UPDATE: SECTION 3C LEAVE AND HOW TO PROVE IT 
What is section 3C leave? 
If you make an in-time application to extend your limited leave to remain, your leave (and the conditions attached to it, such as your right to work or right to claim public funds) is extended automatically under section 3C of the Immigration Act 1971, until the application and any appeal is decided. However, the Home Office does not routinely provide people with proof of that. That has caused people on section 3C leave real difficulties if they are asked by employers or landlords for example, for proof of their status or their right to work or rent, and they are unable to do so. 
 
The RAMFEL & Adjei case establishes that people on section 3C leave have a right to digital proof of their status, so that they can demonstrate that they have this status and these rights to others, including their employers, landlords, the DWP, the DVLA and so on. The judgment by Mr Justice Cavanagh on 7 June 2024 gave the reasons for that. You can read that judgment here. On 27 June 2024 the court made an order declaring that the SSHD’s failure to do this was unlawful.  
 
That should have meant that the Home Office has to put that right. However, the Home Office applied for permission to appeal against the judgment to the Court of Appeal and asked the Court to pause (or ‘stay’) the requirement to roll out digital status to everyone on section 3C leave straight away. The Court of Appeal granted their request on 2 September 2024 – the order is here.  The appeal is likely to be heard by the Court of Appeal in summer 2025.  
 
What does this mean for you? 
Even though there is a ‘stay’ is in place, if you are a person on section 3C leave who is suffering or likely to suffer hardship as a result of not being able to prove your immigration status or right to work, rent and so on, you should still ask the Home Office for a digital way to prove your status.  The Home Office should still consider that request, even while they are appealing against the judgment.  
 
How can I obtain this proof? 
There is no proper process set up by the Home Office to do this. We suggest that individuals make requests for digital proof of their 3C leave status to the Home Office by either:  

1. Requesting it in a letter that is submitted to the Home Office with your fee waiver or the main immigration application to extend your leave to remain/apply for indefinite leave to remain; Or 

1. If you have already made your application, by writing to the team in the Home Office which is processing your application. We have prepared a template email / letter, which can be accessed here. 

 
We also recommend that you set up a UKVI account and apply for an eVisa if you have not done so already – you can find more information about how to do that on our website here. Having the account and eVisa all set up may speed things up if the Home Office does decide to give you digital proof of section 3C leave.   
 
If you do not get a prompt reply, you can also consider asking your MP to get involved.  
 
If you do not receive a positive response and you are concerned about the impact of being unable to prove your section 3C leave status, you can contact RAMFEL or the lawyers at Bhatt Murphy solicitors who represented RAMFEL and Ms Adjei to see if they can help: 
 
RAMFEL – [email protected] 
Janet Farrell – [email protected] 
Fiona O’Brien – [email protected] ​

We are dismayed by Labour’s decision to merge and eventually close the already extremely limited safe pathways to the UK for Afghans fleeing Taliban rule. Defence Secretary John Healey’s claim that this will “ensure value for money for the taxpayer” is an appalling dismissal of the UK’s responsibility to those who risked their lives to support British interests.

Many people relying on these schemes worked directly with British forces and institutions—as interpreters, contractors, and in other critical roles. These people stood by the UK, often at great personal cost. To now abandon them as they face escalating threats under a worsening Taliban regime is not only a betrayal but a deeply shameful disregard for human lives.

The deteriorating conditions in Afghanistan, particularly for women and girls, make this decision unconscionable. With no other safe routes in place, closing these pathways will leave countless people in life-threatening situations and with no option but to take dangerous journeys in search of safety. Afghans are already the top nationality arriving in the UK by boat, as these schemes are so restrictive. Further restricting these pathways will only result in even more Afghans risking their lives to make these dangerous crossings.

While those who supported the UK deserve sanctuary, it must be emphasised that everyone fleeing danger has a right to safety. The UK has a moral duty to provide protection, especially given its significant role in destabilising Afghanistan.

