The former UK schoolgirl, 20, was one of three east London schoolgirls who travelled to Syria to join so-called Islamic State in February 2015.
She was found, nine months pregnant, in a Syrian refugee camp in February last year, prompting then home secretary Sajid Javid to strip her of her British citizenship.
Pictured at the weekend without her usual black burka, which has been banned from the al-Roj camp in Northern Syria where she is living, Shamima said she was sharing a tent with US-Canadian Kimberly Polman.
Their tent, which is currently decorated for Valentine’s Day, has heating, a TV and cooking appliances.
Speaking to ABC News, she said that her ‘whole world fell apart’ when she was stripped of her citizenship last year.
She said: “When my citizenship got rejected, I felt like my whole world fell apart right in front of me.
“You know, especially the way I was told. I wasn’t even told by a government official. I was told by journalists.
“I thought I would be a bit different because I had not done anything wrong before I came to Isis.”
Lawyers for ISIS bride Shamima Begum said at the time that they would immediately launch an appeal against a decision that ruled revoking her British citizenship did not render her stateless.
Ms Begum took legal action against the Home Office at both the High Court and the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC), a specialist tribunal which hears challenges to decisions to remove someone’s British citizenship on national security grounds.
Her lawyers argued that the decision was unlawful as it rendered her stateless, and said the move breached the Home Office’s “extraterritorial human rights policy by exposing Ms Begum to a real risk of death or inhuman or degrading treatment”.
But, in a ruling earlier this month, the tribunal – led by SIAC president Mrs Justice Elisabeth Laing – found that, at the time Ms Begum’s British citizenship was revoked, she was “a citizen of Bangladesh by descent” and was therefore not rendered stateless.
The tribunal found that the decision did not breach the Home Office’s policy on the extraterritorial application of human rights.
It stated: “The appellant was in that situation as a result of her own choices, and of the actions of others, but not because of anything the Secretary of State had done.”
The tribunal also found that Ms Begum “cannot play any meaningful part in her appeal and that, to that extent, the appeal will not be fair and effective”, but ruled that “it does not follow that her appeal succeeds”.