- Shabir Ahmed, Adil Khan, Abdul Rauf and Abdul Aziz all face deportation
- Ringleader Ahmed was jailed for 22 years for a series of child sex offences
- He had previously tried to take his case to the European Court of Human Rights
- Rauf was released on licence last year after serving half of a six-year sentence
Four members of a child sex grooming gang are facing deportation to Pakistan after immigration judges rejected their appeals against their British citizenship being revoked.
Ringleader Shabir Ahmed, Adil Khan, Abdul Rauf and Abdul Aziz, all from Rochdale, had their cases thrown out.
The men had appealed against moves by the Government to strip them of their British citizenship.
Paedophile Shabir Ahmed, 63 - the ringleader of the Rochdale gang (left) and Taxi driver Abdul Aziz, 41, (right) both appealed the decision to strip them of their citizenship
But their claims were dismissed on all grounds by the Upper Tribunal of the Immigration and Asylum Chamber.
The ruling paves the way for the men, all of Pakistani nationality who acquired British citizenship by naturalisation, to be removed from the UK.
Ahmed was convicted in 2012 of being the ringleader of a group of Asian men who preyed on girls as young as 13 in Rochdale, plying them with drink and drugs before they were 'passed around' for sex.
He was given a 19-year sentence at Liverpool Crown Court in May 2012 for a string of child sex offences, including rape.
He was also jailed for 22 years, to run concurrently, in July 2012 for 30 rapes against another victim.
Taxi driver Rauf, 47, a father-of-five, was released on licence in 2015 after serving half of a six-year sentence for trafficking a girl, aged 15, in the UK for sex, and for having sex with the youngster himself.
Abdul Rauf (left) and Adil Khan (right), were the other two men who now face deportation back to Pakistan after failing in their appeals
Handing down the judgment, Mr Justice Bernard McCloskey, president of the Upper Tribunal, said the cases were 'of some notoriety', and described the men's crimes as 'shocking, brutal and repulsive'.
He dismissed five different grounds of appeal - including an argument advanced by three of the men that the Government had failed in a duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of their children.
The ruling also dismissed a complaint of a 'disproportionate interference' with the men's rights as EU citizens and rejected claims concerning human rights laws.
Despite the ruling, the legal battle to deport the men could drag on for some time.
There are further steps the Home Office must complete and the men will be able to appeal at later stages in the process.
The four can apply for permission to appeal against Thursday's decision.
Mr Justice Bernard McCloskey launched the damning attack about the gang's solicitors, Nottingham-based firm Burton and Burton, in an immigration tribunal
Applications can only be made on a question of law, and permission is granted in less than 10% of cases.
Ahmed, known as Daddy, previously took his case to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) claiming that his all-white jury was biased – a breach of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, guaranteeing a fair trial.
But judges in Strasbourg unanimously threw out his case, insisting that there was 'simply no proof' jurors acted improperly.
Earlier this week Justice McCloskey, Britain's most senior immigration judge has criticised taxpayer-funded lawyers of being 'cavalier and unprofessional' in helping them in their bid to stay in the country.
He launched the damning attack in response to the appeal against their deportation, ordered by then-Home Secretary Theresa May in 2012.
Justice McCloskey made the comments about the gang's solicitors, Nottingham-based firm Burton and Burton, in an immigration tribunal.
Justice McCloskey said: 'The conduct of these appeals has been cavalier and unprofessional. The rule of law has been weakened in consequence.'
The judge also threatened the legal team with disciplinary action, warning them their actions could be in contempt of court.
He added: 'Scarce judicial and administrative resources have been wasted in dealing with repeated unmeritorious requests by the Appellants' solicitors for an adjournment.'