Human lives must always come before cost-saving measures. And this government must recognise that with no safe routes to the UK, people seeking safety will have no choice but to risk their lives seeking sanctuary.

It has been a hard year, with lots of upsetting and disturbing events. We want to thank our supporters for standing with refugees and migrants, despite the way the media and politicians have dehumanised these people.

We changed so many lives this year:

• 262 families were granted visas
• 125 families were granted permanent immigration status
• 106 people gained British citizenship
  
  

We Also Had Three Major Campaigning Wins:

1. Bereaved Partner Concession: After three years of campaigning with brave women who had lost their husbands, the government finally introduced a fee waiver this September. Grieving widows no longer face being priced out of immigration status.
2. 3C Leave Victory: In June, we won a landmark legal challenge against the government. The courts ruled the government’s failure to provide proof of status for people on 3C Leave was irrational and unlawful. This case was a recognition of the struggles that countless migrants have experienced since the hostile environment’s introduction.
3. Family Reunion Report: This summer, we released our report, Safe Routes to Nowhere, which exposed the failures of UK family reunion policies, especially in crisis zones like Sudan and Gaza.
   ​
   

What’s Next?
In early 2025, we’ll take our petition, which reached 500 signatures straight to No.10 Downing Street. We want to send a message to the British Government: hotels are not safe or supportive places for asylum seekers, especially for children.

In 2025, we are going to make the government listen.

This blog post is written by Ella M, who came across our petition calling for the end of use of hotels as accommodation for asylum seekers. We asked her why she immediately wanted to support the call, here is her response:

During my second year at university in 2017-18, my mum was made redundant. Overnight, we found ourselves homeless, with no choice but to move into hotel accommodation. This experience has stayed with me ever since, and it’s why the petition to end the use of hotels for asylum seekers resonates deeply with me. I know what it’s like to live in such conditions and how deeply it affects you.

We stayed in that hotel for a year and one month. Most of the people there were families like mine, waiting for permanent housing, but a few were asylum seekers. Although our situations were different, we all faced the same struggles. Living in a hotel is no way to raise a family. There was constant disruption from antisocial behaviour by other occupants, and we were often moved around, making it impossible to find stability or to feel safe.

For us, understanding the system gave us a slight advantage—we knew how to push back when things weren’t right. But I think about asylum seekers, people who are new to the country, with no knowledge of how things work and often with no support. They have no choice but to follow what the authorities tell them, with no one to turn to for guidance.

Living in that hotel, my family never had the comfort or peace needed to build a home. My two sisters and I shared a small room, cramped and difficult to live in. The hotel was right next to my sister’s secondary school, but that didn’t make it any easier. We had no control over what we ate—most days, we cooked in a rice cooker, but because facilities were limited, we often relied on free pizza from Domino's, using vouchers to get by.

At the time, my mum’s redundancy had left us with very little income, making everything even harder. There was no freedom and no sense of comfort. And that was just for a little over a year. I can’t imagine what it must be like for asylum seekers, trapped in these hotels for years, with even fewer resources and less support.

No one should have to live like that. This is why I support RAMFEL’s call to end the use of hotels for asylum seekers. Families, children, and individuals need safe, stable homes to rebuild their lives. Everyone deserves that basic right.

Join Manuela and sign our petition to call for the end of hotels! 

