New report highlights common and systemic issues impacting the family reunion process, including need for enhanced training for decision-makers
King's Legal Clinic at King's College London (KCL) last week published a valuable new report on the challenges refugee families encounter when trying to reunite in the UK.
The 16-page report can be downloaded here and follows a workshop hosted by KCL with representatives from organisations including the British Red Cross, the Refugee Council, Safe Passage, UNHCR, IRAP, Pathways International, the Home Office, Refugee & Migrant Forum of Essex and London (RAMFEL), and Refugee Legal Support.
KCL's workshop aimed to identify challenges in the refugee family reunification (RFR) process and enhance research in the field. Discussions focused on the fairness of DNA and forensic evidence in RFR cases, legal and procedural obstacles, and the wellbeing of clients, lawyers, and students.
Summing up its main findings, the report notes: "Participants reported common and systemic issues impacting the family reunion process, highlighting that current structures are not sufficiently supportive or accessible for refugee families. Key challenges identified included the complexity and restrictive nature of UK immigration law, especially concerning the restrictive definition of a family member, extensive and onerous evidential requirements, significant procedural delays, onerous biometric requirements in particular in inaccessible regions, and the reliance on DNA testing, which adds financial and logistical burdens to applicants. Participants also noted inconsistencies in decision-making processes and raised concerns around the transparency and fairness of assessments by the Home Office."
DNA evidence is identified as particularly significant challenge, with the report noting weaknesses in Home Office decision-making. Officials often struggle to interpret DNA reports due to a lack of scientific expertise, leading to misunderstandings—particularly regarding the probabilistic nature of DNA analysis. This includes an unrealistic expectation of absolute certainty, which is not scientifically achievable.
KCL's Professor Syndercombe Court, an expert in DNA, participated in the workshop and shared critical insights on the complexities and challenges of using DNA evidence in RFR cases.
The report highlights: "[Professor Syndercombe Court] emphasised that while DNA testing can be invaluable for establishing familial links, it is not without limitations and complexities, which can inadvertently hinder families seeking reunification. While DNA testing is a critical tool for establishing familial relationships, it cannot provide absolute certainty. Decision-makers often misunderstand the probabilistic nature of DNA reports, seeking '100% certainty' which is not scientifically feasible. Instead, DNA evidence uses likelihood ratios, which require careful interpretation."
Inconsistencies in DNA testing standards across laboratories were identified as a significant concern by KCL's Lesley Nott. She noted that decision-makers sometimes show conscious bias, leading to excessive scrutiny of DNA evidence and supporting documents. This bias is worsened by doubts over the authenticity of DNA reports, documentation, and even applicants' payments for testing.
KCL says a critical takeaway from the workshop was the need for enhanced training for decision-makers who review DNA reports. Other problems highlighted include high DNA testing fees, the lack of clear guidance on DNA testing options on the Home Office website, inconsistencies in laboratory approaches, and inconsistency in required documentation across countries.
Legal barriers were also explored at the workshop. As the report notes, the RFR process is highly complex, requiring extensive documentation like birth certificates and biometric data, which can be difficult to obtain without legal assistance. Frequent policy changes further complicate applications, highlighting the need for clearer, more accessible guidance. Participants also criticised the UK's narrow definition of "family," which does not reflect cultural and financial dependency norms in many refugee-producing regions. Limited legal aid and restricted access to biometric centres in conflict zones pose additional barriers, with suggestions for policy changes, including improved biometric access, waivers in crisis situations, and streamlined procedures similar to the Ukraine scheme.
KCL runs a dedicated RFR Project and is now launching a new interdisciplinary clinic. This clinic will offer free legal support and DNA testing to help refugee families reunite. It will also conduct research to advocate for fairer and more compassionate policies that improve safe pathways to sanctuary.
Shaila Pal, Supervising Solicitor and Senior Lecturer at King's Legal Clinic, commented: "As a result of the invaluable contributions of our diverse stakeholders we have been able to identify some of the critical problems and potential solutions around RFR through an interdisciplinary lens. The findings of the report will help shape the development of impactful research and a new innovative interdisciplinary legal clinic, where King's students can learn and provide much needed support to refugee families."