By Tasmin Langler
‘Fresh claims’ are a vital part of the UK asylum process, allowing previously rejected asylum seekers to renew their claim for protection where there has been a significant change in circumstances. This can be a change in their personal lives, such as a deterioration of health, or a change in the country they fled. The value of fresh claims can be clearly illustrated by a case study of asylum-seekers from Afghanistan, where a regime change put at risk many groups of people who might not have been in such danger before.
- Since the Taliban takeover, Afghanistan has become characterised by violence, persecution and extremism particularly of vulnerable groups
- Under this new regime, many previously rejected Afghan asylum seekers who were not seen to be in danger may now be at grave risk
- ‘Fresh claims’ allow for these asylum seekers to have their claim reconsidered in light of this change in circumstances, preventing them from being returned to an unsafe, Taliban-run Afghanistan
What happened in Afghanistan?
The Taliban is an extremist group primarily operating in Afghanistan, known for severe restrictions on human rights and basic freedoms. The Taliban won power and governed Afghanistan from 1996 to 2001. A US-led military intervention in 2001 led to their ousting from power and the installation of a US-backed government in Afghanistan. Nonetheless, the Taliban remained present in many parts of Afghanistan, particularly in rural areas. As a consequence of the resulting conflict and violence, as well as the country remaining one of the most dangerous for women, significant numbers of Afghan asylum seekers continued to flee the country each year. Some of them arrived in the UK seeking protection.
However, in August 2021, following the US withdrawal from Afghanistan, the Taliban captured Kabul and returned to power as the de facto government. Within a month, the Taliban banned women from playing sports and prevented them from going to school or work. Women’s rights protests across the country were brutally suppressed through the use of tasers, tear gas, and whips, as well as some reports of open fire into crowds. The rate of child marriage increased, and a pregnant police officer was killed in front of her children. More recently, the Taliban introduced a law restricting the freedom of women to leave their homes without a male relative. Afghanistan under the Taliban is now considered “the most discriminatory [regime] in the world” on women’s rights.
In the first few weeks of Taliban rule, Amnesty International documented 14 accounts of violence and reprisals against journalists in Kabul alone. Officials and employees of the former regime and security forces have been repeatedly targeted, including 21 instances of arbitrary arrest, torture and ill treatment, and 14 extra-judicial killings between July–September of 2025.
The Taliban government have also created a more dangerous situation for sexual, ethnic and religious minorities.
The previous regime criminalised same-sex relations in 2018, but the Taliban hold far more extreme views. A Human Rights Watch report details horrific patterns of abuse, kidnappings, gang-raping, and killings of people who are or were suspected of being LGBT by Taliban members and their sympathisers. Meanwhile, religious minorities have been subject to forced conversions, threats of violence and imprisonment. The Taliban have also been unwilling to protect ethnic and religious minorities, particularly Shia Hazaras, from increasing extremist violence.
Beyond violence and persecution, Afghanistan under the Taliban has been experiencing one of the worst humanitarian crises in the world. The economy has collapsed and 75% of the population lack sufficient access to the clean water, food and basic sanitation needed to survive.
How did the changes in Afghanistan affect Afghan asylum seekers in the UK?
UK government policy towards Afghan asylum seekers during the previous regime recognised the struggles of vulnerable groups, but maintained numerous reasons for rejecting claims for asylum by people fleeing Afghanistan. Firstly, the Government considered that even though a group of people may have been vulnerable to harassment and discrimination, in general it was not so severe that it created a need for protection. For instance, in TG and Others [2015] the Tribunal held that the poor treatment of Sikh and Hindu religious minorities would not generally reach the level of persecution necessary for refugee protection.
Secondly, even if the risk of persecution was accepted, many claims were rejected on the basis that it was judged safe and reasonable for people to escape to Kabul, the capital of Afghanistan, which was relatively free from the Taliban. The case of AK [2012] established that even women could be safely relocated to Kabul, provided they had a male support network. Only one year before Kabul would fall to the Taliban, the city’s safety was reiterated in AS [2020] which determined that, generally, a single adult male in good health could be relocated. Clearly, neither of those reasons continued to hold true after the Taliban returned to power in 2021. As a result, Afghan nationals in the UK who had had their asylum claims rejected on the basis of conditions under the previous government were now at risk of persecution by the Taliban if they were to be returned to Afghanistan.
