UK Threatens Eritrea Visa Ban: Can Britain Force Migrant Returns?
Introduction
The British government has threatened Eritrea with a complete visa ban unless it agrees to accept the return of its nationals from the United Kingdom. On October 15, 2026, Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood accused the Eritrean authorities of refusing to cooperate in the removal of convicted criminals and migrants without permission to remain in Britain. The proposed Eritrea visa ban would restrict Eritrean citizens' access to UK entry clearance, placing diplomatic pressure on Asmara to cooperate with British immigration enforcement. The announcement was a warning rather than confirmation that a comprehensive ban had entered into force (Loren, 2026).
Britain already possesses statutory authority to impose visa restrictions on countries that obstruct the return of their nationals. Sections 70–74 of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 provide the relevant legal mechanism. International law also recognizes an obligation for states to receive their own citizens. Yet neither principle gives Britain an unrestricted power to compel Eritrea to accept particular individuals, and the legality of removal remains subject to separate immigration and human rights obligations.
The dispute is particularly sensitive because Eritrea has one of the highest asylum recognition rates among major nationalities seeking protection in Britain. British authorities granted protection or other leave in 84% of substantive initial decisions concerning Eritrean main applicants during the year ending June 2026 (Home Office, 2026a). Many claims arise from indefinite national service, political repression, and the treatment of people who leave Eritrea without authorization.
Three distinct legal questions determine the limits of British action: whether the government can impose visa penalties, whether Eritrea must receive its nationals, and whether particular individuals can lawfully be returned. A positive answer to one does not establish the others.
1. Britain's Visa Ultimatum to Eritrea
Shabana Mahmood's warning follows a dispute over Eritrea's alleged refusal to receive citizens whom British authorities wish to remove. The Home Secretary has argued that governments cannot expect unrestricted access to Britain's visa system while declining to cooperate with immigration enforcement. Eritrea has been singled out because, according to Mahmood, it has continued to resist returns despite opportunities to cooperate.
The proposed measure would affect Eritrean citizens seeking permission to enter Britain, potentially including applicants for work, study, and family visas. Eritrean nationals already require entry clearance for most visits to the UK. A comprehensive suspension of entry clearance would prevent covered applications from being approved rather than merely introduce an additional visa requirement.
The announcement does not establish that a general prohibition has entered into force. Nor would a visa suspension automatically terminate existing residence permits, withdraw refugee status, or authorize the removal of Eritreans currently living in Britain. Those consequences depend on separate immigration provisions and individual decisions.
British media also reported that Eritrean officials had lost access to expedited visa processing and that certain diplomatic personnel were required to obtain Foreign Office authorization before traveling outside London (Loren, 2026). The precise legal basis, scope, and categories of officials affected by these reported restrictions have not been publicly established.
The distinction is legally significant. Accredited diplomatic mission personnel are ordinarily exempt from British immigration control during their postings. Moreover, Article 26 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations requires receiving states to ensure freedom of movement for mission members, subject to laws and regulations restricting access to particular zones for national-security reasons (United Nations, 1961).
A general requirement for accredited diplomats to obtain permission to travel outside London would consequently raise separate diplomatic-law questions. Without knowing which officials were affected or the legal arrangements governing the reported measures, it is not possible to determine whether those restrictions are compatible with Britain's treaty obligations.
The ultimatum reflects a broader British policy of linking immigration cooperation to diplomatic benefits. Rather than relying exclusively on negotiations or formal readmission agreements, the government has sought to make access to British visa services conditional on cooperation with returns.
2. Why Eritreans Seek Asylum in Britain
Eritrea's prominence in Britain's asylum system reflects conditions that have driven substantial emigration for decades. Since independence from Ethiopia in 1993, the country has remained under the presidency of Isaias Afwerki. Political competition is heavily restricted, independent civic institutions have little freedom, and compulsory national service occupies a central position in public life.
These conditions help explain why Eritreans frequently seek international protection. Some leave to avoid military conscription or punishment for desertion. Others report political persecution, religious discrimination, arbitrary detention, or restrictions on their ability to leave the country legally. Economic hardship and family circumstances may also influence migration decisions.
International refugee law does not recognize every difficult economic or political circumstance as persecution. Protection depends on the applicable legal criteria and the individual's circumstances. Equally, irregular entry into Britain does not establish that a person can safely be returned to Eritrea.
2.1 National Service, Political Repression, and Illegal Exit
Eritrea's National Service Proclamation No. 82/1995 provides for compulsory service lasting 18 months. In practice, service has frequently continued for much longer, sometimes indefinitely. Conscripts may be assigned to military units, government institutions, construction projects, or civilian occupations under state control.
