When ‘Safe’ is Anything But: ‘Safe Country’ concepts and understanding their impact on women seeking asylum

BY EMILY WILBOURN AND DR CHRISTEL QUERTON

The UK Government has been making increasing use of concepts such as ‘safe countries of origin’ or ‘safe third countries’. It has also indicated its commitment to their ongoing use in its recent ‘Restoring Order and Control’ asylum and returns policy. However, this has been done with little analysis of the impact of their use on women seeking asylum in the UK. In response, Women in Refugee Law (WiRL) network and Asylos brought together refugee women, scholars, practitioners and those supporting women seeking protection at a roundtable, kindly supported by the Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC) Impact Acceleration Account. Emily Wilbourn from Asylos and Christel Querton from WiRL set out the findings from their subsequent report.

What are ‘safe country’ concepts and why do they matter

The law surrounding safe country concepts in the UK is complex and vague. Our report, ‘The Impact of ‘Safe Country’ Concepts on Women Seeking Asylum in the UK’, aims to provide some clarity regarding the relevant provisions for the benefit of legislators, advocates and the general public. In brief, safe country concepts permit the Secretary of State for the Home Department (SSHD) to certify claims from nationals of ‘safe countries of origin’ as “clearly unfounded”. It also empowers the SSHD to declare some claims inadmissible. A decision that a claim is inadmissible may be made either because a person is from a ‘safe country of origin’ or because they have a connection to a ‘safe third country’.

Those found to have a connection to a safe third country may find themselves removed to any ‘safe third country’. This enables the UK to remove those with inadmissible asylum claims to any state deemed ‘safe’ provided that the state has agreed to receive them, as illustrated by the UK’s failed Rwanda plan. Thus, third countries can be designated as safe, and individuals may be removed to such countries without the need to demonstrate that the asylum applicant has any connection to such a third country.

Countries may be designated as safe where there is “in general” no serious risk of persecution and removing a person to such a place would not breach the UK’s obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights. In making that assessment, there are obligations on the SSHD to consider all the circumstances of the country in question (including its laws and how they are applied) and to have regard to information from “any appropriate sources”.

The current list of states (correct at March 2026) for which asylum claims are deemed “clearly unfounded” includes:

the Republic of Albania
Jamaica
Macedonia
the Republic of Moldova
Bolivia
Brazil
Ecuador
South Africa
Ukraine
India
Mongolia
Ghana (in respect of men)
Nigeria (in respect of men)
Bosnia-Herzegovina
Gambia (in respect of men)
Kenya (in respect of men)
Liberia (in respect of men)
Malawi (in respect of men)
Mali (in respect of men)
Mauritius
Montenegro
Peru
Serbia
Sierra Leone (in respect of men)
Kosovo
South Korea.

The list of states which may lead to a declaration of inadmissibility includes:

EU Member States
Iceland
Norway
Switzerland
Liechtenstein
Albania
Georgia (since 2024)
India (since 2024).

Whilst an individual claim from these nationals may be considered “in exceptional circumstances” there is currently no guidance on the meaning of this test. This could potentially lead to an increasing number of claims which are not admitted to the asylum procedure.

The latest amendments to the SSHD’s power to declare claims inadmissible brought in by the Illegal Migration Act 2023 are currently only in force for the purpose of adding or removing states from the list. However, the SSHD has already made use of those powers to add Georgia and India to the list of states in 2024.

Significantly, individuals seeking asylum whose claim has been certified as clearly unfounded or declared inadmissible have lost their right of appeal since the adoption of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022. Those seeking asylum who have been subjected to the safe country provisions may only challenge the certifications/declarations through judicial review. This leaves many in lengthy legal limbo pending a substantive examination of their asylum and human rights claims if the reviews are successful.

Our report expresses concerns at the lack of scrutiny in the legislative process required for the adoption or amendments of safe country lists for the purpose of certification or inadmissibility. The report also notes the increasing use of mandatory language in the legislation, leading to reduced discretion by asylum decision-makers.

Disproportionate impact of safe country concepts on the international protection claims of women

Legislation that allows for women at risk of gender-based violence to be removed to countries of origin that fail to protect women and to safe third countries with which they have no connection is particularly concerning. Certain groups of individuals, including women, may experience heightened vulnerabilities and be exposed to gender-specific risks, which hinder their ability to access protection and safety in practice. Victims of trafficking from Albania may be adversely affected by this practice, for example. Whilst the Upper Tribunal acknowledges that some former victims of trafficking may be at risk of re-trafficking in Albania, their asylum and human rights claim may nonetheless be considered ‘clearly unfounded’ or declared inadmissible. Therefore, it is essential to consider how the UK could minimise these risks.

