Our new report, Profiting from People: Inside the UK’s Asylum Hotels, reveals how the government’s long-term use of hotels to house people seeking asylum has become a vehicle for profit rather than protection. Drawing on over two years of RAMFEL’s casework and testimonies from people trapped in hotel accommodation, we show how successive governments have handed billions of pounds of public money to private contractors while people are forced to live in unsafe, degrading conditions.
The full report is available here. 
In this period, we supported almost 500 people placed in hotels, including families crammed into single rooms for months on end, children going hungry, and people with serious health conditions denied care. One mother described being unable to open the windows in her mould-infested room. Another family’s baby was documented by a GP as experiencing malnutrition caused by hotel food.
The report draws on extensive research and interviews with hotel residents, revealing:

• 49% said their room was overcrowded, with many explaining that whole families of up to six were forced to live together in a single space.
• 80% said the food was “really bad”, and largely inedible. 
• 34% reported having a medical condition or disability, yet none of them received the adjustments they needed.
• 75% had raised concerns, whether to Migrant Help, the Home Office, or directly with hotel staff. Yet in 76% of these cases, no corrective action was taken. 

Meanwhile, companies such as Clearsprings Ready Homes, Mears Group, and Serco have together made more than £380 million in profit since 2019. In the first seven months of 2024–25 alone, the government spent £1.3 billion on hotel-based accommodation, money that could have gone towards safe, permanent housing instead.
Our report exposes how decades of outsourcing, poor oversight, and deliberate hostility have turned asylum housing into a profit-driven industry. The government continues to ignore repeated warnings about the human cost of this system.
We are calling on the government to:

1. End prolonged hotel use.
2. Set and enforce minimum standards immediately, that respond to the needs of children, families and vulnerable people.
3. Invest in community housing.
4. Give people the right to work whilst their asylum claims are processed.
5. Build an asylum system based on dignity and integration, end the reliance on private contractors and bring asylum provision back under public control.

For any queries, please contact Layla Hussian, Advocacy Officer, at [email protected].

RAMFEL’s Head of Campaigning, Nick Beales, stated:
“The use of hotels as asylum accommodation has to end without delay. Contrary to what politicians across the divide claim, these hotels are not luxurious – they are vermin infested, prison-like, wholly inadequate for long-term use and are now routinely attacked and targeted by far-right racists.
The people housed in them for months and years on end are desperate to leave and start rebuilding their lives in the UK. However, with no right to work until their claims are approved, they cannot support themselves and must rely on government accommodation.
If the government is serious about reforming the asylum system, they should immediately permit asylum seekers the right to work, allowing them to support themselves and their families. This would save the taxpayer money and strengthen social cohesion by ensuring greater day-to-day interaction between people seeking asylum and local residents.”

ENDS

This week, the Home Affairs Committee report on asylum accommodation confirms what RAMFEL, our clients, and many others have said for years - the Government’s reliance on hotels and large-scale sites has created a system that is unsafe, unaccountable, and inhumane.
​
The Committee found that the Home Office “has not demonstrated that it has had a strategy for the delivery of asylum accommodation,” relying instead on “a series of hasty, short-term responses” that have wasted taxpayer money and left thousands of people in limbo. It revealed widespread failures in oversight, contract management, and safeguarding and an “inexplicable and unacceptable failure of accountability” as the Home Office has failed to penalise providers when serious harm to human life has occurred.

The report highlights that billions of pounds of public money has been wasted on hotel accommodation, with little to show for it other than profit for private providers and harm for the people forced to live in these conditions.
Hotels, which were supposed to be used only in the short term, have become the default form of asylum accommodation due to years of poor planning and failed contracting. This has left people seeking safety isolated in unsuitable areas, cut off from services, and living in conditions that harm their wellbeing.

At RAMFEL, we’ve seen this first-hand. Many of our clients have spent months, sometimes years, trapped in hotel rooms that were never intended for long-term use. They face uncertainty, inedible food, lack of privacy, and difficulty accessing healthcare, education, and community life. These are not exceptions; they are the predictable outcomes of a system built on profit rather than care.

