In June 2024, the High Court ruled that the Home Secretary’s failure to provide people on ‘3C leave’ – an automatic form of immigration status when a person applies in-time to extend their visa –  with the digital means to prove their immigration status was unlawful. The judge specifically held that the Home Secretary had long been on notice about the problems people on 3C leave faced in being wrongly caught up in the hostile environment measures and was acting irrationally by not providing immediate proof of their immigration status and ensuing rights.
In September 2022, RAMFEL published a report estimating that 40,000 people a year on 3C leave could be wrongly suspended from or denied access to employment. Despite this, the Home Secretary took no steps to address the problem. Ms Adjei, a former RAMFEL client who had twice been suspended from her job as a social care assistant whilst on 3C leave, and RAMFEL issued judicial review proceedings to challenge this failure and compel the SSHD to take action. The High Court agreed with them, concluding that:
 
“this is a case in which the SSHD can take a straightforward step to avoid hardship for a substantial number of people, with no negative consequences for the Home Office or for the immigration regime.” [211]
 
The consequence was that the Home Secretary would now have to provide people on 3C leave with digital proof of their status.
Regrettably, rather than introduce this modest amendment that would protect thousands of people on 3C leave, the government applied to suspend the effect of the High Court judgment and appealed to the Court of Appeal. It was argued that even if existing mechanisms designed to assist people on 3C leave prove their immigration status are not working effectively, it is the Home Office’s decision alone whether to change them and there is no legal obligation to change their current plans for a gradual roll out of eVisas.
In June 2025, the Court of Appeal hearing took place. Judgment will be in two parts. The first part of the judgment was handed down today. The 3-judge panel ultimately overturned the High Court’s conclusion on irrationality, finding there was no legal duty on the Home Secretary to issue digital proof of status to people on 3C leave. The Court though expressly stated that they “do not for a moment question the evidence that in a substantial number of cases migrants on section 3C leave suffer real harm from not being able to demonstrate their status immediately.” [67] The Court also agreed with RAMFEL that people on 3C leave “should have an effective means of demonstrating that entitlement to third parties” [56] and:
 
“it would be better to provide a means of verification which was straightforward and immediate than one that depended on having to make enquiries with the Home Office”. [58]
 
Ultimately, the Court held that the Home Office’s assertion of practical difficulties in providing digital proof of status to those on section 3C leave straight away, was enough to mean it was rational and lawful not to do so yet.
Despite its findings on the obligation to provide proof to everyone on section 3C leave, the Court of Appeal clearly acknowledged the serious harm that can occur as a result of this system with people wrongly denied work, accommodation, student loans, university places and disability benefits, which the Home Secretary herself did not dispute. Individuals in that position can continue to request that proof from the Home Office and challenge delay and refusals to do so. 
The government’s approach shows that they, like their predecessors, have learned little from the Windrush scandal, with it primarily people on lower incomes from Africa, south Asia and the Caribbean who are likely to suffer detriment whilst on 3C leave. As with many other aspects of the “hostile environment”, the intersection between racism, and classism is clear and particularly for women, with children, in insecure employment. Ms Adeji had two children and was employed by a care agency when her shifts were stopped, becoming dependent upon food banks and charity from friends and her church.  
Whilst some people on 3C leave have now been issued with proof of their status, it is a sad indictment of successive government’s approaches to immigration, that this has not been made available to all. It is hoped that the Home Secretary will now provide an effective means for all people on 3C leave to prove their status to protect them from being wrongly trapped by the hostile environment. Following this week’s announcement that refugees will now face having to renew their leave to remain 8 times over 20 years before qualifying for permanent immigration status, thus spending significant periods on 3C leave, these modest changes to ensure immigration status can be promptly established are more crucial than ever. As the judge in the High Court pointed out – it is a question of implementing what the government itself had agreed to do.  That it has chosen not to prioritise those most at risk of hardship, particularly children, is still to be considered by the Court. 
The Court has requested further information from RAMFEL and the Home Secretary in relation to this second ground of appeal, which concerns the Home Secretary’s duty to consider the best interests and welfare of the child in decision making (section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009). A further judgment is expected in relation to that issue in the New Year.
 
RAMFEL’s Head of Campaigning, Nick Beales, stated:
“Whilst this verdict is disappointing, what is clear is that the Court recognised the harm and hardship being caused by the government’s continued refusal to give everyone on 3C leave proof of their immigration status. Though, according to the Court, the government is not  under a legal duty to provide these people immediate proof of status, this does not mean they should just continue ignoring this issue as they know the harm and very real hardship it is causing.
The government’s determination to continue fighting this case in the courts at great public expense, rather than investigating and resolving it, shows that the harm being caused to workers, students, carers and children up and down the country is simply not a priority to them.
Regardless of this outcome, as a matter of policy the government must start issuing all people on 3C leave proof of their immigration status. They must also scrap the hostile environment framework, as it has been shown time and time again that it fails to distinguish between people who do and who do not hold leave to remain in the UK. It acts to disrupt and undermine the lives of those with immigration status who are contributing to their communities in the UK.”
 
