Due to the backlog in the asylum system, the determination of pending settlement applications from Syrian nationals only recommenced in December 2025. This means that thousands of Syrian refugees and their dependents are currently facing Safe Return Reviews, including an examination of whether the change of circumstances in Syria “is of such a significant and non-temporary nature that the refugee’s fear of persecution can no longer be regarded as well-founded” according to paragraph 339A of the Immigration Rules HC395. For those awaiting a determination on their settlement applications, the spectre of revocation is causing widespread anxiety.
Practitioners supporting Syrian refugees through Safe Return Reviews should consider making representations around refugee status and humanitarian protection, representations around private and family life, and arguments around leave outside the rules based on compelling compassionate circumstances.
Refugee Status: Real risk of persecution in Syria
It is axiomatic that refugee status, once granted, should not be reviewed or annulled except on the most substantial and clear grounds (LW [2005] UKIAT 42).The House of Lords found that a person with refugee status has a legitimate expectation that he will not be stripped of this status “save for demonstrably good and sufficient reason” (R (Hoxha) v Special Adjudicator ; Regina (B) v Immigration Appeal Tribunal [2005] UKHL 19).
In order for an application for settlement protection to be valid, the applicant must have already been recognised as a refugee and accordingly granted status under paragraph 334 of the Immigration Rules HC395. This means that the background of their claim has been accepted as fact by the Home Office. Practitioners should carefully review asylum interview records. Was the asylum claim based only on political opinion? Were additional reasons identified under Article 1A(2) of the Refugee Convention?
The Home Office Policy on the Revocation of Protection Status v2.0 January 2025 requires the Secretary of State to “work closely” with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (the UNHCR) in considering cessation cases. According to Part 25 of the UNHCR Guidelines on International Protection: Cessation of Refugee Status under Article 1C(5) and (6) of the1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees (the “Ceased Circumstances” Clauses) HCR/GIP/03/03, “the burden rests on the country of asylum to demonstrate that there has a been a fundamental, stable, and durable change in the country of origin” before considering cessation. Whilst the change in Syria is fundamental, it is neither stable nor durable. Accordingly, at time of writing, the UNHCR’s position on Syria continues to be that a general cessation of refugee status for Syrian beneficiaries is not appropriate.
Not all Syrian nationals support the new regime, and so there may be grounds for continued refugee status based on political opinion. The Home Office’s Syria Country Policy and Information Note on Criticism of the Government dated April 2026 relates that those criticising the government face arrest (see 3.1.15 and passim). Throughout section 11 of the same Policy, the Home Office describes how peaceful protestors have been assaulted by general security forces. As set out at 3.1.14 of the same April 2026 Policy, “critics belonging to religious and ethnic minorities may be at greater risk than those from a Sunni Arab background”.
Some Syrians may have a continued well-founded fear of persecution based on other Convention reasons. In the Executive Summary to the April 2026 report, the Home Office observes that “Syrians remain unsure of the government’s red lines when it comes to sensitive issues such as sectarian tensions and human rights violations against religious and ethnic minorities”. Additional objective country evidence (including an expert report) could be adduced to support such arguments.
At time of writing, nearly everyone with a pending settlement protection application will have lodged their initial asylum claim before 28th June 2022 (when s32 of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 came into force). Therefore, the standard of proof they must meet is a reasonable degree of likelihood (or a real risk) upon return. In R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex p Sivakumaran [1987] UKHL 1, the House of Lords accepted that even a 10 percent chance of being shot, tortured or otherwise persecuted could be enough of a risk for a fear to be considered well-founded for the purposes of granting refugee status.
Refugee Status: Exemption from Cessation
An excellent December 2025 post from Sonia Lenegan includes a reminder of the possibility for exemption from cessation. Article 1C(5) and (6) of the Refugee Convention contains an exception to the cessation provisions, namely that a refugee may be exempted from cessation for “compelling reasons arising out of previous persecution”.
As explained in the Home Office Policy on Revocation of Protection Status v2.0 January 2025: “this exception applies to cases where refugees, or their family members, have suffered truly atrocious forms of persecution and it is unreasonable to expect them to return to their country of origin or former habitual residence.” Sadly these conditions apply to many Syrian refugees.