The report sets out clear recommendations to begin addressing these issues:

• A clear national strategy with milestones to reduce hotel use before the end of current contracts in 2029
• The reinstatement of the 56-day move-on period for people whose asylum claims have been determined and a minimum 28-day notice for local authorities when new sites are opened
• Stronger oversight of providers, including Key Performance Indicators and financial penalties for failure
• Improved safeguarding frameworks and training for hotel staff
• Urgent reform or replacement of the failing advice, information and support (AIRE) service currently delivered by Migrant Help, which has left many unable to access support or raise complaints

These recommendations make the Government’s next move even more disappointing. Less than 24 hours after this report was published, the Government announced plans to open two new military sites to house asylum seekers - ignoring the report’s findings that large, isolated sites like Wethersfield and Napier are unsafe and unsuitable. Evidence submitted to the Committee warned of a “high risk of suicide” at Wethersfield, calling such sites “not safe or appropriate.”

The lesson is clear. People seeking safety should be housed in communities, not camps or hotels. The Government must focus on compassion, accountability, and long-term solutions not quick political fixes. It must also ensure that profit is never prioritised over the safety and wellbeing of our fellow human beings.

September has been a devastating month for us all in the UK. From the Government’s suspension of all family reunion routes to Labour’s new “contribution-based settlement model”, decisions have left many feeling helpless. These announcements have also emboldened racists and far-right actors, creating an even more hostile environment for already vulnerable communities.

Suspension of all family reunion routes to the UK:
The Government announced the suspension of all refugee family reunion routes to the UK, a devastating move that will separate countless families and further restrict safe routes for those fleeing conflict.
​
Our Head of Campaigns, Nick Beales, was featured in Byline Times, where he described the decision as “a shameful move with devastating consequences.” Nick highlighted that the UK’s already limited family reunion system fails to reflect the realities of war and displacement and warned that both major parties are pursuing ever harsher immigration policies in a race to outflank Reform UK.

He urged leaders to remember the human cost behind these decisions and called for compassion and humanity in the UK’s asylum system.

Labour’s “Contribution-Based Settlement Model”
Following the Cabinet reshuffle after the summer recess, newly appointed Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood made a further deeply concerning announcement – the proposed introduction of a new “contribution-based settlement model” for people in the immigration system.
This marks a dangerous shift: Labour is no longer simply seeking to control migration, but is now punishing and demonising people who already live, work and contribute to life in the UK. The proposal would require every migrant applying for Indefinite Leave to Remain to undertake voluntary work.

What this policy fails to recognise is that many migrants already work long hours in low-paid jobs, struggling to afford rent, bills, and basic living costs. Expecting them to do additional work for free is unrealistic and exploitative, and fundamentally undermines the very meaning of volunteering.
Even more worrying is that charities would effectively become extensions of government, tasked with recording and reporting migrants’ hours to assess whether they are “worthy” of settlement. As an organisation that relies on the generosity and commitment of volunteers year-round, RAMFEL refuses to be complicit in such a punitive system. Volunteering should be an act of community and solidarity, not a government-imposed test of belonging.

Unity among the charity sector:
We joined over 100 organisations in signing an open letter coordinated by Refugee Action to urge the new Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood to unite communities. The letter outlined that scapegoating won’t fix inequalities, housing shortages, or a crumbling NHS. Real solutions will. It called on the new Home Secretary to engage with frontline organisations and people with lived experience before taking any further action.

Casework Successes in September: 
Despite these challenges, our casework team continued to make a tangible difference in people’s lives:
• 26 families secured permanent immigration status
• 21 people were granted Leave to Remain
• 3 people gained British citizenship 
• 300 families received food parcels 

Summer’s ending, the attacks on refugees continue
For the second summer running, far-right racists spent August attacking hotels housing asylum seekers. A hotel in Epping has been at the epicentre, with the local council challenging its use as asylum accommodation in the High Court.
 
Ultimately, last week the court overturned an injunction stating that the government must remove all residents by mid-September. The legal battle over the hotel’s future continues though.
 
To be clear, RAMFEL supports the closure of these hotels. They are awful places, vermin infested, unsanitary and serving inedible food. We’ve been saying they should be closed for years, yet it seems the government is only interested when Nigel Farage’s lapdogs are targeting these hotels.
 
Our Head of Campaigning spoke about the harm these hotels cause on LBC, Radio 5 and on ITV News, and was also quoted in the Financial Times and the Washington Post.
 
Afghan data breach – let affected families reunite
In July, it was revealed that a catastrophic data breach saw the UK government expose the details of more than 18,000 Afghan nationals and their family members. This put these peoples’ lives at risk from Taliban reprisals.
 
