Specialist legal advice for people who may not qualify for refugee status but face a real risk of serious harm if returned to their country, including torture, unlawful killing, armed conflict, protection refusals and appeals.
Humanitarian protection provides an important form of protection for people who do not qualify for refugee status under the Refugee Convention but would nevertheless face a real risk of serious harm if returned to their country of origin.
The legal test is different from refugee status.
A refugee claim normally requires a well-founded fear of persecution connected to a Refugee Convention reason, such as race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership of a particular social group.
Humanitarian protection can apply where that Convention connection cannot be established but returning the person would still expose them to sufficiently serious harm.
As at August 2026, the principal rules remain contained in Part 11 of the Immigration Rules, particularly paragraphs 339C and 339CA. Humanitarian protection applies where substantial grounds show a real risk of qualifying serious harm, the person cannot obtain effective protection from their country and the exclusion provisions do not apply.
There has also been an important change to the duration of protection permission.
For asylum claims or further submissions made on or after 2 March 2026, a person granted humanitarian protection will normally receive an initial 30 months’ permission to stay, rather than the previous standard five-year grant. Different transitional provisions apply to earlier claims, while unaccompanied asylum-seeking children continue generally to receive five years.
At Knights & Shah Solicitors, we advise individuals and families on humanitarian protection claims, Home Office decisions, protection appeals and longer-term immigration status.
Humanitarian protection is considered where a person does not meet the legal definition of a refugee but still requires international protection.
Under paragraph 339C, an applicant may qualify where:
Humanitarian protection therefore operates as an important alternative protection ground.
A properly prepared protection claim should not assume that failure to establish refugee status automatically means the case must fail.
The Immigration Rules define the forms of harm capable of supporting humanitarian protection.
They include:
These are serious legal thresholds.
Humanitarian protection is not normally available simply because a person would face poverty, unemployment, difficult living conditions or a lower standard of living after return.
The application must establish a real risk falling within the legally recognised categories of serious harm.
The distinction between refugee status and humanitarian protection is important.
Refugee status requires the feared persecution to fall within the Refugee Convention framework.
Humanitarian protection does not require the same Convention connection.
For example, a civilian may face a serious individual threat because of indiscriminate violence during an armed conflict without being targeted specifically because of their politics, religion, nationality or membership of a particular social group.
Likewise, a person may face a genuine risk of torture or unlawful killing but be unable to establish the Convention reason required for refugee status.
Current Home Office guidance confirms that a humanitarian protection claim is considered within the asylum process and refugee status should ordinarily be considered first.
The protection case should therefore identify both the primary refugee argument and any alternative humanitarian protection case.
Humanitarian protection does not require an applicant to prove with certainty that serious harm will occur.
The test is whether there are substantial grounds for believing that there is a real risk of serious harm on return.
The assessment is forward-looking.
The Home Office should examine the person’s individual circumstances alongside reliable and current information concerning the country of origin.
Relevant considerations may include:
Previous serious harm or direct threats can be particularly significant evidence of future risk, although the Home Office may consider whether circumstances have materially changed.
Humanitarian protection may apply where returning someone would expose them to a real risk of the death penalty, execution or unlawful killing.
Potential cases may involve:
The evidence needs to connect the general danger with the individual applicant.
For example, the fact that capital punishment exists in a country does not by itself prove that a particular person is at real risk of execution.
Evidence may include court documents, arrest warrants, threats, political history, witness statements and reliable country information.
Humanitarian protection also covers a real risk of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
This can overlap closely with Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which prohibits torture and inhuman or degrading treatment.
Claims may involve:
The individual facts remain critical.
Evidence that serious abuses occur within a country may support the claim, but the application should explain why the applicant personally would be exposed to the relevant risk.
Humanitarian protection can be particularly important where a person is fleeing war or armed conflict.
Paragraph 339CA includes a serious and individual threat to a civilian arising from indiscriminate violence in an international or internal armed conflict.
However, the existence of war does not automatically mean that every national of the country qualifies.
The Home Office may consider:
Country conditions can also change quickly.
Current country evidence should therefore be assessed at the time the claim or appeal is determined rather than relying upon reports that may no longer accurately describe the security position.
In some conflict situations, the level of indiscriminate violence may itself be exceptionally high.
In other cases, a person may need to show additional individual circumstances increasing their exposure to harm.
These can include:
A strong humanitarian protection claim therefore does not simply say:
“My country is at war.”
It explains why, considering both the conflict and the applicant’s individual circumstances, returning that person would create the legally required real risk of serious harm.
Humanitarian protection may be refused where the Home Office considers that the applicant can obtain effective protection from the authorities in their country.
This can become particularly important where the feared harm comes from:
Relevant questions include:
The fact that police and courts formally exist does not necessarily establish effective protection.
The real question is whether protection is practically available and sufficient for this individual.
The Home Office may also argue that the applicant could avoid serious harm by living elsewhere within their country.
This is known as internal relocation.
The Immigration Rules require consideration of both the conditions in the proposed area and the applicant’s individual circumstances.
Relevant factors may include:
It is not sufficient simply to identify another city.
The proposed alternative must be both safe and reasonable in the applicant’s individual circumstances.
