Q&A: Why do asylum seekers come to the UK?

What influences destination choices among asylum seekers?

Asylum seekers are people who have applied to be recognised as refugees. They include people who will go on to receive refugee status due to risks of harm in their countries of origin, as well as people who will not qualify (for more details, see Asylum and refugee resettlement in the UK).

Most people fleeing instability in their countries of origin remain in neighbouring states rather than move further afield, with significant numbers also displaced within their own countries. Around two-thirds of all refugees hosted worldwide were in a country neighbouring their own in 2024, according to the UNHCR.

Other asylum seekers move on to different countries, including wealthier ones like the UK. Since 2016, the UK has received a growing share of asylum applications in Europe, partly because more people have been claiming asylum in the UK. A decline in applications and unauthorised arrivals in the EU also played a role, apart from a period of high inflows around 2023.

Figure 1

Many factors influence the ultimate destinations of asylum seekers. In public debates these are often described as “push” and “pull” factors, though some scholars argue that this terminology oversimplifies the complexity of migration choices.

To a significant extent, prospective asylum seekers’ initial migration decisions are shaped by factors related to their country of origin, such as such as economic instability, political repression, or widespread violence.

How people decide where to move next varies widely. Some leave their countries of origin with a clear destination in mind — for example, to join relatives in a particular country. Others don’t choose a destination at all, with decisions made by other actors such as families or smugglers. However, most asylum seekers are likely to be somewhere between these extremes. For instance, some asylum seekers have a broad desire to reach Europe, and no clear idea of which country on the continent they would prefer to settle in. Others change their plans along the way, because they gain new information, their initial destination refuses their asylum claim, or they face limited economic opportunities or perceive an unwelcoming environment there.

Many factors that attract asylum seekers to specific destinations are independent from governments’ immigration policies in the short run – differences in economic standards of living, historical or colonial ties, existing social networks amid diasporas already living in the country, or the attraction of widely spoken languages like English.

Yet there is evidence that other factors – and hence related changes to government policy – can also influence decisions among some asylum seekers. The strength of this evidence varies across different factors, with recognition rates and access to family reunion showing the most consistent effects. Since many asylum seekers may have relatively limited information about the policies awaiting them at destination, though, their subjective perceptions of countries are also key, even if they often differ from the objective policy reality.

Both policy and non-policy factors will influence different groups of asylum seekers in different ways. This is one reason that the share of asylum applicants the UK receives within Europe varies greatly by country of origin (Figure 2).

Figure 2

How does the chance of obtaining legal status affect asylum decisions?

The chances of being granted asylum and thus being able to live in the destination country with legal status can influence decision-making. Multiple studies have found that higher grant rates are associated with more asylum applications. This is supported by qualitative work which highlights that the prospect of obtaining legal status is a top consideration when asylum seekers decide whether and where to migrate. In several recent cases, severe restrictions on access to the asylum system were followed by reduced arrivals, such as Australia in the 2010s or the United States in 2025.

Figure 3

In the UK, the initial decision grant rate was 42% in 2025. The grant rate increased sharply after the late 2010s, reaching a peak of 76% in 2022. It then declined rapidly from 2024 onwards. This followed changes in the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 which made it harder for applicants to meet the threshold for requiring protection. The government also updated its guidance for some important countries of origin such as Syria and Afghanistan.

Between 2019 and 2023, grant rates in the UK were significantly above the EU average. Some European countries consistently had much lower grant rates of around 30%, including France. These patterns were also clear among top nationalities, such as Afghans or Pakistanis. Grant rates in the UK and EU then converged to similar levels starting in 2024. Comparatively high grant rates may have contributed to recent increases in the number of asylum applications in the UK. However, it is unclear if the fall of the UK’s grant rate to EU averages starting in 2024 might lead to a subsequent decline in applications. Comparable data across countries are limited, but a lower grant rate for initial decisions does not necessarily mean that asylum seekers became less likely to be able to remain in the UK. Many of those initially refused asylum are granted status after appeal – 39% of substantive appeal decisions were positive in 2025 – and a significant share of those with a final negative decision are not returned from the UK (see below). Asylum claims in the UK remained close to record levels in 2025.