In the aftermath of the Taliban’s 2021 takeover, the British government evacuated Afghans who had supported UK efforts, and has since resettled more such people. However, as these people have not been granted refugee status in the conventional sense, they are not eligible for family reunion, meaning many remain separated from their loved ones.
 
We coordinated a letter signed by 54 organisations calling on the government to confirm that all Afghans resettled in the UK are eligible for family reunion. This letter can be viewed in full on our website and was covered in The Independent.  
 
We want to hear from you
Do you know how much it costs to apply for indefinite leave to remain in the UK? Whether you do or you don’t, we want to hear from you.
 
Throughout August, we’ve been running a survey on the costs involved in securing permanent immigration status. If you want to have your say, you can do so here:

​It only takes a few minutes, and your answers will help us campaign for a fee waiver for people who simply can’t afford this cost and are priced out of permanent immigration status.
 
August’s casework wins
As always, it was busy month and our caseworkers secured life-changing victories:
✅9 people were granted leave to remain
✅11 people secured permanent immigration status
✅3 people were given British citizenship
✅10 families overcame homelessness

After being granted refugee status, people who have been waiting, sometimes, many years for a decision on their asylum claim look forward to being able to finally seek work, find somewhere to live and generally move on with their lives. For many people waiting for their case to be processed will have included an extended period of time in asylum support accommodation, often living in temporary hotel accommodation, being unable to work, and surviving on just £9.95 per week.
Once people are granted refugee visas, their existing accommodation support is terminated as they are allowed to work and also become eligible for mainstream support. Whilst a positive moment for most people, it also involves navigating the competitive rental market, applying for jobs and mainstream support, which is time consuming, complicated and stressful. This is especially so as people are prevented from doing any of these things for the months and years spent waiting for the government to process their claims.
On 5 December 2024, the government began a pilot of increasing the new accommodation ‘move on’ period from 28 days to 56 days. This gave new refugees an additional month to find housing, work and apply for any appropriate support, before their asylum support ended. From our experience, this additional period helped prevent homelessness by giving people more time to sort out these basic necessities. Whilst 56 days was still a short period of time, this extra month was crucial in ensuring these people could find their feet before being evicted from support.
On 27 August 2025, the government without warning decided to reverse this back to the original timeframe of 28 days for single people. They have justified this by saying that it will cut costs.
This is an appalling and short-sighted decision and will certainly result in an increase in homelessness and destitution among new refugees. 28 days is not enough time to find a job, save a deposit and find somewhere to live. Local authorities will bear the brunt of this decision, as it will inevitably lead to an increased number of people becoming street homeless as they are unable to find somewhere to live in the 28-day window they are given. This was exactly what happened in late 2023 and early 2024 when the then Conservative government started processing long delayed asylum claims en masse with no plans for what would happen next.
Contrary to popular belief, unless individuals have children or a disability, the local authority has no duty to, and will not house those who become homeless after being evicted. The expectation is that they make their own arrangements, which has never been possible in just 28 days. Street homelessness is therefore inevitable. These people will therefore usually end up engaging with local homeless charities as their only lifeline, placing greater pressure on these organisations to provide support. Street homelessness makes people vulnerable, something which is already accepted by the government themselves. These people are more at risk of assault, theft and mental health decline. The government voluntarily placing large numbers of people in this position is shameful and utterly senseless.
The government will have already recognised the affected people as having fled persecution, meaning that they are vulnerable and may have experienced severe mistreatment, war or even torture in their country of origin. It is essential for these individuals that they receive appropriate support if they are to move on with their lives, and this decision directly undermines the chances of them swiftly starting to rebuild their lives in their new country. No one benefits from this and it massively undermines social cohesion at a time of already inflamed and heightened tensions.
Whilst we understand that this government is trying to reduce hotel use, this is certainly not the way to do it. This is an illogical and cruel decision, which will undoubtably lead to more negative outcomes for new refugees who want to integrate into the UK and move on with their lives. We therefore urge the government to reverse this decision immediately and permanently instate a 56-day move-on period for all newly recognised refugees.

​Erica Wilson is the Refugee and Asylum Manager at RAMFEL

For many of us, the cost of securing Indefinite Leave to Remain (ILR) is simply out of reach. At £3,029 per person, it is a price most families already struggling with the rising cost of living simply just cannot afford.

