Refugee Council warns UK's proposals to use return hubs will be unworkable and a waste of public money
The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) last month published a brief new document examining the potential role of third-country 'return hubs' in facilitating the return of asylum seekers who have been determined not to be in need of international protection.
You can read a full copy of the document below and you can download the original 5-page document here.
In the document, the UNHCR explains that return hubs, while not formally defined, generally refer to arrangements between two or more countries under which third-country nationals—who cannot be immediately returned to their country of origin—are transferred, either voluntarily or involuntarily, to a third country.
The document states: "Return hubs could appropriately be explored, within certain parameters and in line with human rights standards, as a complement to broader efforts to improve the return process for individuals found not to be in need of international protection. UNHCR's potential role in relation to return hubs would be to support States, on a good offices basis, provided that such involvement remains consistent with our humanitarian mandate to protect refugees."
The agency added that return hubs should only be considered for individuals who, despite adequate support, are unwilling to return voluntarily to their country of origin or cannot be forcibly returned. It emphasised that any return hub arrangements must comply with international human rights standards and that appropriate resources and infrastructure must be in place to meet those obligations.
According to an article in The Times on Friday, Home Secretary Yvette Cooper met with the UNHCR in March to discuss the UK's potential use of return hubs in the Balkans for failed asylum seekers. Government sources told The Times that the UK is considering approaching Albania, Serbia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and North Macedonia as possible host countries for the hubs.
One government source told The Times: "Along with other countries, we are looking at how returns hubs could form a part of our commitment to rebuild confidence in the immigration and asylum system … We are in touch with UNHCR and welcome their work in this area."
Another source noted that support from UNHCR has given ministers significant encouragement to move forward with the plans.
In response to the article, the Chief Executive at the Refugee Council, Enver Solomon, issued a statement warning that the proposed return hubs will be an 'unworkable' waste of public money and are highly unlikely to act as a deterrent.
Solomon added: "The government's very expensive plan to send people to countries like Albania to be detained in prison-like conditions will cause fear and panic leading to low rates of compliance, compared to the orderly and humane approaches that have achieved far higher levels. It might be counter-intuitive, but the more punitive a returns system, the less effective it becomes. We need a competent asylum system that doesn't waste taxpayers' money and upholds our tradition of providing safety for those fleeing conflict or oppression."
The European Commission had earlier proposed the use of return hubs in March as part of its plans for a new Common European System for Returns.
Amnesty International's European Institutions Office called the proposal a 'new low for Europe'. Eve Geddie, the Director of the European Institutions Office, commented: "The European Commission has caved to the unworkable, expensive and inhumane demands of a few shrill anti-human rights and anti-migration governments. The Commission itself discarded the concept of 'return hubs' in 2018. It is well aware that these proposals will lead to human rights violations, waste millions of euros and alienate allies – at a time when the EU needs friends. Despite this, [the] proposal lays the ground for states to send people to countries to which they have no connection, to languish in detention centres, with little credible guarantees that their rights will be upheld. Frankly, this is a new low for Europe."
The UNHCR's full document on return hubs follows below:
The Need for Effective Return Systems
and the Potential Role of Return Hubs
March 2025
The Need for Effective Returns Systems and the Potential Role of Return Hubs
Introduction
The safe and dignified return of individuals found not to be in need of international protection [1] is critical to the effective functioning of the international protection regime. When opportunities for migrants to regularize their stay are limited and return systems are inefficient, asylum systems are more likely to be misused by individuals without international protection needs to regularize their stay, leading to backlogs, delays and increased costs. These delays can, in turn, make it even more difficult to return rejected applicants as they have spent years establishing themselves in the country waiting for a decision. Such challenges have led in some contexts to governments and the public questioning the viability of asylum systems and the international protection regime more broadly. In contrast, prompt removal after an unfounded asylum application is finally rejected reduces the incentive for those not in need of international protection to make asylum claims and may enhance public confidence in asylum procedures and processes.
UNHCR has long supported and advocated the need for functioning return systems which are critical in a global context where many situations involve mixed movements of refugees and migrants, with governments facing challenges in returning those whose asylum applications are finally rejected. The return of persons not in need of international protection is a key pillar of the comprehensive route-based approach to mixed movements jointly developed by UNHCR and IOM. [2]
The present note summarizes key challenges hindering the return of persons not in need of international protection and UNHCR's involvement in addressing them. [3] The note further discusses the potential role of return hubs as a policy response, in accordance with human rights norms and principles. [4]
Understanding and addressing the obstacles to returns: UNHCR's involvement
Multiple challenges hinder effective returns including:
• Host countries: Return systems in countries hosting the persons to be returned are often inefficient and lack the capacity or financial resources to effectively implement returns. Key challenges include return systems that do not have the infrastructure and processes in place to effectively encourage voluntary returns as well as challenges in coordination between agencies on involuntary returns. Backlogged asylum systems compound the difficulties of return, because long residency in the host country can make people less likely to opt to leave voluntarily. [5]
• Lack of cooperation by returnees: Key challenges in this area are linked to returnees not cooperating on documentation or nationality determination, or absconding (which makes them impossible to locate for returns).
