One year without family reunion: Andy Burnham must fix this

One year ago today, the Government suspended the UK’s main family reunion route for refugees. Twelve months later, families remain separated, safe routes are more limited than ever and the Government is proposing further restrictions on the right to family life.

On 4 September 2025, the then Home Secretary Yvette Cooper suspended Appendix Family Reunion, with almost no notice. For thousands of refugees in the UK, the announcement changed their lives overnight.

Before its suspension, the family reunion route provided a safe way for people with refugee status or humanitarian protection to apply for their pre-flight partners and children to join them. Unlike many other family visa routes, applicants did not have to meet £29,000 minimum income or accommodation requirements.

For families already separated by war, persecution and displacement, it offered a way to be together again.

One year later, that route remains closed.

For many refugees, this has meant another year without seeing their children, partners or other loved ones. Some are waiting in countries where their lives are at risk. Others remain separated across different countries, with no realistic prospect of travelling safely to the UK.

The impact falls particularly heavily on women and children. Before the route was suspended, more than half of family reunion visas were issued to children and more than a third to women.

These figures represent children growing up without a parent, partners unable to live together and families being blocked from rebuilding their lives.

Many sponsors in the UK are themselves survivors of persecution and torture. Some live with physical or mental health difficulties as a result of what they have experienced. Being separated from their families can compound that distress.

The suspension has also affected people seeking asylum who were waiting for decisions on their claims and hoped that, if recognised as refugees, they would be able to reunite with their families.

What are families supposed to do now?

The suspension did not remove the need for families to reunite. It removed the route designed to make that possible. Some families can try to use other immigration routes, but these were not designed for refugee family reunion and create significant barriers.

For example, Appendix FM, the family visa route, in theory allows refugees to apply for partners and children to join them. But applicants need to meet a £29,000 minimum income requirement, as well as other requirements. The previous family reunion route recognised that people forced to flee their homes should not have to meet these same financial requirements. family.

Those who cannot meet the rules may need to argue that refusing their application would cause “unjustifiably harsh circumstances” and breach their right to family life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. This means continued separation can be harsh, just not unjustifiably harsh.

Article 8 should not be the only safety net

As the Government has closed the dedicated family reunion route, Article 8 has become increasingly important for families who have no other viable way to reunite. Relying on this can provide an important safeguard where the Immigration Rules do not reflect a family's circumstances. But it should not become the default route for refugee families seeking to reunite.

Now, families may have to rely on Article 8 and argue that their circumstances are sufficiently exceptional to justify being granted permission to enter the UK outside the Immigration Rules.

This can mean lengthy applications, bundles of evidence, Home Office refusals and protracted appeals before a family has any prospect of being reunited.

The direction of travel is worrying

For families hoping that the Government will restore a more compassionate approach to family reunion, the direction of immigration policy offers little comfort.

The Immigration and Asylum Bill, currently making its way through Parliament, proposes to restrict the way Article 8 operates in immigration cases. This is particularly concerning when Article 8 is already one of the few safeguards, limited as it is, available to families left without a dedicated family reunion route.

This comes along with a host of harsh proposals that will make life for refugees living in the UK much harder, including waiting 20 years for settlement and having to pay a de facto second tax up to £10,000.

For families who have already spent a year apart, the Bill gives little reason to believe that a more compassionate approach is around the corner.

The Government seemingly has no plans to reinstate family reunion. But families need a safe and accessible route to be together again. Closing family reunion will not remove the need for families to reunite. It will not make places like Gaza, Eritrea and Sudan safe. It will only leave more people facing complex, expensive and uncertain alternatives.

Ultimately, Andy Burnham should reverse his predecessor’s mistakes. He should end the uncertainty and restore a meaningful, accessible family reunion route for refugees and people with humanitarian protection.