High Court dismisses challenge to suspension of refugee family reunion route (13 July 2026)

The High Court has dismissed a challenge to the Home Secretary's decision to suspend the dedicated refugee family reunion route under the Immigration Rules.

Duncan Lewis Solicitors represented two of the claimants, AXY and BSZ, who challenged the Home Secretary's decision of 4 September 2025 to suspend Appendix FRP: Family Reunion (Sponsors with Protection).

The decision removed the long-standing route that enabled refugees to be reunited with immediate family members in the UK and instead required applications to be made under Appendix FM: Family Members, the route ordinarily used by non-refugee applicants.

For more than two decades prior to the September 2025 changes, the UK had provided a dedicated route for refugees to sponsor immediate family members to join them in the UK. In R (Safe Passage International, AXY and BSZ and ESH) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2026] EWHC 1705 (Admin), AXY and BSZ

argued that the Home Secretary's decision to suspend that route was unlawful because:

• the impact on refugees and their family members had not been properly considered;
• the decision-making process was affected by apparent bias;
• the policy unlawfully discriminated against refugees by treating them in the same way as other family migration applicants; and
• the Home Secretary had breached the public sector equality duty.

The High Court dismissed the claim on all grounds.

In its judgment, the Court found that the effect of delaying family reunion for some refugee families "would have been obvious" to the Home Secretary (paragraph 94). However, it concluded that the likely impact on individual families was not "clear-cut" (paragraph 63) and would "vary from case to case" (paragraph 133).

The Court also held that the Home Secretary's assessment of the consequences of requiring refugee families to apply under Appendix FM did not breach the public sector equality duty. Although it found that the Home Secretary had been predisposed to limit refugee family reunion before making the decision, it concluded that the outcome had not been predetermined (paragraphs 137–138).

In relation to discrimination, the Court found that the policy did amount to  treatment requiring justification (paragraph 141), but concluded that the discrimination was justified (paragraphs 148–157).

AXY intends to seek permission to appeal the High Court's judgment. Pending any appeal, refugees seeking to reunite with immediate family members in the UK must continue to apply under Appendix FM to the Immigration Rules.

The proceedings were heard alongside claims brought by Safe Passage International and by an individual identified by the Court as ESH. All of the joined claims were dismissed.

Duncan Lewis Solicitors is grateful to Reunite Families UK for the evidence provided in support of the claim.

The Duncan Lewis team acting in the case comprised Toufique Hossain, Jeremy Bloom, Manini Menon and Ben Nelson. Counsel instructed were Raza Husain KC and Eleanor Mitchell of Matrix Chambers, and Miranda Butler of Landmark Chambers.