Indeed, the UK Government now recognises various groups that are likely to be at risk and in need of international protection, including women, ethnic and religious minorities, LGBTI people, journalists and human rights defenders. Additionally, those who were involved in the prosecutions of Taliban members, or employed by defence and security forces, the Afghan police, or international organisations are also likely to be at risk. Amnesty international further identifies former government officials and others critical of the regime to be at immediate risk, and stressed that ethnic and religious minorities are in “grave danger”.
The severity of this risk is clearly reflected in the number of Afghan asylum seekers granted protection at initial decision since 2021, which did not fall below 90% during the first few years of Taliban rule. This protection is a crucial lifeline for Afghan refugees newly escaping the Taliban government. But what about those Afghan asylum seekers who arrived in the UK before 2021, had their asylum claims rejected and face the threat of return?
Through a fresh claim, ethnic and religious minorities who were not seen as sufficiently at risk (following TG and Others [2015]) now have the opportunity to evidence that they would be in “grave danger” if returned under the current regime. Similarly, those who were rejected on the basis that it was safe for them in a Taliban-free Kabul (under AS [2020], AK [2012]) can now contend that, with the Taliban as de-facto government, nowhere in the country would be safe for them. Even if Kabul could still be deemed safe for some, the humanitarian crises could make relocation unreasonable, particularly for the sick, elderly or disabled.
Conclusion
The speed at which Afghanistan regressed into a regime of severe oppression and violence demonstrates how essential it is to have flexibility in the asylum process. Fresh claims play a crucial role in allowing the asylum system to respond to the ever-changing conditions in the world, and ensure vulnerable people can access the protection they need. Without this procedure, many vulnerable Afghans in the UK would be at risk of return to a Taliban-run Kabul that would endanger their livelihood, based on an outdated assessment of their safety.
The vital importance of fresh claims can be illustrated by a case that we represented at the University of London Refugee Law Clinic. Kamal (name has been changed to protect his identity) is an Afghan national who arrived in the UK as a child in 2014. He had been targeted by the Taliban for recruitment, and they continued to harass his family even after he had left the country. Yet, his first claim and appeal were rejected.
In December 2020, with no routes to appeal left, he became a client of the University of London Refugee Law Clinic. At the Clinic, we helped Kamal with his fresh claim, on the basis that the Taliban’s control and the violence in Kabul affected the whole country and made returns impossible. They argued that Kamal would be especially at risk as the Taliban would view his escape from recruitment as resistance against their regime, and that after spending his formative teenage and young adult life in the UK, he would be perceived as westernised.
Kamal’s fresh claim was successful, and he was finally recognised as a refugee in 2022.
Bibliography
AK (Article 15(c)) [2012] UKUT 163
TG and Others (Afghan Sikhs persecuted) [2015] UKUT 595
AS (Safety of Kabul) [2020] UKUT 130
Abbasi F, ‘Religious Freedom in Afghanistan: Three Years After the Taliban Takeover’ (Human Rights Watch 2025)
Amnesty International, ‘Afghanistan: The fate of thousands hanging in the balance: Afghanistan’s fall into the hands of the Taliban’ (2021) ASA 11/4727/2021
Amnesty International, ‘Afghanistan: Forced returns to Taliban rule must end as latest figures reveal millions unlawfully deported in 2025’ (2025)
Human Rights Watch, ‘Afghanistan: Taliban Target LGBT Afghans’ (2023)
Maizland L, ‘The Taliban in Afghanistan’ (Council on Foreign Relations, last updated 2025)
Smith G, ‘Afghanistan Three Years after the Taliban Takeover’ (International Crisis Group 2024)
Home Office (2025). Country Policy and Information Note – Afghanistan: Fear of the Taliban [online] GOV.UK
Home Office (2022). How many people do we grant protection to? [online] GOV.UK
Home Office (2023). How many people do we grant protection to? [online] GOV.UK
Home Office (2024). How many people do we grant protection to? [online] GOV.UK
Tasmin Langler is an LLM student at SOAS University of London, and volunteer at the UOL Refugee Law Clinic. She holds a first class LLB with Chinese Law from the University of Nottingham, with year abroad at the University of Hong Kong. Her research focuses on immigration and asylum law, and she has previous experience as a volunteer at Citizens Advice, EmpowerU for migrant domestic workers, and the HKU refugee and disability rights clinics.
The views expressed in this article belong to the author/s and do not necessarily reflect those of the Refugee Law Initiative. We welcome comments and contributions to this blog – please comment below and see here for contribution guidelines.