The United Nations Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Eritrea has repeatedly documented abuses associated with this system. In his May 2026 report, Mohamed Abdelsalam Babiker identified continuing concerns about forced labor, arbitrary detention, torture, and sexual and gender-based violence linked to national service. He reported that the government had not undertaken reforms to end indefinite conscription (Babiker, 2026, paras. 18–19).
The report describes conditions documented through remote monitoring, interviews with survivors and witnesses, and other evidence. Eritrea has denied the Special Rapporteur access to its territory, preventing direct country visits. These limitations affect how the evidence is collected, although the mandate holder states that the information was assessed and corroborated in accordance with United Nations procedures.
Leaving Eritrea legally can present an additional obstacle. Passports and exit permits are tightly controlled, particularly for individuals subject to national service. Those who depart without authorization may subsequently be regarded as deserters or draft evaders. Their treatment upon return can depend on age, military history, perceived political allegiance, and the circumstances of departure (Home Office, 2025).
2.2 Small-Boat Arrivals and Asylum Recognition Rates
Eritreans constituted the largest nationality group among people arriving in Britain by small boat during the year ending June 2026. Home Office statistics recorded 5,875 Eritrean arrivals, approximately 2% fewer than during the preceding year. Sudanese and Somali nationals were also prominent among Channel arrivals, although their recorded totals were lower (Home Office, 2026b).
The asylum figures reveal a significant distinction. During the same reporting period, Eritrean main applicants had an initial asylum grant rate of 84%, compared with an overall rate of 38%. Sudan was the only nationality among the ten receiving the most initial decisions with a higher grant rate, at 92% (Home Office, 2026a).
These percentages exclude withdrawals and administrative outcomes. They concern substantive initial asylum decisions and cannot be used to establish the immigration status of every Eritrean resident in Britain.
Nor does the number of small-boat arrivals represent a population automatically eligible for deportation. Some individuals have pending protection claims, recognized refugee status, or other grounds for remaining. Others may have had claims refused but retain appeal rights or face separate legal obstacles to removal.
The statistics nevertheless expose a difficulty in the government's approach. Britain is demanding greater cooperation in returning Eritrean nationals while its own asylum system recognizes protection needs in a substantial majority of the Eritrean cases receiving initial decisions.
3. Britain's Legal Authority to Impose Visa Penalties
The proposed UK Eritrea visa ban has a statutory foundation. Section 70 of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 authorizes immigration rules to impose visa penalties against countries specified under sections 71 or 72. The available measures include delaying entry clearance, suspending the power to grant it, treating applications as invalid, and imposing additional application charges.
Section 70(2)(b) is particularly relevant to Mahmood's warning. It permits the immigration rules to suspend the granting of entry clearance to applicants who are nationals or citizens of a specified country. This provides a potential legal basis for a general suspension, subject to the statutory requirements and any exceptions.
The power is established by British legislation rather than an international sanctions regime requiring authorization by the United Nations Security Council. Its application to Eritrea would nevertheless require the government to satisfy the relevant domestic legal conditions. A political announcement alone does not bring a visa penalty into force.
3.1 Statutory Conditions, Notice, and Review
Section 72 establishes two substantive requirements. The Home Secretary must consider that the foreign government is not cooperating with the return of nationals who lack the required UK immigration permission. That noncooperation must also have prevented Britain from returning at least some individuals.
Cooperation need not be completely absent. The legislation expressly permits action where some returns have occurred, but others remain obstructed. In assessing the foreign government's conduct, the Secretary of State must consider existing arrangements, the practical steps taken to facilitate returns, and the extent and duration of noncooperation.
Section 70(4) requires reasonable notice to the government concerned before visa penalties are introduced. Applications submitted before the relevant provisions take effect are protected from the new penalties. Section 70(6) also permits exceptions and exemptions, enabling restrictions to differ according to the circumstances or purposes specified in the immigration rules.
These exceptions could become important for families. The ordinary refugee family reunion route under Appendix Family Reunion (Sponsors with Protection) has been closed to new applications since September 4, 2025, although earlier applications remain subject to transitional arrangements. Eligible family members may instead seek admission through Appendix FM or another applicable route (Home Office, 2026c).
A nationality-based suspension could affect these applications and engage Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, depending on the circumstances. Article 8 protects private and family life but does not create an automatic entitlement to admission. Any proposed exceptions would have to be considered alongside the applicable immigration rules and human rights obligations.
Section 74 requires the Home Secretary to review the effectiveness of penalties during successive two-month periods. If the statutory conditions concerning noncooperation cease to be satisfied, the restrictions must be revoked as soon as practicable. The legislation consequently establishes a continuing mechanism for diplomatic pressure rather than an irreversible exclusion of an entire nationality.