Saturday marked 100 days since Labour assumed power, ending 14 years of Conservative rule. The immigration and asylum system is a mess, following years of chronic mismanagement and a determination to pursue ever more cruel and punitive measures no matter the harm caused to the individuals affected and the broader public.
To fix this, Labour will have to be ambitious and recalibrate entirely the way a British government addresses immigration, viewing it not as a problem or source of fear but recognising it as a societal good that continues to be influenced by Britain’s colonial past. This was not going to happen overnight, but the day after Labour’s seismic victory we proposed six quick fixes for their first 100 days in power. Here’s our scorecard on how they’ve done.
1. Introduce a fee waiver for the bereaved partner concession
Grade: A
Though it took longer than we would have liked, on 9 September Minister for Migration and Citizenship, Seema Malhotra, announced that a fee waiver would be introduced. This came into force on 9 October, meaning grieving widows will no longer be priced out of permanent immigration status to which they are entitled.
This should have been a given, and thankfully Labour did not disappoint.
2. Start processing asylum claims again
Grade: C
Labour immediately scrapped the Conservative’s cash for humans Rwanda deal. They then confirmed that they would begin processing claims of the 90,000 people earmarked for deportation to Rwanda, and whose claims the previous government effectively paused indefinitely. This was a good start.
Reports have though since surfaced that it may take 3 years to clear the asylum backlog. Labour have pledged to recruit more decision-makers to speed things up, and this is encouraging. However, speed cannot come at the expense of quality, and the government must ensure that everyone’s claim is assessed thoroughly and fairly.
Worryingly, in September Keir Starmer visited Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni. She said Starmer showed "great interest" in Italy’s deal with Albania, which will see asylum seekers sent to the latter whilst their claims are considered. This is seriously concerning.
3. Give people on 3C leave proof of their status
Grade: F
In June, the High Court ruled that the government’s failure to provide digital proof of status to people on 3C leave was unlawful. Though the Conservatives sought permission to appeal, this was refused.
We hoped Labour would abandon this appeal and start giving people digital proof of their 3C leave status. This would massively reduce the risk of such people being wrongly classified as lacking immigration status by employers, the DWP, universities/colleges and landlords.
Regrettably, Labour has instead appealed to the Court of Appeal. The government does not dispute that tens of thousands of people on 3C leave suffer detriment each year through being unable to prove their status. Even if the government’s failure to provide proof of status is ultimately deemed lawful, it still doesn’t mean it’s right. Labour’s approach here is extremely disappointing, and suggests that like their predecessors they have not learned from the Windrush scandal.
4. Commit to simplifying and expanding the family reunion process
Grade: D-
52 people have died attempting to cross the Channel in 2024. There has though been no indication that Labour is prioritising creating more safe routes. Their focus has instead been on increased securitization and militarization of the border. This will push desperate people to take even more dangerous routes in search of safety and family reunification.
It’s difficult to find anything positive to say about Labour’s approach to safe routes, but to their credit, they have started referring to “irregular” rather than “illegal” immigration.
Another very small silver lining is the introduction of new guidance on when people in conflict zones with no visa application centre (VAC) can defer enrolment of their biometrics. We have yet to see whether this will result in any change in practice, with our report, Safe Routes to Nowhere, evidencing how the previous government encouraged unaccompanied children to undertake dangerous and irregular border crossings to attend VACs in neighbouring countries.
5. Commission a review of the no recourse to public funds (NRPF) policy
Grade: F
So far, Labour has said nothing in relation to the NRPF policy. This policy ruins families’ lives and needs scrapping.
6. Grant refugees the right to work whilst their claims are processed
Grade: F
Home Secretary Yvette Cooper has said far more about punishing and penalising those working without immigration status, and those employing them, than expanding rights to work for those going through the asylum process. Considering Labour now recognise that it will take years to clear the backlog, this is particularly disappointing.
Verdict
First, the positives. Labour scrapped the Rwanda plan, started processing asylum claims again and introduced a fee waiver for the bereaved partner concession. These are quick and welcome fixes.
However, a vision for more systemic and broader change has been sorely lacking, with yet more focus on so-called deterrence than creating safe routes. There has also been limited if any discussion about the hostile environment and the associated harm caused, such as the NRPF policy and the continued association of a lack of documents with a lack of status. Unless this changes, the immigration system will continue causing immense harm to those living it, and public money will be wasted on cruel and ultimately counter-productive measures.