Many of us on the 10-year route are single parents, working long hours in low-paying jobs, doing everything we can to support our families. We can’t access higher education to re-train for better opportunities due to ineligibility for student finance, and we are often misrepresented in the media and as a result we get cut off from public support. For us, life is already a daily struggle.

Most people on the 10-year route are here because of deep roots in the UK. We have children, families, and community ties. Many of our children are British citizens. And yet, the system keeps us in a constant state of uncertainty. It feels like we are being punished for trying to stay with our British families.

We have done everything that has been asked of us, lived here for a decade, paid taxes, contributed to our communities. But still, we are forced to renew our visas over and over, not because we are ineligible for ILR, but because we simply cannot afford the fee. This leaves many of our families stuck in limbo, unable to plan for the future, sinking deeper into poverty and mental stress.

Imagine surviving ten years of instability, financial hardship, mental health strain, and fear of being priced out of the renewal cost each year, only to face yet another barrier of securing permanent status after finishing the 10-year route. It does not feel fair. For most of us, the 10-year route feels more like a sentence than a pathway to settlement.

A fee waiver for ILR would change everything. It would offer families the chance to finally build a secure and stable life in the UK. It would allow parents to, access higher education, find better jobs and give their children the future they deserve.
We already have fee waivers for other immigration applications for those who cannot afford them. Extending this support to ILR applicants on the 10-year route would not only change lives, it would reduce pressure on the Home Office and help more people contribute fully to the UK economy.

Those of us on the 10-year route are not outsiders, we are your neighbours, your carers, your shopkeepers, your friends, your family. We are already part of this country; we have deep roots in the UK. All we ask is the chance to live here with dignity, without being priced out of a secure future not just for ourselves, but for our children as well.

This is why RAMFEL has this week started a survey on the cost of ILR applications in the UK to gain a deeper understanding of peoples’ experiences regarding the settlement fees. Our aim is to explore how these costs affect those eligible for settlement but are priced out from attaining settlement and also understand the general public’s views on these extortionate fees. We are requesting you to please take our short survey and share your views on this.
​

News that the UK government released data of up to 100,000 Afghan nationals with ties to the UK is shocking and incredibly dangerous. The affected individuals worked with UK armed forces and officials in Afghanistan, and this disclosure exposed them to risk of torture or execution by the Taliban, a group not known for forgiveness. 

The risk was so severe that the then Conservative government introduced a secret resettlement scheme, the Afghanistan Response Route (ARR), for those endangered by the data breach. It appears that the UK government ultimately agreed to resettle around 4,500 people under the ARR, though some have still not actually made it here. This is less than 5% of the people potentially endangered by the breach.

This week, the Labour government informed the UK High Court that a “super injunction”, issued in 2022 and prohibiting reporting of the breach, could be lifted. They also closed the ARR, meaning no more visas will be issued under this route.

Labour’s closure of the ARR swiftly follows their ruthless and cruel decision earlier this month to close two other Afghan resettlement routes. There are now no safe routes for Afghans to reach the UK.

It also follows a change in approach to Afghan asylum claims. Before last year’s general election, 98% of Afghan asylum claims were approved. Since the election, the grant rate has plummeted to 37%. The government’s guidance on Afghan asylum cases was changed in August 2024, and now states that the country is essentially as ‘safe’ as it was pre-Taliban takeover.

Limited information has been provided about why the UK government considers Taliban ruled Afghanistan to now be safer, but this assessment was likely reached at the upper echelons of government. A lack of diplomatic ties with the Taliban though means the UK government cannot actually return these failed asylum seekers. There are now then several thousand Afghan nationals stuck in immigration limbo, unable to work, unable to leave the UK and housed in asylum accommodation at public expense for an indefinite period. 

Since news of the data breach broke, Labour have continued to callously and flippantly bat away concerns about Afghans’ safety. Defence Secretary, John Healey, stated on Wednesday that not only does the data breach not give people the right to resettlement, but it also does not give them the right to claim asylum. 

Healey’s positions are deeply troubling, but reflect his government’s rapid and total abandonment of Afghan nationals. Any Afghan exposed to danger because of this data breach should without question be offered safe passage to the UK. However, whilst Healey and his government have refused to do this, they have gone even further by effectively pre-determining any asylum claims based on the data breach.

Asylum claims cannot be lodged overseas and people have to first make it to the UK to submit a claim. The inability to apply for asylum from abroad is why people fleeing conflict and persecution have no choice but to take dangerous journeys to the UK. 

