Specialist legal advice for people whose asylum or human rights claim has previously been refused or withdrawn, including new evidence, further submissions under paragraph 353, fresh claims, changed country circumstances and challenges where the Home Office refuses to recognise a fresh claim.
A refused asylum or human rights claim does not always mean that every future protection argument has come to an end.
A person’s circumstances can change. New evidence may become available. Conditions in their country of origin may deteriorate. New political, religious or personal developments may arise. Medical evidence may emerge that was unavailable during the original claim. A person may also develop new family or private life circumstances in the United Kingdom.
Where a previous protection or human rights claim has been refused or withdrawn and the relevant appeal process has ended, it may be possible to make further submissions to the Home Office.
The Home Office must consider those submissions and, if it does not grant permission to stay, determine whether they amount to a fresh claim under paragraph 353 of the Immigration Rules. The current Rules were updated on 30 July 2026, and the Home Office’s Further Submissions guidance was substantially updated on 8 April 2026 following new validity requirements.
At Knights & Shah Solicitors, we advise individuals on further submissions and fresh asylum or human rights claims, including cases involving new evidence, changed country circumstances, political activity, religious conversion, sexuality, trafficking, medical evidence and new family or private life grounds.
The central question is not simply whether there is new evidence.
The issue is whether the new material, considered together with everything previously considered, is capable of meeting the legal test for a fresh claim.
Further submissions are new protection or human rights representations made after an earlier claim has been refused or withdrawn and there is no outstanding appeal concerning that claim.
Current paragraph 353 applies where a human rights or protection claim has previously been:
and any appeal relating to that claim is no longer pending.
The Home Office must first consider whether the new material means the person should now be granted:
If permission is not granted, the Home Office must then decide whether the submissions nevertheless amount to a fresh claim.
That two-stage structure is important.
A person can succeed outright on the further submissions, or the Home Office can reject the substance but still recognise that the new material creates a fresh claim carrying a right of appeal.
Paragraph 353 sets out a specific legal test.
Further submissions amount to a fresh claim only where they are significantly different from material that has already been considered.
That requires both of the following:
Both parts matter.
Submitting evidence that simply repeats what the Home Office and Tribunal have already considered will not ordinarily satisfy the test.
Equally, evidence may technically be new but still fail if it does not create a realistic prospect of a different outcome.
A properly prepared fresh-claim case should therefore explain:
and
There were important procedural changes in April 2026.
Under the current Immigration Rules, a person making further submissions must ordinarily:
These requirements were placed directly into the Immigration Rules from 8 April 2026. The Home Office subsequently updated its Further Submissions guidance to reflect them.
Further submissions under this process cannot ordinarily be made from outside the UK.
The person’s procedural history should therefore be checked before preparing the substantive evidence.
Current procedure ordinarily requires further submissions to be made in person at a Service and Support Centre.
GOV.UK currently states that in-person further submissions can be made at centres in:
An appointment must generally be arranged through the Further Submissions Unit.
There are circumstances in which permission may be given to submit material by post rather than attending in person.
The precise procedure should therefore be checked before documents are sent.
A person should not assume that emailing documents to a general Home Office address or sending evidence without following the required procedure creates valid further submissions.
The new material will depend entirely upon the individual case.
Examples can include:
The key point is that the evidence should add something materially different to what has already been considered.
Current GOV.UK guidance states that evidence submitted as further submissions should be material that the person did not have previously, and warns that simply sending evidence already submitted may result in rejection.
A significant change in the applicant’s country of origin can form an important basis for further submissions.
Examples may include:
The Home Office’s current guidance specifically recognises that changed country circumstances can make previously considered material materially different for paragraph 353 purposes.
However, general deterioration in country conditions is not necessarily enough.
The evidence should explain how the change affects the individual applicant and why it now creates a realistic prospect of success.
A person may undertake political activity in the UK after their original asylum claim or appeal.
This is sometimes described as sur place activity.
Examples can include:
Fresh submissions based on political activity should address more than the fact that activism occurred.
Relevant questions may include:
The new evidence must be assessed against the previous decision as well as current country conditions.
A person’s religious circumstances can also change after a previous refusal.
For example, someone may convert to another religion or become openly atheist after their original asylum case.
A fresh claim based upon conversion may require evidence concerning:
A fresh claim should not be reduced to proving attendance at a place of worship.
The Home Office and Tribunal may consider whether the belief is genuine and what risk would arise if the person lived consistently with that belief in the country of return.
Some people disclose their sexuality or gender identity only after an earlier asylum claim has been rejected.