Does access to permanent residence affect asylum seekers’ choices?

It is unclear whether the type of status granted to refugees – whether and under what conditions they can obtain permanent residence – can influence destination choices among asylum seekers. Few studies explicitly compare permanent and temporary alternatives. In one case, Sweden in the early 2010s, reforms leading to automatic permanent residence for some refugees appeared to have led to an increase in asylum claims, indicating that policy changes can directly affect numbers. Yet other work found no connection between permanent residence rules and the number of asylum applications received by European countries. When it comes to migration decisions in general, one study suggests that access to permanent residence may matter, but not the amount of time it takes to obtain it.

In the UK, refugees have a five-year path to permanent residence, with no additional requirements other than continuous residence and no serious criminal conduct. The duration is similar to other major EU destinations, but those countries often impose more stringent requirements, such as language or income tests (Table 1).

The government has said it will review refugees’ need for protection every 2.5 years, although in practice it remains unclear how these reviews will function, and how many refugees may eventually be returned to their countries of origin. (In Denmark, the only European country with a similar system, relatively few refugees had their status removed after reviews within the first few years, and none were forcibly removed). The government has also been consulting on future changes to permanent residence policies, which would increase the waiting time and requirements for permanent status. If implemented, these would make the UK’s policies more restrictive than other European countries.

Table 1

Does access to refugee family reunion attract asylum seekers?

Access to family reunion after being granted status matters for refugees – research suggests it can influence their choice of destination. Although evidence remains limited, a couple of recent studies reveal a strong link between family reunion policies and the distribution of asylum applications across Europe, as countries with more permissive rules tend to receive more claims.

In the UK, refugees wanting to bring over their partner or children need an income of at least £29,000 a year, and relatives need to pass a basic English language test. These are the same conditions as for British nationals seeking to reunite with their families, or for other migrants with settlement. The UK had a bespoke route for refugee family reunion until September 2025, which allowed partners and children of refugees to join them without any restrictions, as long as their relationship predated their initial displacement. In the last three years of the family reunion route being open, there was roughly one person arriving on a refugee family reunion visa for every three grants of asylum.

Compared to its European peers, the UK currently has more restrictive refugee family reunion policies in some areas, though it is also more liberal in other dimensions. Its previous rules were more liberal than many of its peers. One of the key differences between the UK and EU countries, however, is that the UK gives almost all successful asylum applicants the same rights and status, whereas EU peers make greater use of ‘subsidiary protection’ for those who do not qualify as refugees under the Refugee Convention. EU peers often have more restrictions on family reunion for people with subsidiary protection (Table 2). For instance, Germany and Greece do not allow any access to family reunion for refugees granted subsidiary protection.

Table 2

Does access to work attract asylum seekers?

It remains unclear whether access to work during the asylum process influences the choice of destination among applicants. Countries face a trade-off when it comes to work rights for asylum seekers – allowing work while an application is pending may reduce costs for the government and improve integration, but may also attract economic migrants into the asylum system. One study identified a small negative effect of employment bans on asylum flows, while other research found no connection between policy changes and arrivals. In theory, there are several reasons why work rights may have a limited impact on the decisions of asylum seekers – they may have limited knowledge of policies at destination, be willing and able to work illegally, or prioritise longer-term factors like obtaining status over short-term considerations during the asylum process.

In the UK, asylum seekers with a pending application are generally not allowed to work. They can apply for permission to if they have been waiting for a decision for more than 12 months, though only in high-skilled jobs.

The UK is more restrictive than its European peers when it comes to work rights for asylum seekers. All EU countries have shorter waiting periods than the UK, from no wait at all in Sweden, to 6 months in France or Denmark. Some countries offer full access to labour markets after this waiting period, while others restrict work to certain jobs or sectors.

