Two Sudanese asylum seekers are taking the Labour government to court over its plan to cut refugee leave from five years to a measly 30 months, rejecting the home secretary’s claim that they’re just a couple of “asylum shoppers” hunting for bargains on safety.
Shabana Mahmood, the home secretary, announced plans in November 2025 to halve refugees’ leave to remain, from five years to 30 months, and extend the wait for permanent settlement to a whopping 20 years. Previously, refugees could apply after five. Now they’ll need to prove their refugee status eight times over two decades before being eligible for settlement. Nothing says “welcome” like a bureaucratic obstacle course.
The two asylum seekers, who suffer nightmares and flashbacks from torture in Sudan, argue the policy is indirectly discriminatory and utterly useless as a deterrent. In 2025, 96% of Sudanese asylum claims were approved, so maybe the problem isn’t fake refugees but a system that’s already working. Mahmood, in her policy paper, accused even “genuine refugees” of shopping around for the best refuge in Europe, as if fleeing war were a Black Friday sale.
The UN’s refugee agency UNHCR condemned the policy in December 2025, warning it would “place additional administrative and costly burdens on the asylum system, create greater uncertainty for refugees and negatively affect integration and social cohesion.” Providing only 30 months of leave, it said, would harm refugees’ sense of security, belonging, and stability - because nothing makes you feel at home like a recurring appointment to prove you still deserve to exist.
Mahmood is also cutting the right for refugees to bring immediate family members - spouses and kids under 18 - unless they can demonstrate financial support. In practice, refugee status is rarely withdrawn once granted. Australia and Denmark tried temporary protection and largely abandoned it: Denmark withdrew just 48 refugee statuses in 2024, and Norway just 29. So the policy seems designed to maximize paperwork and anxiety, not results.
Manini Menon, a solicitor at Duncan Lewis representing the two challengers, said: “Our clients argue that the home secretary’s policy is flawed and discriminatory. The evidence from countries such as Denmark and Australia is clear: granting temporary status to refugees will exacerbate mental and physical ill-health, adversely affect social integration, and increase refugees’ risk of economic instability and of falling into poverty.”
A Home Office spokesperson defended the policy, claiming Britain’s asylum system is a “relative outlier in Europe” with rising claims while others fall. “We must therefore tackle the incentives that draw people on illegal and unsafe routes,” they said, adding that protection will be provided but those who can safely return home will have to do so. Also, they promise new safe and legal routes with a faster path to lifetime settlement - presumably to be announced any decade now.