NOTE TO EDITORS:
RAMFEL is a legal charity that supports vulnerable migrants living, providing casework support, on a range of legal issues, including immigration and asylum, destitution support, and crisis intervention services.
Ms Adjei is an individual who was adversely impacted by the SSHD’s failure to issue her with any means to prove her legal immigration status and right to work whilst she was on 3C leave, suffering periods of suspension from employment which caused real hardship to her and her two children.
RAMFEL and Ms Adjei were represented by Janet Farrell and Christina Bodenes of Bhatt Murphy solicitors, instructing Stephanie Harrison KC of Garden Court Chambers and Shu Shin Luh of Doughty Street Chambers.

For media queries, please email Nick Beales at [email protected].

ENDS

Another week, another raft of cruel and counter-productive immigration policies.

This time, Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood is announcing what she claims are the most radical changes to the asylum system ever attempted. As usual, the proposals are cruel and draconian, will make people’s lives worse, will fail to achieve their goal and have been designed without consultation with refugees or charities such as ours who work with the people directly affected.

The lack of consultation surely contributes to Home Secretaries, whichever party is in government, repeating the same mistakes. Policies are designed that make people’s lives worse but fail to address the realities that see refugees move in the first place and that see a tiny minority selecting the UK as their preferred country of sanctuary.

Mahmood’s plans make clear that she does not welcome refugees and they should not even bother attempting to build a life here as they will be deported at some point in the future. Whilst currently refugees are given a 5-year visa and qualify for indefinite leave on completion, Mahmood will instead give them 2.5 year visas that they will need to repeatedly renew. After 20 years, they may qualify for indefinite leave, and throughout this period the government will constantly be reviewing whether it is safe to deport them.

The Refugee Council estimates this additional work processing and reviewing constant visa renewal applications will cost the government £872 million. There is also already precedent for what a disastrous plan this is.

In 2022, then Home Secretary Priti Patel increased the length of time some refugees had to wait before securing indefinite leave from 5 to 10 years. The following year, the Conservatives quietly scrapped this. As you could probably guess, this was not because they realised the plans were cruel and hindering refugees’ efforts to establish themselves in their new home. It was because it created so much extra work for the government. If Shabana Mahmood doesn’t know this already, it’s embarrassing. If she does know this and is pressing ahead anyway, then her primary goal is to be cruel rather than run an efficient Home Office.

Renewable 30-month visas are already issued to people in the UK on family visas. After renewing visas 4 times and completing a 10-year qualifying period, these people can apply for indefinite leave. Their visa renewal applications often just repeat the same information, such as that they were and are a parent of a British child. The government though currently takes a year to process these most straightforward of applications. Quite simply, there is more work than they can cope with and the last thing they need is another group of people renewing visas every 30 months.

This constant state of flux and uncertainty undermines peoples’ ability to settle in the UK too. Employers are often reluctant to hire people on short-term visas. Landlords may not rent to people whose status is not permanent.

Yet Mahmood and politicians across the spectrum bemoan refugees apparently not integrating into society. When you make life as difficult as possible for people to function on a basic level, persistently remind them they are unwelcome and now expressly make clear that their stay here is temporary only, can you really expect them to establish themselves?

These latest measures follow on from the government’s suspension of refugee family reunion in September. For refugees who have fled persecution and war, knowing their loved ones remain stranded overseas inevitably hinders their ability to settle into their new environment and many say that they cannot even begin doing so until reunited with their family. Yvette Cooper, Mahmood’s predecessor, recognised this when in opposition.

Crucially though, will any of these policies, cruel as they are, stop people from Sudan, Eritrea, Gaza and Afghanistan both needing protection and seeking to come to the UK? No, they will not.

Despite Mahmood’s claims about refugees getting a “golden ticket” or that the UK is a “soft touch”, no evidence exists showing that refugees choose where to seek protection based on that country’s asylum policies. What the government’s own evidence does show though is that refugees choose to come to the UK because of pre-existing ties, be that family or diaspora communities.

With no safe routes to seek sanctuary, refugees have to take dangerous journeys. However cruel and unpleasant you make the UK appear, it will still be safer than indefinite forced military conscription, war or persecution based on your religion, race, gender or sexuality.
​
Until the UK government – be it Labour, Conservative or even Reform – acknowledges that fact it is impossible to have a proper debate about our asylum system. In the meantime, this Labour government have to decide whether they want to be supported by people like Tommy Robinson, who seemed overjoyed at Mahmood’s announcements, or if they want the country to be a warm and welcoming place for people no matter their race, religion or nationality.

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