The use of ‘safe country’ concepts is controversial, due to ‘high risks’ of unfairness for some groups, who may still experience persecution, even when there is no general risk for most of the population. The WiRL/Asylos report argues that this fundamentally calls into question the rationality of their use. For women, including women who have been trafficked or experienced gender-based violence, who have a well-founded fear of serious harm in countries with no state protection, the designation of their country of origin as ‘safe’ is irrational. The considerable differences between which countries are considered ‘safe’ amongst European host states further highlights the lack of universal, objective and consistent application of safe country concepts. The application of the safe third country concept in the EU is often applied without individualised assessment, and in the absence of safeguards for women and girls. As the Helen Bamber Foundation recently noted in respect of victims of trafficking:

“The danger of refusing asylum based on an individual’s nationality alone is that it does not allow them the time and facilitation needed for these sensitive disclosures to take place or for survivors to understand the implications of their past trafficking experiences.”

Within a pressurised environment and when an asylum decision-maker is working on the assumption that the country of origin is safe, it is highly likely that an individual’s personal circumstances and vulnerabilities will be overlooked.

Key observations from the report

The WiRL/Asylos roundtable provided an opportunity to consider the challenges associated with the use of ‘safe country’ concepts and the impact on women seeking asylum in the UK. Roundtable participants raised significant concerns that deficiencies in the operation of ‘safe country’ concepts undermine their viability and raise the risk that women will be returned to countries where they will face serious harm. Factors that undermine the viability of ‘safe country’ concepts include:

the lack of an automatic in-country right of appeal
the lack of relevant and up-to-date country of origin information (COI) on gender-based violence against women
the failure to utilise COI to inform assessments of safety even when available, and
the absence of fixed periodic reviews of safe country designations.

The main evidential basis for safe country assessments in the UK is provided by Country Policy and Information Notes (CPINs) produced by the Home Office. However, roundtable participants noted that CPINs do not always include sufficient gender-specific information or reflect local practices and customs pertaining to the situation of women. Participants also noted that many CPINs are infrequently updated, meaning that information can become outdated and fail to reflect realities on the ground. A number of participants queried how sources are selected for inclusion in CPINs and critiqued the lack of inclusion of information produced by women with lived experience – a factor which is not unique to CPINs, as much country of origin information research still does not incorporate lived experience as a form of expertise. Even where CPINs include relatively comprehensive information on the situation of women, participants perceived a lack of transparency in how the Home Office attributes weight to sources in making assessments of safety. It was noted that evidence calling into question the safety of a country did not always appear to be given weight in safe country assessments.

Another major theme raised by participants was the way in which the use of ‘safe country’ concepts reduces women’s access to justice, especially in a context that is already characterised by limited access to legal aid for people seeking asylum. In particular, with no automatic right of appeal if an asylum claim is declared inadmissible or certified on safe country grounds, as detailed above, women seeking asylum are left with no access to an effective remedy.

The way forward

While participants of the roundtable fundamentally questioned the use of ‘safe country’ concepts because experience has shown that they cannot be applied in an effective or safe manner, there were many suggestions for mitigating risks in the current context. Participants stressed the need to strengthen the assessment of gender-specific risks associated with safe state designations through regular and meaningful consultation with women and organisations with relevant expertise. The right to an in-country appeal against an inadmissibility decision or a certification was also identified as a key safeguard. Other risk mitigation measures should include periodic review of safe country designations, and where gender-based violence risks to women are identified, serious consideration should be given as to whether there are solid grounds for declaring that the country is, in general, safe. Where the SSHD decides, nevertheless, to designate a country ‘safe’ even though the evidence indicates a risk to women of gender-based violence, women should be exempt from inclusion in the safe country designation.

Participants emphasised the need for independent monitoring of the quality of country information where there are concerns over the designation of a country as ‘safe’. Such monitoring should pay particular attention to the coverage and quality of information about women. Country of origin information underpinning safe country designations should be gender-sensitive, holistic and intersectional, incorporating the expertise of women with lived experience. This must also be underpinned by a fundamental shift in how knowledge that is produced by people with lived experience is recognised and valued by asylum decision-making authorities, so that highly relevant knowledge and perspectives based on lived experience form a meaningful part of the assessment of the safety of a country.

Only when these safeguards have been put in place can we begin to mitigate against the negative impacts of safe country concepts on women.

Emily Wilbourn is a Programme Manager at Asylos and has a background in research relating to asylum and refugee issues. She has also worked at Freedom from Torture and Amnesty International.

Dr Christel Querton is the Co-convenor of Women in Refugee Law (WiRL) and a Senior Lecturer in Law at UWE Bristol, where her research focuses on international refugee law, particularly persons fleeing armed conflicts and refugee women. Previously, she was a barrister at Lamb Building and has worked at Asylum Aid and Wilsons Solicitors LLP.

ILPA invites members and other leading experts to contribute articles to its monthly blog. The views expressed in all blog posts are the authors’ own and are not necessarily those of ILPA.

Related training and events

Please see ILPA’s 2026 Training Programme for details of all upcoming training sessions.

Related working group

ILPA Refugee Working Group

Document Date: Wednesday March 18, 2026