After a protracted legal battle, the government has finally agreed to introduce a fee waiver for its bereaved partner concession (BPC), meaning grieving women will be able to access permanent immigration status without needing to pay thousands of pounds.
The BPC is a visa route that allows partners of British nationals/those with indefinite leave to remain (ILR) to secure ILR if the spouse/sponsor passes away. To qualify, 3 conditions must be met: the foreign national must be in the UK with leave to remain as a spouse/partner; the couple must have been living together and intended to live together permanently; and the sponsor must have died. This concession ostensibly exists to protect bereaved partners and allow them to stay in the UK.
However, since October 2023, grieving partners have had to pay £2,885.00 for this application. If they could not pay, they would be unable to secure ILR despite qualifying and could face losing their status and becoming subject to the hostile environment.
RAMFEL and the Public Interest Law Centre (PILC) have seen the harm this extortionate visa fee causes, with many grieving women either priced out of accessing the BPC or having to make extreme sacrifices, such as literally foregoing food for them and their children, to save the funds. Robert Jenrick, when serving as Immigration Minister, callously justified the fee and lack of fee waiver by saying that these women “benefitted” from the immigration system.
In June 2023, PILC issued judicial review (JR) proceedings on behalf of Lucy*, a woman who had lost her British husband, challenging the lack of fee waiver on grounds including gender discrimination and irrationality. The government initially sought to defend this, arguing that the case should not be heard in court.
After the High Court granted permission for the JR to proceed in December 2023, the government belatedly withdrew from proceedings and agreed to introduce a fee waiver. This was in February 2024, and seven months later the relevant amendments to The Immigration and Nationality (Fees) (Amendment) Regulations 2024 have finally been made. From 9 October 2024, grieving widows will be able to secure ILR even if they cannot afford the near £3,000.00 application fee.
RAMFEL and PILC are currently aware of five people who are eligible for ILR under the BPC, but who have been priced out of applying. The introduction of this fee waiver will make a huge difference to them, and likely hundreds of other people up and down the country in their hour of need.
The lengthy ordeal and protracted legal battle came at a cost though, with Lucy, the woman who brought JR proceedings with PILC, suffering considerable mental distress during her period in limbo. The delay had a knock-on effect on her two young children, who were already struggling to cope after the sudden loss of their father. This could and should have been avoided, and it is hoped that the new government pursues a more compassionate and sensible approach to administering the UK’s immigration system, reducing the need for expensive and ultimately unnecessary legal battles.
While the introduction of a fee waiver is welcomed, RAMFEL and PILC note that many other people remain priced out of applying for ILR because of the extortionate fees. This keeps people in insecure immigration status and forces them into debt and poverty. The new government must recognise the benefit to both individuals and wider society of allowing people to access permanent immigration status, and should be urgently looking to introduce fee waivers for further ILR application categories.
*Name has been changed to protect identity.
                                                                                                                                                                                   
RAMFEL’s Head of Campaigning, Nick Beales, stated:
“The introduction of this fee waiver is long overdue. However, the grieving women who brought this challenge should not have had to take the Sunak government to court for them to recognise how cruel this extortionate visa fee was.
Though this change will have a profound impact for those who have suffered the loss of a partner, many other people in desperate situations remain priced out of permanent immigration status. Labour should now be urgently looking to introduce fee waivers for other application categories to allow more people, including UK born children and young adults who know only the UK as their home, to secure their status here.”
​
Sarah Looney, Solicitor at PILC who represented Lucy, stated:
“The introduction of this fee waiver will end the discriminatory two-tier system of those grieving women who can afford to access the status they are entitled to, and those who can’t.
Our clients bravely fought against the government’s unfair system while grieving the loss of their husbands and navigating life as newly single parents. The government’s six-month delay in implementing the fee waiver further added to our client’s stress during this period.
While the introduction of a fee waiver is welcomed, many other people remain priced out of applying for ILR because of the extortionate fees. This keeps people in insecure immigration status and forces them into debt and poverty. PILC believes that the money in your bank account should not determine your ability to access what you’re legally entitled to and urges the government to introduce fee waivers for more visa routes.”
 