Although the original language of these Convention cessation clauses limited exemptions to “statutory refugees” under Article 1A(1) of the Refugee Convention (briefly, those recognised as refugees under special limited provisions dating from May 1926 through September 1939), the current guidance from the UNHCR recognises at Part 21 that “application of the ‘compelling reasons’ exception is interpreted to extend beyond the actual words of the provision to apply to Article 1A(2) refugees” as well.
Humanitarian Protection
Any representations accompanying a Safe Return Review should consider humanitarian protection as well. Depending on personal circumstances, Syrians may face “a real risk of suffering serious harm” upon return as set out in paragraph 339C of the Immigration Rules. In addition, country conditions may amount to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment as defined in paragraphs 339C and 339CA(iii) of the Immigration Rules and in article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
According to the case of MY (Suicide risk after Paposhvili) [2021] UKUT 232 (IAC), in order to engage this standard, the suffering must be shown to be “serious, rapid and irreversible”. Further, as set out in the case of OA (Somalia) (CG) [2022] UKUT 33, there must be a causal link between the removal action and the suffering.
The Home Office confirms in the Country Policy and Information Note Syria: Humanitarian Situation, v3.0 June 2026 that any person facing return to Syria “may still face a real risk of serious harm because of their specific circumstances”. Specifically, at 3.1.6 of the same June 2026 policy, the Home Office sets out that:
…decision makers must carefully consider the person’s individual circumstances. These include, but are not limited to, factors such as gender, age, marital status, dependants (e.g. children), work experience/skills, financial savings, remittances, and medical conditions.
Private Life and Family Life
Safe Return Review representations should not ignore private life considerations under Appendix PL of the Immigration Rules. Depending on personal circumstances, it is worth considering whether any applicants or dependents might qualify for continued leave under PL3.1 (a child who has resided for at least seven years in the UK) or PL4.1 (an adult between the ages of 18-25 who spent at least half their life continuously resident in the UK). Whilst few applicants in this population would meet the 20-year continuous residence standard in PL5.1(a), consider as an alternative that there may indeed be “very significant obstacles” to return which would potentially cause them to be eligible under PL5.1(b).
Family life should be considered as well. Relationships with UK-based partners and/or children (including children who have resided continuously in the UK for seven years) may engage eligibility for continued leave under Appendix FM EX.1 of the Immigration Rules.
It is worth noting that family life may engage article 8 beyond the narrow confines of Appendix FM EX.1. For example, in IA and others v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2025] EWCA Civ 1516, the Court of Appeal confirmed that family life between parents and adult children can engage article 8 if there are elements of dependence demonstrated (beyond normal emotional ties). The engagement of article 8 is unitary (Beoku-Betts v. SSHD [2008] UKHL 39), meaning that the article 8 rights of all family members should be considered in any proportionality exercise.
Outside the rules: compelling compassionate grounds
Finally, it is always worthwhile to consider leave outside the rules based on compelling compassionate circumstances. Section 3(1)(b) of the Immigration Act 1971 sets out the Secretary of State’s power to grant leave to remain for a limited or indefinite period to anyone who is not a British citizen. In exercising this statutory power, the Secretary of State must not fetter her own discretion but rather must consider applications that might fall outside of the rules (British Oxygen Co Ltd v Minister of Technology [1970] UKHL 4).
As set out in the Home Office policy Leave Outside the Rules (LOTR) on Compelling Compassionate Grounds v6.0 November 2025:
For permission to be granted on compelling compassionate grounds, unjustifiably harsh consequences for the applicant or their family must be identified. This could mean that the applicant or their family would face exceptional hardship if refused.
Right of appeal
Finally, any revocation of protection status and concurrent curtailment of leave to remain would attract a right of appeal under section 82 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. Should the current First-Tier Tribunal of the Immigration Asylum Chamber be replaced with an Independent Appeals Body as currently proposed, there are serious concerns about fairness and independence. All the more reason to include detailed and robust representations with the Safe Return Review.