Humanitarian protection claims are highly evidence-sensitive.
Depending upon the case, evidence may include:
Applicants fleeing serious danger will not always have formal documentary proof.
The absence of a particular document does not automatically defeat a protection claim.
The Home Office’s protection framework requires evidence to be considered in the round. Current guidance recognises that some aspects of an applicant’s account may be accepted without documentary corroboration where the person has genuinely attempted to substantiate the claim, provided available evidence and given a coherent and plausible explanation.
The focus should therefore be on relevant and reliable evidence, rather than creating an unnecessarily large bundle.
Credibility can be central to humanitarian protection just as it is in refugee claims.
The Home Office may compare:
A refusal may identify inconsistent dates, late disclosure, conflicting accounts or documents said to be unreliable.
Those issues should be addressed directly.
Not every discrepancy proves dishonesty. Trauma, interpretation difficulties, mental health problems and genuine memory difficulties can sometimes affect how evidence is given.
Where such issues are relevant, they should be properly explained and supported rather than simply asserted after a refusal.
A person can face serious harm and nevertheless be excluded from humanitarian protection.
Paragraph 339D contains exclusion provisions concerning serious conduct, including circumstances where there are serious reasons for considering that the person has committed matters such as:
These are complex cases.
The legal issue may no longer be whether serious harm exists, but whether the applicant is legally excluded from humanitarian protection despite that danger.
Specialist advice should be obtained where exclusion is alleged.
There was a major change to protection permission in March 2026.
For an asylum claim or further submissions made on or after 2 March 2026, a person granted humanitarian protection will normally receive:
at least 30 months’ permission to stay
rather than the previous standard five-year grant.
The Home Office’s current guidance applies this framework where protection is granted:
This makes the date on which the original protection claim or further submissions were made particularly important.
Older website information stating that humanitarian protection always results in five years’ leave is therefore no longer accurate.
Different transitional provisions apply to earlier protection claims.
For claims made before 2 March 2026, current Home Office public guidance states that a person granted humanitarian protection will generally receive at least five years’ permission to stay.
Separate technical guidance applies depending upon when the asylum claim was made, including the pre-28 June 2022 and post-28 June 2022 frameworks.
The date of claim should therefore be established before advising on:
An important exception applies to unaccompanied asylum-seeking children.
Current Home Office guidance states that an unaccompanied child granted refugee status or humanitarian protection will receive a minimum of five years’ permission to stay, regardless of the date of claim.
Children’s protection cases also require careful consideration of:
A child’s evidence should not simply be assessed as though it were evidence from an adult claimant.
A partner or child included as a dependant on an asylum claim will usually receive permission for the same period as the main applicant if the claim succeeds.
However, dependants do not automatically receive humanitarian protection or refugee status themselves merely because the principal applicant receives protection. Current GOV.UK guidance confirms that a dependant must have their own protection need considered if they are to receive protection status in their own right.
This distinction can be important where a spouse or child has their own independent fear of serious harm.
Each family member’s protection circumstances should therefore be considered individually.
People granted 30 months’ protection permission will generally need to apply for further permission if they still require protection.
Current Home Office guidance states that the application should be made before permission expires and no more than 28 days before expiry.
A further-permission application involves consideration of whether protection remains necessary.
Current guidance provides for a safe return review, looking at country conditions at the time the further application is decided. Those who continue to need protection will normally qualify for further permission or, where eligible, settlement.
This makes ongoing country circumstances increasingly important under the new 30-month framework.
Potentially, yes.
Current Appendix Settlement Protection, updated on 1 July 2026, states that a person who has been on a protection route for at least five years may be eligible for settlement, subject to the requirements of the route.
The introduction of 30-month grants does not by itself remove the five-year protection-route settlement framework currently contained in the Rules.
However, someone initially granted 30 months will normally need further protection permission before reaching the five-year point.
Settlement applications are also subject to consideration of whether the person continues to require protection.
Long-term immigration planning is therefore more important under the current system.
Humanitarian protection can cease or be revoked in specified circumstances.
The Immigration Rules provide for this where, for example, the circumstances responsible for the original need for protection have changed to such a significant and non-temporary degree that the person no longer faces a real risk of serious harm.
Revocation can also arise where:
A temporary improvement in country conditions should therefore be distinguished from a sufficiently fundamental and durable change.
Where the Home Office refuses the person’s protection claim, there will ordinarily be a statutory right of appeal, subject to the circumstances of the decision and any applicable certification.
The appeal is normally heard by the First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber).
A humanitarian protection appeal may involve:
Importantly, humanitarian protection should remain under consideration even where the Tribunal concludes that the stricter Refugee Convention requirements have not been satisfied. Recent Upper Tribunal decisions continue to apply paragraph 339C as an alternative protection basis after considering asylum.
A humanitarian protection claim can be weakened where an applicant:
The strongest claims explain what serious harm is feared, why the individual personally faces that risk and why effective protection or reasonable internal relocation is unavailable.
At Knights & Shah Solicitors, we advise clients on humanitarian protection and complex asylum and protection claims.
We can assist with:
Our approach is to identify whether refugee status applies first, whether humanitarian protection provides an alternative basis and what evidence is required to establish a real risk of serious harm.
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.”