4. Does Eritrea Have to Accept Its Nationals?
International law recognizes a general obligation for states to receive their own nationals. This obligation reflects the legal relationship between citizenship and territorial admission. Governments ordinarily enjoy broad authority to regulate the entry of foreigners, but their power to exclude their own citizens is subject to different legal constraints.
The distinction is directly relevant to Britain's dispute with Eritrea. If an individual possesses Eritrean nationality, the obligation of readmission does not disappear merely because that person has lived abroad, entered another country irregularly, or been convicted of a criminal offense.
Nationality may nevertheless require verification. Where identity documents are missing or citizenship is disputed, the receiving authorities may need to establish whether the person is legally an Eritrean national. The international obligation cannot resolve a factual disagreement about nationality without evidence.
4.1 The Duty of Readmission under International Law
The International Law Commission addressed the obligation to receive nationals in its 2014 Draft Articles on the Expulsion of Aliens. Draft Article 22 concerns the state to which an alien subject to expulsion may be sent. Its commentary identifies the state of nationality as having an existing obligation under international law to receive its nationals (International Law Commission, 2014, commentary to Article 22, para. 1).
The Draft Articles are not themselves a binding international treaty. They contain elements of codification and progressive development. The legal significance of the commentary lies in the Commission's recognition of an underlying international obligation, rather than in any independent binding force acquired by Draft Article 22.
The Commission also recognizes that another state may be a permissible destination where it has a legal obligation or agrees to receive the individual. A bilateral readmission agreement can establish procedures for confirming nationality, issuing travel documents, and organizing returns. Such agreements facilitate implementation but do not eliminate the human rights restrictions governing removal.
4.2 Why Britain Cannot Enforce Readmission Unilaterally
Article 12(4) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights protects individuals against arbitrary deprivation of the right to enter their own country. Eritrea acceded to the Covenant on January 22, 2002, and it entered into force for Eritrea on April 22 of that year (United Nations, 1966).
The Human Rights Committee has interpreted the expression "own country" as potentially extending beyond formal nationality to individuals possessing particularly strong connections with a state. General Comment No. 27 provides an authoritative interpretation of the treaty provision, although it does not itself constitute a binding judgment or amend the Covenant (Human Rights Committee, 1999, para. 20).
For Eritrean citizens, Article 12(4) reinforces the principle that their government cannot arbitrarily obstruct their return. It does not, however, confer an independent enforcement power on Britain or authorize British officials to act within Eritrean territory without the necessary legal basis.
A functioning returns arrangement normally requires cooperation over identification, documentation, transportation, and reception. Even where citizenship is established, refusal to issue documents or coordinate arrivals can prevent a removal from being completed.
Britain can seek cooperation through negotiations and lawful restrictions within its own jurisdiction. It cannot treat Eritrea's refusal as permission to exercise British enforcement authority on Eritrean territory. The proposed visa ban is intended to alter Eritrea's diplomatic incentives, rather than independently provide the means to carry out deportations.
5. Non-Refoulement and the Limits of Eritrean Returns
Eritrea's obligation to receive its nationals does not settle whether Britain may lawfully send particular people there. The principle of non-refoulement prohibits certain removals where the individual faces a sufficiently serious risk of persecution or prohibited treatment. It operates through international refugee law and additional human rights obligations.
The distinction is especially significant for Eritrean nationals convicted of criminal offenses. British law may require or permit deportation following a conviction, yet the existence of a deportation power does not establish that removal to Eritrea would be lawful.
The UK Borders Act 2007, particularly sections 32 and 33, establishes an automatic deportation framework for certain foreign criminals. The principal statutory threshold includes a sentence of imprisonment of at least 12 months, although specified serious offenses may engage the regime through separate criteria. Section 33 provides exceptions, including where removal would breach the Refugee Convention or a person's Convention rights.
Section 45 of the Sentencing Act 2026 amended the relevant definition of imprisonment to include suspended custodial sentences. For convictions on or after March 22, 2026, a suspended sentence of at least 12 months can engage the statutory duty to make a deportation order, subject to applicable exceptions and transitional provisions (Sentencing Act 2026, s. 45).
The Immigration Act 1971 also permits deportation where the Secretary of State considers it conducive to the public good. Accordingly, not every foreign national considered for deportation falls within the automatic regime. The legal basis for deportation and the separate question of whether removal may be carried out must be assessed in each case.
5.1 Refugee Protection and the Prohibition of Return
Article 33(1) of the 1951 Refugee Convention prohibits states from returning refugees to territories where their life or freedom would be threatened because of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion (United Nations, 1951).
For Eritrean applicants, the relationship between national service and political opinion is particularly significant. Punishment for desertion or evasion may amount to persecution where authorities attribute political opposition to the individual. Religious persecution and other forms of targeted mistreatment may also engage the Convention, depending on the established circumstances.