ENDS

​Asylum seekers come to the UK seeking safety and a chance to rebuild their lives. Instead, they find themselves trapped in hotel accommodations that are not fit for long-term living. These facilities, originally intended as short-term solutions, have become overcrowded, unhygienic, and unsafe. The long-standing issues of vermin infestations, inadequate food, and poor hygiene conditions in these hotels have been well documented, and for years RAMFEL clients have complained about the pitiful standards in which they are housed. These images of unappetizing, inadequate meals are a stark reminder of how successive governments have failed these vulnerable people.

But now, these already dire conditions have been compounded by a new and terrifying threat—racist and Islamophobic violence. This terrifying violence was mostly tacitly, but at times overtly, encouraged by politicians from across the spectrum. Yes, Nigel Farage and Suella Braverman may be the poster boy and girl for the most extreme and dehumanising language, but make no mistake: with a few notable exceptions, the entire political establishment has failed to call out this rhetoric for what it is – racist, Islamophobic and dehumanising. In such an environment, and with people increasingly fed more and more misinformation through social media, the racist riots of early August were perhaps inevitable, with these hotels turned into targets for terrorist attacks.

The tragic irony is that those who fled war and persecution now find themselves once again in fear, not in the war zones they escaped, but in the very so-called “safe” country where they sought refuge.
​
The riots should have been a cause for reflection. All politicians should have taken stock and considered how their words, their actions, their silence, their inactions led us down this dark alley. Instead, the Labour government seems determined to repeat its predecessor’s mistakes: more so-called deterrence, more harsh language, more detention without trial and still no mention of expanding safe routes to the UK.
​
Despite the Labour government’s desperately disappointing response, this approach does not reflect the values or will of the British public. When racist extremists threatened asylum seekers in hotels, people across the country stood up, flooding the streets to protect these vulnerable communities. The public has shown that they reject hatred and division, standing instead for compassion and justice.

This is why RAMFEL is calling on the government to end the use of hotels as accommodation for asylum seekers. These facilities are unsafe and isolating, and now they’ve become targets for hate. We need real solutions: community-based housing, faster processing of asylum claims, and an end to the hostile environment and politics of division that pits people against each other.

At the heart of this crisis is a failure of political leadership and a growing disconnect between successive governments and the public’s desire for compassion and justice. We must make it clear that the current approach is not acceptable. Just as we all stood up to protect people in hotels and migrant communities, we must continue to push for policies that reflect the values of dignity, safety, and compassion.

We support the newly released briefing written by Homeless Link and NACCOM, which explores the key drivers of and potential solutions to, homelessness amongst migrants.

Read the briefing here.

The briefing outlines the key drivers of migrant homelessness and what policies the new Government should implement to create a society with a home for everyone. It is supported by over 70 organisations working in the fields of homelessness, housing, and migrants’ rights.

Some of the key  solutions to preventing migrant homelessness are:
​
1. Recognising and addressing the impact that restrictions on public funds have on homelessness. 
2. Stopping the flow of homelessness from the asylum system.  
3. Expanding access to quality free immigration and welfare advice.  
4. Taking a cross-departmental approach to tackling all forms of rough sleeping and homelessness.
5. Repealing the Illegal Migration Act 2023 at the earliest possible opportunity

Our hearts go out to the innocent lives taken in Southport. It is a shame that this weekend, the attention has been taken away from the families affected and the heroic acts of protection.

What we've seen are race riots, not protests. The Prime Minister is right to condemn this violence. But it needs to be called what it is, terrorism. Caused by state racism in Britain and media misinformation.

Years of racist and Islamophobic anti-migrant policies and media coverage that have aimed to divide, have led us to this point. We have been shouting about this for years, but now it is clear. The way we talk about migration needs to change.

To the people who have been attacked, mosques that have been targeted and families who have nearly been burned alive. We hope you see the love that the rest of the country has for you. We need to do better.

We urge all politicians to reject the tactics and language that led to this event.