Afghans make up around 15% of people crossing the Channel, and until recently 98% of their asylum claims were approved. Whilst the Labour government has already adopted an increasingly harsh approach to Afghan asylum claims, Healey’s statement indicates that they will look to refuse any claims that evidence a risk of torture or worse due to the person’s data being leaked.

The phrase, we are here because you were there, is rightly used to explain why many people from countries still suffering the affects of UK colonial atrocities make their way to these shores. This is never more apt than in the case of Afghanistan, which more than any country in recent history has suffered because of the dreadful policies pursued by UK and other western governments.

Throughout the last 20 years, it has been clear that western governments do not value Afghan lives, and the amount of human suffering this has led to is unfathomable.

Whilst the UK has now pulled out of Afghanistan, they continue to treat Afghans with contempt and make clear that they simply do not consider their safety an issue of great importance. This was the case when Boris Johnson’s administration prioritised the evacuation of animals over Afghan people, it was the case when Rishi Sunak’s administration was fighting desperately to send Afghans to Rwanda and it is the case now as Keir Starmer’s administration slams the door shut on all forms of Afghan resettlement.

Afghanistan remains unsafe. It remains under the control of a brutal and oppressive regime. The UK government should remember the role it has played in making Afghanistan what it is today. They should also remember that it is the Afghan people who continue to suffer as a result and have no choice but to seek safety elsewhere. Rather than turning them away, we should recognise our role and responsibility and immediately ensure that those needing protection and with clear ties to the UK are afforded safe passage.

We are devastated to learn that the UK Government has ruthlessly shut down its resettlement routes for Afghans fleeing the Taliban. Without warning or public consultation, the Home Office buried this decision in a technical memorandum to new immigration rules, cutting off almost the only safe ways for Afghans to reach the UK.

This move is not only cruel but counterproductive. At a time when the Government claims it wants to reduce dangerous boat crossings, it has shut down a pathway that allowed eligible Afghans - many with ties to Britain - to come here safely. These changes will only push more people into riskier routes.

The schemes themselves were already extremely restrictive, with the vast majority of people not eligible. With most people locked out, Afghan refugees have long been forced to take dangerous journeys and account for 15% of people arriving by boat. Expect this figure to rise further now these schemes are closed.

The schemes themselves were far from perfect. Many Afghans eligible for relocation were wrongly rejected due to errors by Home Office caseworkers. Our client Hamidullah, who worked at the British Embassy in Kabul for 18 years, remains separated from his two sons in Afghanistan. His story was recently featured in The Independent: “I worked for the British in Kabul embassy for 18 years. Let me reunite with my sons”.

This is not an isolated story; but these schemes did at least offer hope to Afghan refugees. The government has removed that hope.

What We Got Up To This June
Despite the tough news, we continue to build and celebrate the power of community.

Refugee Week: Community as a Superpower
We hosted a vibrant Refugee Week celebration at our community hub in Ilford. The theme this year “Community as a Superpower” was brought to life by our clients: refugees, asylum seekers and migrants from across London. There was food, music, games, and connection. If you missed it, watch our short highlight video for a dose of hope and solidarity.

London Legal Walk
We also took part in the London Legal Walk, standing with others to demand a properly funded legal aid system. Everyone deserves access to justice, not just those who can afford it. The legal aid crisis is pushing too many into homelessness, detention, destitution, and even deportation. We walked to say: enough is enough.
​
Casework Successes in June
In June, our casework team helped change lives:
✅ 21 families secured permanent immigration status
✅ 16 people were granted leave to remain
✅ 10 individuals gained British citizenship

The Migration Advisory Committee (MAC) has reviewed the financial requirements for British citizens and settled individuals seeking to bring partners and children to the UK. 

The Government asked the MAC to advise on how to set a minimum income requirement (MIR) for the Family route that balances economic wellbeing and family life. The MAC declined to recommend a specific income threshold, stating this is a political and ethical decision for the Government to make itself.
 
Crucially, the review rejected the previous government's proposal to raise the MIR to £38,700 to match the Skilled Worker threshold, noting:
“We do not understand the rationale for the threshold being set using this method... [It] is unrelated to the Family route and is the most likely to conflict with international law and obligations (e.g. Article 8 of the ECHR).”

Instead, the MAC outlined a range of potential thresholds between £19,000 and £28,000, depending on policy priorities. It also acknowledged the profound negative impacts of the MIR, particularly on children and their mental health, noting how family separation leads to serious emotional distress and long-term harm.

