8 K2 v. THE UNITED KINGDOM DECISION variety of terrorism-related activities connected with Al Shabaab. The evidence is conclusive that he engaged in terrorism-related training. 38. The OPEN evidence is supportive of those conclusions to this degree: we conclude that K2 has no good reason to remain silent to the extent that he has done, or indeed at all. Moreover, his statements are, we find, deliberately misleading about the timing of arrival in Sudan. They are misleading about a period when he was in fact in Somalia, and knows he was in Somalia. 39. We find those matters proved to the civil standard. These conclusions would withstand a review, however intense, with access to the CLOSED evidence. If it were necessary to apply the criminal standard of proof to those matters, we would reach the same conclusions. 40. We conclude on the CLOSED evidence that it is probable that K2 fought against AMISOM forces. Here we could not reach the criminal standard of proof, if that were necessary. 41. We do find that the terrorism-related activities were at least linked to Al Shabaab. On that point we would reach the criminal standard of proof, if that were required. It is highly probable that K2’s terrorism-related activities were, at least in part, directly involved with Al Shabaab. 42. We do find that there is conclusive CLOSED evidence that K2 had established associations with known extremists in the UK and overseas. Here too, we would reach this conclusion to the criminal standard if that was necessary. We are further clear that these associations were conscious and deliberate associations, not accidental or unwitting contact.” 33. SIAC then considered the interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his family and private life. It noted that he had left the United Kingdom voluntarily, breaching his bail conditions. His wife had travelled to Sudan in March 2010 and remained there until February 2011, when she returned to the United Kingdom to give birth to their child. She and the child had travelled to Sudan towards the end of 2011 and remained there for six months before going back to the United Kingdom. However, SIAC found that the applicant’s wife and child were no longer living in the United Kingdom; he and his wife had numerous family members in Sudan; his wife and child could freely visit Sudan and even live there if they wished; and the applicant’s own natal family could – and did – visit him “reasonably often”. 34. In view of the nature and extent of the applicant’s activities, SIAC concluded that the Secretary of State had been fully justified in deciding to deprive him of his British citizenship. This would have been the case, even if it had found there to be a significant encroachment of his Article 8 rights. It therefore dismissed his appeal against the decision to deprive him of his citizenship. (c) Court of Appeal 35. The applicant sought permission to appeal against the decision that he would have been able, had he chose, to take part in the proceedings. On 8 July 2016 the Court of Appeal refused the application for permission to