• Countries of origin: Countries of origin may have different priorities with respect to return of their nationals and may be reluctant to issue documents, recognize nationality or accept back their nationals in certain contexts. This can be the result of concerns relating to remittances or dynamics between the host and origin States that make it difficult to conclude readmission agreements.
UNHCR recognizes that many interventions are necessary to address the obstacles to effect return and is ready to support these interventions in line with its mandate and UNHCR's Executive Committee Conclusion No. 96 (ExCom 96). [6] UNHCR may support States, on a good offices basis, in their endeavours to return persons found not to be in need of international protection, [7] provided that the involvement of the Office is not inconsistent with its humanitarian mandate to provide international protection to refugees. [8]
As provided under ExCom 96, UNHCR's good offices to support returns of persons found not to be in need of international protection may involve the following:
• Promoting with States those principles which bear on their responsibility to accept back their nationals, as well as principles on the reduction of statelessness;
• Taking clear public positions on the acceptability of return of persons found not to be in need of international protection,
• Continuing its dialogue with States to review their citizenship legislation (…). [9]
Objective 21 of the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration calls for increased efforts to facilitate safe and dignified return and readmission, as well as sustainable reintegration, including by stressing the commitment of States to duly receive and readmit their nationals. [10] As a member of the UN Network on Migration, UNHCR is committed to supporting States and IOM's role on the return of migrants. [11]
Potential role of return hubs
There has been increasing attention in some regions to the concept of return hubs and the role that these may play in supporting returns.
There is no commonly agreed upon definition of a return hub but, at a general level, it refers to an arrangement made between two or more States whereby third country nationals who are irregularly [12] on the territory of a State and who cannot immediately be returned to their country of origin, are instead sent (voluntarily or involuntarily) to a third country.
Return hubs could appropriately be explored, within certain parameters and in line with human rights standards, as a complement to other efforts to enhance the effectiveness of the return of those determined not to have international protection needs. UNHCR's potential role in relation to return hubs would be in support of States, on a good offices' basis, and provided that UNHCR's involvement is not inconsistent with its humanitarian mandate to provide international protection to refugees.
Individuals to be considered for return hubs
In principle, finally rejected asylum-seekers should be returned directly to their country of origin. This is most efficient, both in relation to time and resources, and sustainable, if return can be realized within a reasonable timeframe. Therefore, return hubs should only be considered for individuals who, despite adequate support, will not return voluntarily to their country of origin or cannot be forcibly returned.
In order to support asylum systems to function more effectively and to uphold the right to seek asylum, return hubs should be used for individuals who have had their claim for international protection finally rejected on the merits through a fair and efficient asylum procedure and who have no other form of legal stay. This should be individuals who have either had their cases rejected on appeal, or who have chosen not to appeal their first instance rejection, and so are determined through a full and fair procedure to not be in need of international protection.
Children should not be transferred to return hubs, unless this has been determined to be in their best interest, special safeguards are ensured before, during and after the transfer, and the conditions for these children do not amount to detention.
Standards for return hubs
Relevant human right standards apply to any return hub arrangement, and adequate resources and structures would need to be put in place to support meeting these standards. Monitoring is also highly recommended to ensure that the standards are reliably met.
The third country hosting the return hub would need to grant temporary legal stay pending onward voluntary or involuntary return to their country of origin. Adequate accommodation and reception arrangements would need to be provided in the third country following arrival to ensure that needs were met, with support of the sending country. Community living should be considered as soon as possible and restrictions on movement minimized. Detention should only be used as a last resort and alternatives to detention should be prioritized. In situations where those returned stay in a closed facility, all requisite legal and procedural safeguards must be ensured in line with international human rights law and accepted standards, including the periodic review of detention and limits on the maximum detention period. [13]
While the goal of return hubs should be temporary stay to facilitate return to the country of origin, there may be individuals who remain in the return hub for more lengthy periods of time. Accordingly, depending on the context, other forms of longer-term legal stay in the third country, as well as pathways to self-sufficiency for those sent to the return hub, should be contemplated. This may be particularly necessary if the country of origin remains unwilling to cooperate with returns.
Location of and support to return hubs
The location of return hubs would need to be determined in discussions between States. However, given the potential role of return hubs in responding to mixed movements, ensuring the location of such hubs in regions along key mixed movement routes would potentially aid with the onward return to country of origin. In particular, hubs located in a region or country that provides visa-free regime or other forms of freedom of movement for the nationalities returned might facilitate onward return to the country of origin. Engagement with relevant regional organizations on these routes might further facilitate regional cooperation and responses, by leveraging existing mobility frameworks. Regional organizations could enable dialogue and joined-up approaches on comprehensive route-based responses to mixed movements, of which return is a component.
Appropriate incentives should be envisaged for countries which may consider establishing return hubs, as well as support and funding from sending countries and other actors.