In our submission to the MAC’s call for evidence - one of 36 organisational contributions - we also highlighted the deep harm caused by this policy. The MIR disproportionately affects women, part-time workers, young people and ethnic minorities. We regularly support clients who have been separated from loved ones purely because of income levels. Children grow up without parents, and families suffer immense emotional strain.

The MAC estimated that lowering the threshold from £29,000 to £24,000 would increase net migration by only around 8,000 people, just 1–3% of projected future net migration. The idea that such a small change in migration numbers could justify the government continuing to separatie families is deeply concerning. It highlights the extent to which this policy prioritises numerical targets over family life and common sense.

Fundamentally, we believe family life should not depend on income. The MIR is a cruel and counterproductive policy that damages mental health, undermines integration, and violates the basic right to family unity.

Even politicians with hostile views on immigration, such as (previously Reform) MP Rupert Lowe, have publicly criticised the MIR as “expensive,” “stressful,” and “disrespectful” to British citizens. This cross-party consensus reflects a growing understanding that the MIR is both unfair and unsustainable.

Now that the MAC has confirmed this is a political choice, Labour must act. Reducing the threshold is not enough. The Minimum Income Requirement should be scrapped entirely in favour of a system that respects the right to family life regardless of income.

This month at RAMFEL has been packed with continued resilience from the people we support. From uplifting the story of a young man failed by the system to securing life-changing immigration status for dozens of people, here’s what we’ve been up to.

Romario’s Fight for Citizenship
Romario’s story is one of unimaginable injustice. Born and raised in the UK, he should have always had citizenship. But due to social services’ serious failures, Romario was stranded in Antigua at the age of 14. His dreams of becoming a professional athlete were shattered, and when he returned to the UK at 21, he had no immigration status, no home, and no access to support.
Romario now needs £1,576 to apply for the British citizenship he has always deserved. He isn’t in a position to afford this himself so he’s launched a fundraiser to help him rebuild his life.
Donate here to support Romario

Our ILR Fee Waiver EDM Gathers Momentum
In March, we launched an Early Day Motion (EDM) calling for a fee waiver for Indefinite Leave to Remain (ILR) applications. The cost of applying for ILR- over £3,000 - is locking people out of stability, work, and security.
We’re thrilled to share that 36 MPs have now signed on in support. Every signature helps bring this campaign into the national conversation. If you haven’t yet contacted your MP, you can use our quick online tool to ask them to sign:
 Email your MP here

Case Spotlight – From Disbelief to Stability
Our client Jack*, supported by Weronika on our casework team, was just granted Leave to Remain (LTR), but the journey there was anything but straightforward.
Previously holding LTR, Jack missed a renewal deadline and mistakenly believed he only needed to renew his biometric residence permit. The confusion around the government’s new eVisa system only made things worse. When his disability benefits were stopped due to lack of proof of status, he became homeless and was also later diagnosed with cancer.
Through persistence and legal support, Weronika was able to help Jack secure LTR for a second time. He’s now back in stable accommodation, and we’re continuing to support him through this incredibly difficult time.
*Clients name has been anonymised

​Casework Successes
Behind every number is a person or family who can now live with more certainty and dignity. In May, our casework team achieved the following:

• 19 people granted Leave to Remain
• 6 families granted permanent immigration status
• 5 people granted British citizenship

The UK government’s plan to introduce targeted visa restrictions for nationals from Pakistan, Nigeria and Sri Lanka is a deeply discriminatory and politically motivated move. It also undermines the government’s own position that people should use safe routes if they need to seek protection in the UK. This is exactly what these people have done, and the government responds by demonising and scapegoating them.

We’ve seen this pattern before. When people from a particular country begin using a safe route to claim asylum - because no refugee visa exists - the government moves swiftly to shut that route down. We saw it with Trinidad and Tobago. We saw it with Namibia. Now we’re seeing it again. Rather than expanding pathways to safety, the UK repeatedly reacts by restricting or removing existing routes once people start using them to seek protection. And then, with no sense of irony, it insists that people should "come here legally" and use "safe and regular routes", knowing full well it has closed off nearly all of them.

