K2 v. THE UNITED KINGDOM DECISION 17 Appeal that he had been treated differently compared to an alien who would be entitled to be present in order to appeal against the revocation of leave to remain (see paragraph 18 above). 70. Accordingly, the Court considers that the Article 14 complaint based on this ground must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 § 1 of the Convention for failure to exhaust domestic remedies. 71. The second alleged ground of discrimination – that he was treated differently from a non-national resident – was raised before the Court of Appeal. However, in the present case the applicant was not denied an incountry right of appeal because he was a British citizen; rather, the reason he did not have an in-country appeal against the decision to deprive him of his citizenship, and the reason he was not present during the judicial review proceedings, was because he had already left the United Kingdom of his own volition when the impugned decisions were taken (see paragraph 15 above). A non-national resident who had his leave to remain cancelled while out of the country would also not be permitted to return for the purposes of an appeal (see, for example, the situation of the first applicant in I.R. and G.T. v. the United Kingdom, cited above). 72. Accordingly, the Court considers that the Article 14 complaint based on this ground must be rejected as manifestly ill-founded pursuant to Article 35 �� 3(a) of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Declares the application inadmissible. Done in English and notified in writing on 9 March 2017. Abel Campos Registrar Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos President