When I applied for the Legal Casework Volunteer opportunity at RAMFEL, I never imagined how transformative this experience would be. I was drawn to this opportunity as a result of my lived experience, academic interests and passion for human rights.

Originally, I had thought that my role might be more observational rather than hands-on. I believed that, as a volunteer, I would primarily assist with minor tasks rather than engaging directly with clients and casework. However, my experience at RAMFEL far exceeded my expectations.

What I learned
I was not only learning, shadowing and being guided by the team here, but as a volunteer, I was also actively contributing to the incredible work they are doing. 
To highlight a few incredible opportunities, I had as a volunteer, which is by no means an extensive list, I: 

• visited the Houses of Parliament for a roundtable hosted by RAMFEL which marked the one-year anniversary of the Sudan conflict and called for the urgent need for safe routes for those affected by the conflict and with clear family ties in the UK; 
  
• provided casework support to the Rough Sleeping team, working on legal research, drafting immigration applications and hosting initial appointments; 
  
• assisted with the eVisa Drop In clinics, travelling across London to work with local councils and charities to support their clients; and
  
• volunteered in RAMFEL’s Foodbank, providing food and resources to the local community, as well as drop in immigration and destitution advice and English classes. 

What I’ll take forward
At RAMFEL, I had the opportunity to apply my knowledge, skills and passions in real-world situations. Through these experiences, I gained a deeper appreciation for the complexities of the immigration system.

One of the most striking aspects was the level of responsibility I was given as a volunteer. Instead of simply observing, I was actively contributing to casework and client support. This hands-on experience was invaluable. I was also struck by the supportive and inclusive team culture. My contributions were recognised, my ideas were heard, and I was encouraged to take on new challenges.

Seeing firsthand how the immigration system impacts real people has deepened my commitment to advocacy. RAMFEL’s work, rooted in lived experience, fights for justice in a system that often feels dehumanising. My time here has shown me that even small contributions can drive meaningful change.
​
Volunteering at RAMFEL has been one of the most rewarding experiences of my career. Whether you're an aspiring lawyer or simply want to make a difference, I highly recommend getting involved in this vital work.

 TV series, films, books and podcasts, have an amazing power to influence audiences, make them question the world we live in, and change perceptions. Maybe this is because, through these mediums we can be told stories about real human beings, which cut through attention-grabbing headlines and soulless statistics. Stories help us relate to people, feel empathy and sometime even help us to see the world in a different light.

This is why I was intrigued by Channel 4’s new series ‘Go Back To Where You Came From’, which is billed as a series challenging how British people feel about asylum seekers and migration.  The 4-part series follows six Brits with views about immigration from both sides of the divide – some highly sympathetic, and some highly critical (and unashamedly racist) – as they travel along routes frequently taken by refugees to reach the UK. In the first episode, we watch the Brits as they start their travels in either Raqqa, Syria or Mogadishu, Somalia.

Having watched the first episode of the series last week, I came away feeling saddened and frustrated. After the second episode aired yesterday, I want to explain why:

Considering that immigration is one of the most divisive and discussed topics in the UK at the moment, there has been a complete absence of voices from migrants themselves in mainstream  media. As a result, there is very little to challenge and question the constant dehumanising rhetoric we hear and read in news-cycles and in statements from politicians. How incredible would it be if Channel 4 had given this platform to migrants themselves, to share their stories, perspectives and opinions. 

Sadly, Channel 4 decided to focus on the perspective of British tourists (albeit tourists giddy with glee at insulting the places they were visiting). Perhaps Channel 4 felt that using Brits to tell the story would be the only way to get the British public interested and reach the viewing figures that could actually have an impact on public discourse. Perhaps they think that Brits think they can only relate to fellow Brits? And, realistically, maybe they are right? But by creating this series Channel 4 are giving credence to that attitude – when I think they should be challenging it.

As we follow the Brits on their journey, it makes uncomfortable, voyeuristic viewing. While episode one some moments when the Brits sat down and talked with the residents of Mogadishu and Raqqa, these moments were rare and the focus remained on the Brits. A large amount of the episode was spent from inside armoured 4x4 vehicles as the Brits ogled at their surroundings. This episode did very little to amplify voices of migrants themselves, and rather continued to recycle the same ‘us vs them’ narrative that we are constantly faced with in mainstream media.

Episode two, which aired last night, was much the same. Although there was slightly less time spent inside armoured vehicles, the focus remained unchanged—more gawking at their surroundings, more condescending descriptions of refugee camps, and only a handful of conversations with refugees themselves. These interactions felt secondary at best, and at worst, like a token gesture to create the illusion of balance.

