions that do not actually govern the dispute under consideration.
Practical Recommendations
- Determine the legal basis of the application before submission: Is it original nationality by operation of law, Article 3 of the 2004 amendment, or another method of naturalization?
- Officially prove the date of submission: particularly where the law attaches legal consequences to the expiry of a specified period.
- Review all family data: because the person’s date of birth and the nationality of the father and mother may completely change the legal characterization of the case.
- Do not ignore a refusal decision: seek legal advice promptly to determine whether it is subject to a time limit for challenge.
- Do not assume that the phrase “security reasons” prevents judicial review: an administrative decision remains subject to the principle of legality.
- Do not submit false information or conceal material facts: because the Nationality Law imposes criminal liability for false information and documents submitted with the intention of proving or denying nationality.
The Perspective of the Office of Dr. Mostafa El Rouby – Attorneys and Legal Consultants
The Office of Dr. Mostafa El Rouby – Attorneys and Legal Consultants believes that nationality disputes involving security considerations require a high degree of precision because the phrase “refusal of nationality” may cover entirely different legal statuses.
The person concerned may already be Egyptian and merely seek recognition of nationality, may be among the children of Egyptian mothers born before 15 July 2004 and therefore subject to Article 3, or may be a foreign national seeking naturalization under one of the other cases regulated by law.
Accordingly, legal work in these cases includes:
- Determining the correct legal basis for acquisition or establishment of nationality.
- Reviewing published refusal decisions and their legal grounds.
- Examining the expiry of statutory periods and their legal effects.
- Distinguishing an action to establish nationality from an action seeking annulment of a refusal decision.
- Preparing challenge files before the State Council courts.
- Reviewing documents proving the nationality of the father or mother and parentage.
- Following up procedures before the General Administration of Passports, Immigration and Nationality.
Conclusion
Protection of national security is a legitimate consideration taken into account by the State in matters relating to naturalization and nationality, but this does not mean that all forms of nationality are subject to the same degree of administrative discretion.
A child born to an Egyptian father or an Egyptian mother after Law No. 154 of 2004 entered into force derives original nationality directly from the law, while children of Egyptian mothers born before that date are subject to the transitional regime under Article 3, which permits the Minister of Interior to issue a reasoned refusal decision within one year.
The decisions issued in 2025 demonstrate that “security considerations” remain an actual ground relied upon by the administration in certain cases. At the same time, judicial decisions confirm that nationality matters and administrative decisions concerning them do not fall outside the scope of judicial review.
Accordingly, the proper balance does not lie in denying the State’s right to protect its security, nor in treating security discretion as absolute. Rather, it lies in subjecting each decision to the statutory provision governing it, the principle of legality, and the judicial review established constitutionally and by law.
The most important factor for the person concerned remains the accurate identification of their legal status from the outset, because the distinction between “an Egyptian by operation of law,” “an applicant seeking acquisition of nationality,” and “an applicant for naturalization” is not merely terminological. It determines the nature of the right, the competent authority, the limits of administrative discretion, and the appropriate judicial avenue for challenge.
Written and Prepared by: Dr. Mostafa El Rouby
Legal and Official Sources
- Egyptian Constitution – Article 6.
- Egyptian Nationality Law No. 26 of 1975, as amended.
- Law No. 154 of 2004 Amending Certain Provisions of the Egyptian Nationality Law.
- Law No. 28 of 2023 Amending Certain Provisions of the Egyptian Nationality Law.
- Ministry of Interior Decision No. 257 of 2025.
- Ministry of Interior Decision No. 564 of 2025.
- Ministry of Interior Decision No. 698 of 2025.
- Ministry of Interior Decision No. 1133 of 2025.
- Judgments of the Supreme Administrative Court and the Administrative Court concerning disputes involving children of Egyptian mothers and nationality.