We know from our work with refugees and migrants that people’s circumstances can change rapidly. A student or worker may face persecution, conflict, or political instability in their home country after arriving in the UK. Others may have already been facing serious harm, and with no refugee visa perhaps secured a student visa as a means of escaping persecution.
​ 
This move amounts to a further erosion of one of the few remaining safe routes to claim asylum. Instead of addressing the appalling delays and failures in the asylum system, the government is doubling down on profiling and exclusion. The targeting of these three specific countries also shamelessly profiles people based on their nationality. Let’s call this what it is: racism.

This announcement is not about so-called ‘abuse’ of the system - it is about scapegoating migrants to score political points in the wake of poor election results. Many who voted for hard-line anti-migrant parties last week did so because both Labour and the Conservatives have moved in that direction. When cruelty becomes consensus, voters who want a tougher stance turn to the extremes.

Right now, we’re watching political parties compete over who can be cruellest to win over a narrow segment of voters - while ignoring the majority who simply want real solutions. After nearly a year in power, this government has focused solely on so-called deterrence and closing down immigration routes. They have not even pretended they’re interested in opening safe routes for refugees to seek sanctuary. Instead of scapegoating migrants, the government must reverse course and shift towards a humane and fair approach to immigration. If they don’t, and they continue normalising this shameless pandering to the far-right, they shouldn’t be surprised if voters continue rejecting them not only for Reform but also for kinder and more compassionate approaches favoured by left-wing parties.

​I am living in this beautiful country England for 23 years.
I was here for the 9/11 Anniversary (2002)
I was here during London bombing which kills 52 people. (2005)
I was here when Usain Bolt from my country Jamaica broke many records at the London Olympics (2012)
I was here when Sir Anthony Blair was Prime Minister.
I was here with no children; I am now a mother of 2 British children.
I was here during some of the toughest snow storms.
Ohhh Yes Sir I was definitely here during Covid-19.
Mr. Prime Minister Sir
Why am I constantly having to renew my leave to remain every 2.5 years on the 10-year route?
Sir, why can't I attend university with my 2.5 years leave to remain?
Sir why do we keep having visa fee hikes,
Sir it was just February 2024 when we saw a massive NHS surcharge fee hike
We have not even recovered yet from that, and now again!
Another visa application fee hike?!
Sir, why am I still under the 10 years route?
Sir Prime Minister when am I going to stop asking why?

This month has been exciting for RAMFEL - from meeting a new ally in Parliament to celebrating a legal victory that is already changing lives. Here’s what we’ve been up to.
​Meeting our local MP – Uma Kumaran
This month, we had the privilege of meeting Uma Kumaran, the MP for Stratford and Bow. Given that RAMFEL’s office is based in Stratford, we see this as an exciting opportunity to work closely with an MP who represents many of the people we support.
During our meeting, we highlighted some of the biggest challenges that refugees, asylum seekers, and migrants face when navigating the UK’s immigration system. This included:

• The repeated and expensive renewals of Leave to Remain applications
• Poor decision-making in family reunion cases for people in conflict zones
• The urgent need for a fee waiver for Indefinite Leave to Remain (ILR) applications, so that people are not priced out of securing permanent immigration status

Uma and her team were shocked by many of these realities. We look forward to working with her in the future.

Bereaved Partner Concession – Our First Fee Waiver Granted
Last year, RAMFEL won a landmark legal battle that forced the government to introduce a fee waiver for bereaved partners. This month, we saw the first approval granted using this waiver – saving a grieving widow, who had cared for her husband until his passing, thousands of pounds and securing her immigration status.
This victory is more than just a financial win; it provides stability and security for a grieving widow who otherwise might have faced losing her immigration status. It is also a testament to how our legal work has a direct and life-changing impact on the people we support.
Our new campaign - Indefinite Leave to Remain Fee Waiver
We’re excited to share that we have launched an Early Day Motion  (EDM) calling for a fee waiver for ILR applications - and we already have 26 MPs from 7 parties signed on in support!
An EDM is a tool MPs use to highlight pressing issues, and it helps organisations like RAMFEL identify which MPs are aligned with the change we want to see. Every MP who signs is helping to bring the need for an ILR fee waiver into the political conversation. This campaign is just beginning, and we’ll keep pushing until real change happens.
Casework Success
As well as our campaigning work, this month our casework team have achieved huge amounts for our clients. In March, we secured: 

• 18 people permanent immigration status
• 6 people British citizenship
• 40 people Leave to Remain

We welcome The Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration’s (ICIBI) latest report on the Home Office’s management of fee waiver applications. The Home Office’s acceptance of most of the recommendations is a step in the right direction, but much more needs to be done to ensure fee waivers are accessible to those who need them.
​
RAMFEL submitted evidence to this consultation, drawing on our extensive experience in applying for fee waivers to identify persistent problems within the system. We proposed a series of recommendations, including a streamlined process for Leave to Remain (LTR) applications by ‘passporting’ some applicants, introducing fee waivers for Indefinite Leave to Remain (ILR) applications, and implementing a context-specific approach to out-of-country fee waiver applications.

