Appeal partly allowed in child refugee family reunion policy challenge

The Home Secretary must carry out a review of the policy on refugee family reunion for child refugees under the now closed Appendix Family Reunion (Sponsors with Protection) in line with her duty under section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009, having failed to do so previously. The case is R (DM) V Secretary of State for the Home Department [2025] EWCA Civ 1273. Our write up of the High Court’s decision is here. UNHCR intervened in the case.

The position in relation to family reunion applications has changed since the appeal was heard in May this year, with the recent closure of the route. This case refers to the position before that closure.

The challenge to the exclusion of child refugees from the ability to bring their family members to the UK under refugee family reunion rules was brought on three grounds. First that there had been a breach of the section 55 duty to act in the best interests of the child. Second, that the policy amounted to discrimination against child refugees. Third, that the policy was irrational because of the impact it had on child refugees.

The Home Secretary’s response to the last two grounds was to argue that if the route was available to child refugees then it would encourage families to send unaccompanied children on dangerous journeys to the UK. Both the claimant and UNHCR said that there is no such risk or if there is, it is not enough of a risk to justify the harm caused to child refugees in the UK.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal on the first ground only, meaning that the government will need to review the policy in light of section 55. The court indicated that the upcoming review of family reunion policy “may or may not be relevant in this context”.

On the discrimination point, the Court of Appeal disagreed with the High Court’s decision and held that the positions of child and adult refugees could be treated as comparable. This meant that the Home Secretary would need justification for their different treatment. The High Court had not determined this issue and the Court of Appeal declined to decide it here. The third ground of appeal was dismissed.