I would say to anyone who watched the first two episodes, to keep watching, let’s see how it unfolds. But also, to seek out films, series, books and podcasts that tell stories of migration from the perspectives of the migrants and refugees themselves – of their experiences, opinions and hopes for the future. Watch and listen to them, and tell your friends and family about them. I strongly feel that it is these stories, from the people who have actually faced migration themselves, have the power to shift perceptions and make a huge change.

Below I have listed some places to start looking:

Films:
• The Story of Souleymane (2024) directed by Boris Lojkine
• Flee (2021) directed by Jonas Poher Rasmussen
• The Swimmers (2022) directed by Sally El Hosaini
• Limbo (2020) directed by Ben Sharrock

Documentaries:
• Eye Investigations Dark Waters: Africa’s Deadliest Migration Route (2024). An investigation by BBC Eye Africa reporter Mame Cheikh Mbaye
• For Sama, directed by Waad Al-Kateeb and Edward Watts
Explore the London Migration Film Festival past programmes for lots more films and documentaries: https://www.migrationcollective.com/lmff-2024 

Books:
• Little Warrior by Giuseppe Catozzela
• The Refugees by Viet Thanh Nguyen
• The Last Girl by Nadia Murad
• The Beekeeper of Alleppo by Christy Lefteri
• Asylum Speakers book, collated by Jaz O’Hara 

There are lots more books suggested by the International Rescue Committee in this article: https://www.rescue.org/uk/article/12-essential-books-about-refugee-experiences 

Podcasts:
• Refugee Stories, produced by Jessica Stone
• Asylum Speakers podcast, produced by Jaz O’Hara
• UNHCR Forced to Flee, produced by Waqas Chughtai and Barney Thompson

Last week, the Labour government introduced the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill. While the repeal of the Safety of Rwanda Act and elements of the Illegal Migration Act (IMA) is a necessary and welcome step, this Bill fails to address the issues at the heart of the UK’s asylum system. In fact, it entrenches many of the same harmful policies introduced by the previous government.

This Bill retains the expands detention powers introduced by the IMA as well as the weakened protections for survivors of modern slavery. It also continues to render asylum and human rights claims automatically inadmissible from people fleeing countries such as Albania, Georgia, and India. Instead of delivering real reform, it doubles down on a system designed to punish and exclude.

The government is prioritising border enforcement over human lives. With this new Bill people seeking safety will face even greater criminalisation, with increased surveillance, phone seizures, expanded data access, and harsher penalties. Those who attempt to assist asylum seekers face up to 14 years in prison.

Yet, despite all these punitive measures, the government has offered no safe routes for people fleeing war and persecution to seek refuge in the UK. There are no new humanitarian visas, no improved resettlement schemes, and no meaningful commitments to international protection. There is as well no expansion of the existing family reunion rules. Instead, the focus remains on so-called deterrence, detention, and deportation, showing no sign of change since the previous Conservative government.

The refusal to repeal barriers preventing victims of trafficking from accessing support and the continued detention of children further exposes this Bill for what it truly is: an extension of the Hostile Environment under a different name. Whether a Labour or Conservative government, the obsession with militarising the border and criminalising those fleeing persecution, whilst steadfastly refusing to acknowledge why people take dangerous journeys, means nothing substantive will change. More lives will be lost and people in need will continue being exploited, both in the UK and on their journeys here.

This approach is not only inhumane, but fundamentally counterproductive. The government cannot claim to be fixing the asylum system while making it even more dangerous and inaccessible. Until there is a real commitment to safe routes, fair asylum processes, and respect for international law, this Bill will only serve to create more suffering and more chaos.

The Daily Mail claims about refugees and family reunion visas are misleading and harmful.
Their most recent headline – “At least 50 relatives of asylum seekers are joining them in Britain every day with the numbers trebling in a year, figures reveal” – is purposefully written to stoke fear.

In reality, family reunion visas are incredibly difficult to obtain. But instead of acknowledging this, the Mail chooses to spin the numbers in a way that fuels anti-migrant hysteria. At RAMFEL, we work closely with refugees and their families, and our experience and research show a very different picture.

So, here’s what you really need to know.

Myth 1: "Asylum seekers bring over 50 relatives a day"

The Reality: Refugee family reunion visas are very restrictive. These visas only allow spouses and children to reunite with someone already granted refugee status. Many applications are refused despite meeting these criteria.
For other family members, such as minor siblings or parents of minor children, there are no safe routes to the UK. The UK, alongside Switzerland, is the only European country that does not even allow refugee children to sponsor their parents.