Table 3

Does access to illegal work and a lack of ID cards attract asylum seekers to the UK?

There is no clear evidence on whether access to illegal work encourages people to seek asylum in a country. In theory, being able to work without authorisation – whether during an application, or after being refused – could influence where asylum seekers choose to go. Research shows that the prospect of obtaining a job and earning money is important for asylum seekers, shaping their decisions to migrate. In the UK, some unauthorised migrants have often been found to work illegally in businesses like car washes and restaurants. There is also evidence of asylum seekers with pending applications finding unauthorised work in sectors like food delivery. However, there is insufficient evidence on the impact of access to illegal work on the decisions of asylum seekers. Subjective perceptions may be more important than the actual situation at destination – for example, many asylum seekers tend to overestimate their chances of success after arrival.

In the UK, restrictions on illegal working include mandatory right-to-work checks, enforcement raids on workplaces suspected of employing unauthorised migrants, and penalties for employers hiring people without authorisation. This is similar to the policies in other European countries.

The UK’s shadow economy – which is where unauthorised migrants often work – is smaller than or comparable to that of its peers. One key difference is the UK’s lack of ID cards. French officials have frequently argued that this makes illegal working easier in the UK and thereby acts as a pull factor from other European countries. However, there is no evidence that illegal working is easier or more widespread in the UK compared to other European countries. There may be differences in practice and enforcement between countries despite the similar legal frameworks, though no data are available.

Do welfare benefits and better reception conditions attract asylum seekers?

Evidence on the impacts of benefits or reception conditions in destination countries is limited. Interviews with asylum seekers in Europe show that at least some of them actively consider reception conditions and welfare policies which countries to go to, or stay in. However, other asylum seekers have a limited understanding of welfare policies in different destination countries. When it comes to the support provided to asylum seekers with ongoing claims, there is no evidence on how it influences their decisions about where to move. Research instead focuses on the role of welfare benefits for recognised refugees. That work suggests benefits may shape where refugees – and other migrants likely to access support – choose to settle. Welfare policy has been linked to where certain immigrants live within a country, how many asylum seekers and family migrants arrive, and where refugees settle within a country. These findings are not universal across contexts and studies, though.

In the UK, asylum seekers do not have access to mainstream benefits while their application is pending. Instead, they are provided with accommodation and subsistence payments of £49 a week. Support usually ends if the application is rejected and appeals are exhausted. If asylum is granted, people acquire full access to public benefits, including Universal Credit and housing support. There are no precise data on the share of refugees who receive benefits, though it is likely to be relatively high. Around 133,000 refugees were receiving Universal Credit in February 2026, excluding people who had already been granted settlement or citizenship—a majority of the 194,000 adults who held temporary leave to remain as refugees (at the end of 2025).

In theory, the UK and most other European countries offer similar support to asylum seekers while their application is pending. This includes accommodation and limited cash payments for necessities. Payments in other countries are similar or higher than in the UK. One key difference is that unlike most of its peers, the UK does not have formal reception centres. It relies instead on a combination of community housing and hotels to accommodate asylum seekers. In practice, countries like France have faced severe housing shortages, leaving large shares of asylum seekers without government accommodation, and reliant on charities and informal settlement. The UK also faced shortages but responded by sharply increasing its use of hotels. For more details, see Asylum accommodation in the UK.

After receiving status, refugees generally gain full access to welfare systems in most countries, though there are differences. For instance, in Denmark refugees receive smaller benefit payments than citizens, and they are conditional on participating in language and integration programmes. In contrast, Norway offers higher benefits to refugees participating in such programmes. These are available in several other countries, sometimes offering skills training and job support. There are no such programmes in the UK, though local councils can provide additional support like English classes. The generosity of mainstream welfare benefits also varies significantly between European states.

Table 4

Does a low risk of being returned after a refused application attract asylum applicants?

