2 Can’t Stay. Can’t Go. Refused asylum seekers who cannot be returned Research objectives > Provide funding for travel to embassies to facilitate the process of gathering The objectives were to explore, from the viewpoint documents. of refused asylum seekers who cannot be returned, and of the British Red Cross staff who 3. Where appeal rights exhausted individuals work with them: cannot, after a period of 12 months, be re- documented, or there is a barrier to return that > What living in limbo means for this group, is beyond their control, and they are complying including how they meet their basic needs for with the system, they should be given money, accommodation, food and clothes. discretionary leave to remain with a right to work and access higher education in the UK. > What changes could improve life for this group. For the Red Cross Conclusion Our recommendations include: Refused asylum seekers who, through no fault > Use our relationships with government and of their own, cannot be returned to their country parliamentarians to help solicit responses from of origin, risk falling into crisis. Many remain in embassies when people are failing to receive the UK for extended periods of time and, without attention. support, are vulnerable to exploitation. They are also likely to drop off the radar, which makes it > Independently, and in partnership with other even less likely that they can be returned. The Red organisations operating in the sector, look to Cross believes it is inhumane to keep them living develop an operational response that supports in destitution for years with no recognition of the service users during embassy appointments. suffering they face. > Review our current policy of providing 12 weeks of destitution support and take Recommendations appropriate action to ensure the support we offer is sufficient to deal with the long-term For the Home Office destitution faced by this group. 1. Refused asylum seekers who cannot > Provide training for and raise awareness return home due to such issues as lack of among our staff and volunteers on the issue documentation should not be made destitute. of statelessness, including the option to apply Our recommendations include the need to: for exceptional case funding for Stateless applications. > Keep pregnant women and families with children on Section 95 support, regardless of their status, to prevent destitution and Research methodology safeguard the best interests of the children involved. The study employed a mixed-methods design, which included: > Provide clear, realistic and practical guidelines for single adults applying for > A desk review of existing literature and available Section 95A on what is considered as quantitative data. appropriate evidence to prove they have taken reasonable steps to obtain a travel > Semi-structured interviews with refused asylum document. seekers who cannot be returned and Red Cross refugee support staff who work with 2. The Home Office should share the burden of them. obtaining proof of taking reasonable steps to obtain a travel document. It should: > A review of the Red Cross case files for each of our interviewees, where available, enabling a > Use its resources to assist in contacting more detailed understanding of their individual embassies to request a travel document. situations.