​Without safe routes for family reunification, many have no choice but to embark on dangerous journeys and the UK government’s own research confirms that family ties are what primarily drives refugees to seek sanctuary in the UK.
Refugees face extreme difficulties bringing their families to safety because:

• Many can’t even apply. Refugees in war zones like Sudan, Gaza, and Afghanistan can’t reach Visa Application Centres (VACs) to complete the mandatory biometrics step. As of early 2024, the government allowed only one exemption to this requirement, despite no VACs operating in these areas. They refused 83 other requests for biometric exemption, meaning those peoples’ visa applications weren’t even considered. When we say safe routes don’t exist, we mean it.
• Most applications are wrongfully rejected. The government refuses most family reunion applications by default. For example, between April and September 2023, they refused 83% of children’s applications under one visa route. When these decisions are appealed, two thirds of the time they are overturned and the person is given a visa.
• Delays are extremely long. Even when families qualify for family reunion, the government takes exceptionally long to process applications. When cases are refused, it takes an average of 43 weeks to get a court date to appeal, leaving families to try and survive in conflict zones for long periods. People cannot just sit and wait for years in war zones, so many have no choice but to flee and seek other means of entry.

 
Myth 2: ‘“The UK is swarmed with refugees”

The Reality: Just 1% of the refugees who have been displaced across the world make the UK their home. They make up around 0.6% of the UK population. And, based on the number of asylum applications per capita, the UK currently ranks 20th in Europe. The number of refugees has increased across all European countries, not just the UK. This is due to huge humanitarian disasters and wars across the world, which the UK and its European neighbours are invariably at least partly responsible for.

Myth 3: “Illegal immigrants."

The Reality: Politicians routinely refer to refugees as ‘illegal’, but seeking asylum is a legal right under international human rights law. It is also recognised that those fleeing war and persecution often won’t have passports or visas to the country in which they seek protection. Consequently, they will need to enter irregularly and then formally claim asylum. Former Home Secretary Suella Braverman admitted herself that this was the way to submit an asylum claim in the UK.

It is practically impossible to seek refuge in the UK via a so-called “safe and legal route”. The family reunion visa system for refugees is riddled with barriers, meaning most people who qualify for a family reunion visa can’t access them.

So, what’s the truth?

Our 2024 report, Safe Routes to Nowhere, highlights the systemic failings in the UK’s family reunion system:

• Refugees stuck in conflict zones cannot meet the UK’s rigid bureaucratic requirements.
• Government refusal rates are alarmingly high, but most of these decisions are later overturned in court. RAMFEL has never lost a family reunion appeal, showing the government’s initial refusals are often unjustified.
• The lack of safe routes forces families to risk their lives on dangerous journeys. For example, out of 14 cases we worked on in Sudan after the country descended into war—13 of them involving children--only 2 families were granted visas after a year. Others are still stranded or have simply disappeared.

Our Call to Action
We urge the government to:

• Stop the hate fueled language towards refugees
• Expand the scope of family reunion, so more refugees can safely apply to reunite with UK based family.
• Waive biometric enrolment requirements for those in conflict zones.
• Speed up family reunion decision-making and reduce delays.
• Stop default rejections of applications and improve decision-making>

Families living in war zones deserve a chance to live together in safety, without further risking their lives to do so. It’s time for right wing publications to stop the dangerous rhetoric and address the real issues with compassion and humanity.

​Last Thursday, we delivered our petition to No. 10 Downing Street and to Home Secretary Yvette Cooper, calling for an end to the use of hotels as asylum accommodation. With over 500 signatures, it sends a clear message that the current system is failing families and urgent change is needed.

​For too many asylum seekers, what was meant to be temporary accommodation has turned into long-term confinement in unsanitary conditions. Families have shared stories of cramped rooms overrun with rats, and inedible food. These are not the promised safe spaces but degrading, inhumane conditions that no one should be subjected to.

Children, in particular, have suffered the most—enduring poor living conditions that have caused infections, stomach problems, and declining mental health, all while falling behind academically.

Saba, our client and a mother of 2 young children described the struggles of having a new born in a hotel, with no space for a cot and no access to a fridge to store breast milk.

We welcome Yvette Cooper’s announcement that some hotels will be served closure notices. However, this should just be the beginning. The 2026 contractual break clause offers a crucial opportunity to end the reliance on hotels and instead invest in community-based solutions. Local dispersal housing would provide asylum seekers with safe, stable accommodation while significantly reducing costs and fostering integration into society. We must ensure that families receive targeted support to rebuild their lives in stable environments.
​
Thank you to everyone who signed the petition, shared their stories, and stood with us. Together, we’ll keep pushing to ensure the government fulfils its promise to end hotel accommodation.

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!