Evidence is limited on whether a low risk of being returned after a refused application affects people’s decisions about where to apply for asylum. One study showed that EU countries who returned a higher share of refused asylum seekers subsequently saw no decrease in the number of applications. Another similarly found that repatriation rates had no effect on average, but that low returns were associated with more asylum applications for nationalities with low grant rates when processing times were long.

In the UK, asylum seekers are liable for removal after their application and any appeals are rejected. In practice, however, many remain in the UK without authorisation. Under half (46%) of refused asylum seekers who first applied in the decade between 2013 and 2022 had been returned by the end of March 2026, either forcibly or voluntarily. For more details, see Deportation and returns of unauthorised migrants from the UK.

Other European states similarly require asylum seekers to leave after a final refusal, and place varying restrictions on their ability to remain in the country without authorisation. Comparable data for returns of refused asylum seekers do not exist. However, returns of unauthorised migrants more broadly (including refused asylum seekers) are relatively low in the EU. For every four people ordered to leave the EU in 2024, there was one actual return.

Figure 4

Did Brexit attract asylum seekers to the UK?

There is some evidence that Brexit may have influenced the decision of some asylum seekers to come to the UK, although its impact is impossible to quantify.

While still a member of the EU, the UK participated in the Dublin system. In theory, this allows asylum seekers in the EU to be returned to their country of first arrival, and enables information sharing on asylum applications made in other member states, using the Eurodac fingerprint database. However, before Brexit, the practical impact of Dublin appeared limited. A majority of asylum seekers checked by the UK could not be matched against Eurodac, meaning they had not applied for asylum in another member state, or been detected crossing their border. The UK checked around 40,000 applicants in 2019, of whom 13,000 had claimed previously asylum in another member state. In addition, relatively few people were returned to other member states when the UK was still part of Dublin – an average of 560 a year between 2008 and 2020.

Nonetheless, in interviews, migrants in Northern France often cite the departure from Dublin as a reason for wanting to seek asylum in the UK, particularly if they had already been refused protection in the EU. There are no data on what share of people crossing to the UK in small boats have previously been refused asylum in Europe, however, and whether this has changed since the pre-Brexit period when only a minority of asylum seekers were matched against the Eurodac database.

Other factors unrelated to Brexit also help explain why small boat arrivals increased after 2020, such as the professionalisation of smuggling gangs facilitating crossings from Northern France.

Conclusion: what attracts asylum seekers to the UK?

Many of the factors shaping asylum seekers’ decisions are outside the control of governments in destination countries like the UK, including push factors related to instability in countries of origin, and pull factors like language and social networks. However, government policy can also matter, influencing the number of people claiming asylum in a country.

The evidence is arguably strongest for two potential factors – the asylum grant rate, and access to refugee family reunion. It is hard to know to what extent recent increases in asylum applications in the UK were related to these factors. The UK had higher asylum grant rates than most other European countries between 2019 and 2023, though this is no longer the case. Before restrictions were introduced in September 2025, family reunion policy in the UK was similar to countries like France and Italy, but more generous than in Germany or Denmark. A third factor may have encouraged some UK asylum applications, namely the UK’s loss of access to EU asylum arrangements after Brexit, but the evidence does not tell us the size of any impact.

The evidence is rather mixed for many of the other potential pull factors that surface in public debate. The impact of easier access to permanent residence, faster granting of working rights for asylum seekers, more accessible illegal working, lower chances of being returned after a failed application, or more generous welfare benefits and reception conditions are all difficult to evaluate. These are also areas where UK polices have been relatively similar to most of its European peers.

Finally, an important consideration is that the impact of policies on individual decisions will vary across different groups of asylum seekers. While some consider multiple destinations, others may already have exhausted other options by the time they come to the UK. Changes in policy are likely to have a more limited impact on such people, though they may more meaningfully influence decisions among the rest.

Acknowledgements

Thanks to Tony Smith CBE and Eric Neumayer for providing comments on an earlier draft. All errors remain our own.