Late disclosure can happen for many reasons, including:
Where sexuality or gender identity forms the basis of further submissions, the case may need to explain carefully why the issue was not raised previously.
The new evidence might include:
The previous Tribunal findings must also be considered carefully.
New medical evidence can be highly significant.
For example, an applicant may later receive a diagnosis of:
Medical evidence may sometimes explain matters that previously damaged credibility.
It may also create separate human rights issues, including potential arguments under Articles 3 or 8 depending upon the circumstances.
The strongest medical evidence is evidence that addresses a specific disputed issue.
A report should therefore not simply confirm that the applicant is unwell. It should explain, where clinically appropriate, matters such as symptoms, prognosis, treatment and any relevance to the person’s evidence or proposed removal.
Further submissions can also rely upon human rights grounds.
Paragraph 353 applies to both protection and human rights further submissions.
New circumstances may include:
The Home Office must consider whether the new evidence justifies permission under the applicable family or private-life framework before deciding whether rejected submissions amount to a fresh claim.
A fresh claim cannot properly be prepared without reviewing the earlier immigration history.
This may include:
Previous findings do not simply disappear because new evidence is submitted.
For example, a Tribunal may previously have found that part of the applicant’s account was not credible.
New material should therefore address why that evidence changes the position rather than proceeding as though the previous determination never existed.
Current Home Office guidance requires new evidence to be considered together with all previous material, including earlier appeal determinations, statements and interviews.
The fresh-claim test does not require the Home Office itself to believe that the person will ultimately win.
The question is whether the new material, together with the previous evidence, creates a realistic prospect of success before an Immigration Judge.
This is why fresh-claim submissions should be drafted with a future Tribunal in mind.
The representations should demonstrate:
The submission should therefore be more than a request for sympathy or reconsideration.
The Home Office follows a two-stage process.
The Home Office considers all the evidence, old and new, and determines whether the person should now receive:
If permission is granted, there is no need to proceed to the fresh-claim test.
If the submissions are rejected substantively, the Home Office must decide whether they nevertheless meet paragraph 353.
If they do, the submissions constitute a fresh protection or human rights claim.
If they do not, they are rejected without being recognised as a fresh claim.
The distinction has major procedural consequences.
Where the Home Office rejects further submissions but accepts that they amount to a fresh claim, refusal of that fresh protection or human rights claim normally generates a statutory right of appeal under section 82 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002.
By contrast, where the Home Office concludes that the further submissions do not amount to a fresh claim, there is no statutory right of appeal against that paragraph 353 rejection.
That distinction makes the quality of paragraph 353 representations particularly important.
Potentially.
A decision that further submissions do not amount to a fresh claim does not itself create an ordinary statutory appeal right. That principle has also been confirmed in the Tribunal case law.
However, if the Home Office has arguably applied paragraph 353 unlawfully, a Judicial Review may potentially need to be considered.
Possible issues might include:
Judicial Review is a specialist remedy and should not be treated as an automatic appeal against every unsuccessful further-submissions decision.
Paragraph 353A provides that where further submissions have been made, the person must not be removed before the Secretary of State has considered them under paragraph 353 or otherwise.
This does not mean that further submissions can safely be prepared at the last minute.
There are detailed validity and procedural requirements, and the person must comply with the process.
Current Home Office rules also require applicants to keep contact details updated and comply with requests for information. Failure to do so can affect the validity or continuation of the further-submissions process.
Paragraph 353B requires the Home Office, in relevant cases, to consider whether exceptional circumstances mean that removal is no longer appropriate.
Factors include:
This assessment is separate from the paragraph 353 fresh-claim test.
Paragraph 353B does not apply in every situation, including where the person is liable to deportation.
Further submissions can fail where an applicant:
A strong submission should be selective, structured and legally focused.
At Knights & Shah Solicitors, we advise individuals whose previous asylum or human rights cases have been refused or exhausted.
We can assist with:
Our focus is to demonstrate what has materially changed since the previous decision and why the new evidence creates a realistic prospect of a different outcome before the Tribunal.
If you require advice contact Knights & Shah Solicitors.
We provide clear, solicitor led advice, strategic case planning and robust court representation to protect our clients.
Top UK Solicitors in Housing Law & Civil Litigation - Defending Your Rights Effectively
Qualified Attorneys Dedicated to Your Rights – Expert Legal Support You Can Trust
Proven Success in Defending Your Rights and Achieving Justice
“Justice will not be served until those who are unaffected are as outraged as those who are.”
