K2 v. THE UNITED KINGDOM DECISION 15 60. Finally, the Court cannot ignore the fact that the procedural difficulties the applicant complains of were not a natural consequence flowing from the simultaneous decision to deprive him of his citizenship and exclude him from the United Kingdom. As the Court of Appeal noted in the judicial review proceedings, the reason why the applicant had to conduct his appeal from outside the United Kingdom was not the Secretary of State’s decision to exclude him, but rather his decision to flee the country before he was required to surrender to his bail (see paragraph 15 above). 61. The Court recalls that in assessing the decision to deprive the applicant of his British citizenship, it must apply a standard of “arbitrariness” (see paragraph 49 above), which is a stricter standard than that of proportionality. Bearing this in mind, and having regard to the above considerations, it concludes that the decision was not “arbitrary”. (b) Consequences of revocation 62. The applicant was not rendered stateless by the decision to deprive him of his British citizenship, as he was entitled to – and has since obtained – a Sudanese passport. Furthermore, the Court cannot but have regard to the findings of SIAC in its judgment of 22 December 2005; namely, that the applicant had left the United Kingdom voluntarily prior to the decision to deprive him of his citizenship; his wife and child were no longer living in the United Kingdom and 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” (see paragraph 33 above). Although in his most recent correspondence the applicant contends that his wife and child are resident in the United Kingdom, he has not substantiated that claim. In any case, the fact remains that they are free to visit him in Sudan or even to relocate there. 63. The applicant does not appear to have complained in the domestic proceedings about the adverse impact of the impugned measures on his reputation. Before this Court he asserts that he has been placed on a list of persons prohibited from air travel, but he has advanced no evidence to substantiate that claim. (c) Conclusion 64. In view of the above considerations, the Court considers that insofar as the applicant’s Article 8 complaint concerns the decision to deprive him of his citizenship, it is manifestly ill-founded and, as such, must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 § 3(a) of the Convention 2. The exclusion of the applicant from the United Kingdom 65. As a matter of well-established international law and subject to their treaty obligations, States have the right to control the entry, residence and