To have return hubs that support the process of return to country of origin, there would need to be support for eventual voluntary or involuntary return to the country of origin. For involuntary returns, negotiations conducted by the sending country on readmission to the country of origin could continue in parallel of individuals being transferred to the hubs. As in all return proceedings, returnees in return hubs should be provided with counseling on alternatives to involuntary return, including assisted voluntary return.
UNHCR's engagement with return hubs
In line with UNHCR's broader engagement with returns of those not in need of international protection, UNHCR's contribution in relation to return hubs could include the following, in many cases jointly with other partners, including IOM:
• Engage in dialogue with States and other stakeholders on the use of return hubs as part of comprehensive responses to address mixed movements;
• Promote voluntary return, both from the country of destination and the return hub country, including by taking clear public positions on the acceptability of return;
• Advise on compliance of the return hub process with human right standards;
• Advise on systems to support individuals sent to return hubs with specific needs;
• Support and promote the swift issuance of documentation and recognition of nationality to facilitate onward return to country of origin;
• Promote the principle of State responsibility to accept their returning citizens, including from return hubs; and,
• Contribute to data collection and analysis on returns.
[1] The term "persons found not to be in need of international protection" refers to individuals who have sought international protection and who, after due consideration of their asylum claims in fair procedures, are found neither to qualify for refugee status on the basis of criteria laid down in the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol, nor to be in need of international protection in accordance with other international obligations or national law. See UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), Protection Policy Paper: The return of persons found not to be in need of international protection to their countries of origin: UNHCR's role, pp 1-2. November 2010, www.refworld.org/policy/legalguidance/unhcr/2010/en/76475 [Protection Policy Paper on Return]. The term does not apply to those who have had their claims rejected due to the application of the concept of safe third country or safe first country of asylum, as they may nevertheless be in need of international protection. Other persons who are not refugees, or who otherwise do not have a need for international protection and who do not have a legal right to stay may be subject to return, including through the return hubs described in this document.
[2] The route-based approach proposes a set of comprehensive, targeted and coordinated interventions to be taken by States, UNHCR, IOM, other UN agencies, civil society partners, migrant and refugee organizations and other stakeholders along main routes in countries of origin, asylum, transit and destination. The interventions, including the return of persons not in need of international protection, seek to reduce dangerous journeys and offer effective, rights-based responses to help States manage the challenges around irregular movements, in line with their international obligations. See UNHCR, A Route-Based Approach: Strengthening Protection and Solutions in the Context of Mixed Movements of Refugees and Migrants, June 2024, www.refworld.org/policy/strategy/unhcr/2024/en/148087 .
[3] This note builds on and complements the Protection Policy Paper on Return, supra note 1.
[4] See, on the specific human rights considerations and principles relating to return hubs, European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, Planned return hubs in third countries: EU fundamental rights law issues, 6 February 2024, https://fra.europa.eu/en/publication/2025/return-hubs .
[5] UNHCR continues to call on all countries to implement fair and efficient asylum procedures that enable the swift identification of persons in need of international protection. See notably, UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), Effective processing of asylum applications: Practical considerations and practices, March 2022, https://www.refworld.org/policy/opguidance/unhcr/2022/en/124059.
[6] Executive Committee of the High Commissioner's Programme, Conclusion No. 96 (LIV): Return of persons found not to be in need of international protection - Adopted by the Executive Committee (2003), No. 96 (LIV) 2003, 10 October 2003, www.refworld.org/policy/exconc/excom/2003/en/89505 [ExCom 96].
[7] UNHCR, Return of Persons Not in Need of International Protection, EC/47/SC/CRP.28, 30 May 1997, www.refworld.org/reference/annualreport/unhcr/1997/en/68555.
[8] For more on the contexts in which UNHCR engages on the return of persons found not to be in need of international protection, see Protection Policy Paper on Return, supra note 1, pp 4-5.
[9] ExCom 96, supra note 6.
[10] UN General Assembly, Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration, A/RES/73/195, 19 December 2019, https://www.refworld.org/legal/resolution/unga/2019/en/147186.
[11] See, among other publications on returns by the UN Network on Migration, the 2021 Checklist for safe and dignified return and sustainable reintegration, at https://migrationnetwork.un.org/resources/checklist-safe-and-dignfied-return-and-sustainable-reintegration.
[12] The irregular entry and presence of persons in need of international protection raise specific considerations in line with Article 31 of the 1951 Refugee Convention which provides for the non-penalization of refugees on account of their irregular entry or presence. UN General Assembly, Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 189, p. 137, 28 July 1951, https://www.refworld.org/legal/agreements/unga/1951/en/3982. For further analysis, see UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), Guidelines on International Protection No. 14: Non-penalization of refugees on account of their irregular entry or presence and restrictions on their movements in accordance with Article 31 of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, HCR/GIP/24/14, 23 September 2024, https://www.refworld.org/policy/legalguidance/unhcr/2024/en/148632.
[13] See e.g. UNHCR, Guidelines on the Applicable Criteria and Standards relating to the Detention of Asylum-Seekers and Alternatives to Detention, 2012, www.refworld.org/policy/legalguidance/unhcr/2012/en/87776 .