The inspection extensively revealed data breaches related to Equifax checks, exposing the government’s potentially unlawful storage and retention of personal data of fee waiver applicants' and third parties with no connection to the applicant. RAMFEL has long been aware that unsuspecting British citizens data was being collected in these checks, an issue that was recently covered in The Guardian. This raises significant concerns about the Home Office’s approach to data protection. While they have ceased contracting Equifax, we have little confidence switching to a new provider, Experian, will significantly alter their approach.

The report rightly calls for more stakeholder engagement in overseas entry clearance applications as none currently exists, and highlights the worryingly poor decision making in this team. The inspection found that ‘no routine quality assurance checks of overseas fee waiver decisions had taken place since 2022’.  However, it fails to acknowledge that these poor decisions may be partly due to the unrealistic evidentiary requirements placed on overseas applicants, such as the need for them to provide tenancy agreements - documentation that is often unavailable to applicants from conflict zones.

The report found that approximately 70% of all applications within their sample of 144, required a ‘write out’ for further information – another issue RAMFEL has long been aware of. This is a clear indicator of a broken system and wasted resources. While the ICIBI recommends embedding ‘write outs’ into Home Office caseworkers’ performance measures, we believe this does not address the real problem: the Home Office’s seeming inability to recognise just how unaffordable visa applications now are.

The cost of LTR applications has skyrocketed in recent years, now standing at a staggering £3,845.50 per adult applicant. The rapid increases in application fees over the past few years make it painfully obvious that for many people, especially those on lower incomes or receiving in-work benefits, this cost is simply unaffordable. Those on Universal Credit, means-tested benefits, asylum support, or local authority assistance are though still required to submit extensive financial evidence supporting fee waiver applications. Despite this, the Home Office routinely requests additional and often unnecessary further evidence, or indeed requests evidence that has already been provided. This is not only a waste of Home Office time but also an unfair burden on those who can least afford it.

Since January 2023, RAMFEL received 24 further information requests for LTR fee waivers, with the Home Office only refusing one of these applications after the extra evidence was provided. One of these requests was to explain a 40p transaction. Based on this success rate, it is likely that most if not all, of these fee waivers could have been processed without requiring additional evidence. We firmly believe that the system we proposed in our submission—automatically ‘passporting’ certain applicants—should be implemented immediately to improve government efficiency and minimise waste.

It is unfortunate that the ICIBI did not address the lack of a fee waiver for ILR applications. With the recent increase in fees scheduled for April 2025, ILR fees will cost £3,029.00. This is a serious financial barrier for families trying to secure their future in the UK. Many applicants are forced into a cycle of applying for fee waivers indefinitely because they cannot afford to settle permanently, which ultimately increases the work of the Home Office fee waiver teams. Yesterday, an Early Day Motion was tabled calling for the introduction of an ILR fee waiver, and already 13 MPs have signed this.

In conclusion, while the ICIBI’s report highlights several critical issues within the Home Office’s fee waiver system, we feel it does not address some of the fundamental flaws driving these problems. This though may not have been the ICIBI’s mandate, and ultimately the Home Office itself has to decide whether it wishes to improve the fee waiver application process.

We urge the Government to take meaningful action by implementing the following:

• Streamline LTR Fee Waiver Process: The fee waiver process should be simplified by automatically passporting individuals on Universal Credit or disability benefits, as well as those in NASS accommodation or under section 17 of the Children’s Act. This would also greatly minimise the risk of non-consensual data collection and retention as part of Equifax and Experian checks.
• Introduce Fee Waivers for ILR Applications: Fee waivers for ILR applications are needed to ensure vulnerable individuals are not priced out of securing permanent status after completing their residential “qualifying periods”.
• Context-Specific Approach for OOC Fee Waiver Applications: The Home Office needs to adopt a more flexible, transparent approach for OOC fee waivers, especially for applicants from conflict zones where UK-centric documents may not exist. Clear guidelines should be provided on acceptable alternative evidence.