TO WHAT EXTENT IS FAMILY REUNIFICATION FOR ASYLUM SEEKERS GOING TO BE IMPACTED AS A RESULT OF BREXIT?

Abstract

This paper provides a legislative review of family reunification mechanisms for asylum seekers in the United Kingdom, examining the extent to which Brexit affects these frameworks. It focuses on the loss of the Common European Asylum System (CEAS), particularly the Dublin Regulation, and situates the issue within the broader context of international refugee law, including the 1951 Refugee Convention. The analysis evaluates both the procedural and practical consequences of the UK’s withdrawal from EU asylum mechanisms. It demonstrates that, although the Dublin Regulation established a formal legal route for reunification—most notably through “take charge” and “take back” procedures—its quantitative effectiveness was limited, with low transfer success rates and minimal impact on overall reunification outcomes. The paper further considers legislative and policy developments following Brexit, including the Immigration and Social Security Coordination (EU Withdrawal) Act 2020 and related government proposals. It argues that, while Brexit removes an established legal and procedural framework, this loss does not significantly affect reunification outcomes in numerical terms. However, it introduces greater legal uncertainty and restricts access to safe and structured reunification routes, particularly for vulnerable groups such as unaccompanied minors. The rejection of the Dubs Amendment and the introduction of temporary protection regimes are critically assessed as missed legislative opportunities to improve reunification pathways. The paper concludes that effective reform requires structured cooperation with the European Union or key Member States, alongside more flexible evidentiary standards and expanded legal routes. While Brexit alters the legal architecture governing reunification, its primary impact lies in the legislative and policy choices that follow rather than in the removal of CEAS mechanisms alone.