Article 33(2) contains limited exceptions relating to refugees reasonably regarded as dangers to national security or who, following conviction by final judgment of a particularly serious crime, constitute dangers to the community. These exceptions do not extend automatically to every refugee convicted of a criminal offense.
British legislation addresses the particularly serious crime threshold through section 72 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, as amended by section 38 of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022. The domestic provisions establish presumptions concerning serious criminality and danger to the community, subject to the applicable statutory conditions and the possibility of rebuttal.
Section 51 of the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025 introduced an additional category of particularly serious crimes involving specified sexual offenses. In force since February 2, 2026, the amendment provides that qualifying convictions under Schedule 3 to the Sexual Offences Act 2003, including equivalent convictions abroad, engage rebuttable presumptions concerning serious criminality and danger to the community.
These statutory presumptions remain subject to the applicable legal tests and procedural safeguards. A qualifying conviction does not automatically establish that removal to Eritrea is lawful, even where the individual may fall within an exception to Refugee Convention protection.
Britain remains bound by separate human rights obligations. The Refugee Convention's qualified protection cannot be treated as permission to return a person to torture or other treatment prohibited absolutely under the European Convention on Human Rights.
5.2 Article 3 of the ECHR and Convicted Foreign Offenders
Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights prohibits torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. The European Court of Human Rights has interpreted this provision as preventing removal where substantial grounds establish a real risk of such treatment in the destination country.
In Saadi v. Italy, the Grand Chamber reaffirmed the absolute character of this protection. The case concerned a Tunisian national whom Italy sought to deport despite evidence of a risk of serious mistreatment in Tunisia. The Court held that the danger an individual might pose to the community could not be balanced against the risk of treatment prohibited by Article 3 (ECtHR, 2008, application no. 37201/06, paras. 125–127).
The Court's reasoning establishes that public-security concerns cannot justify removal where the relevant Article 3 risk exists. This remains the position even when the person concerned has committed serious criminal offenses or is regarded as a threat to national security.
The Human Rights Act 1998 gives this protection direct significance in British administration. Section 6 makes it unlawful for public authorities to act incompatibly with Convention rights, subject to the Act's statutory qualifications. Immigration decisions involving removal must consequently account for the applicable Article 3 obligations.
For convicted Eritrean nationals, the consequences are substantial. An individual may satisfy the statutory conditions for deportation but remain protected against removal to Eritrea if the required risk is established. That restriction does not necessarily confer an unconditional entitlement to permanent residence in Britain. It prevents removal to a destination where the prohibited treatment is sufficiently likely.
5.3 Eritrea Country Guidance in MST and Others
British asylum decision-making concerning Eritrea is substantially informed by MST and Others (National Service – Risk Categories) Eritrea CG [2016] UKUT 443 (IAC). The Upper Tribunal examined the treatment likely to be faced by Eritreans returning after illegal departure, draft evasion, or desertion.
The Tribunal found that individuals of, or approaching, national-service age who left Eritrea illegally could face a real risk of persecution or serious harm where authorities perceived them as deserters or draft evaders. Such persecution was highly likely to involve an imputed political opinion, bringing it within the Refugee Convention (MST and Others, 2016, paras. 430–431).
The judgment also examined Eritrean national service under Article 4 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Article 4(1) prohibits slavery and servitude, while Article 4(2) prohibits forced or compulsory labor. Article 4(3) identifies categories of work and service excluded from the latter prohibition, including certain forms of military service and ordinary civic obligations.
The Tribunal did not conclude that the Eritrean national-service system as a whole constituted slavery or servitude under Article 4(1). It found, however, that the system involved forced or compulsory labor prohibited by Article 4(2), because its conditions and open-ended character placed it outside the permitted exceptions under Article 4(3) (MST and Others, 2016, paras. 418–429).
The Tribunal further concluded that a real risk of having to perform active national-service duties on return, including civilian assignments, could amount to a flagrant breach of Article 4(2) and engage Article 3 ECHR. Its findings distinguished active national service from the separate People's Militia system and from the position of reservists not facing a sufficiently likely recall.
These conclusions do not establish that every Eritrean who departed illegally is automatically entitled to protection. The Tribunal recognized limited categories of lawful departure and individual circumstances capable of affecting the risk assessment. It also held that being an unsuccessful asylum seeker was not, by itself, sufficient to establish a real risk of persecution.
The Home Office's December 2025 Country Policy and Information Note continued to apply the Tribunal's central country guidance. The department concluded that subsequent country evidence did not establish sufficiently strong grounds for departing from the principal findings concerning national service and return risks (Home Office, 2025).
That policy assessment must be distinguished from the Tribunal's judicial conclusions. Country guidance has particular significance in immigration adjudication, while Home Office policy notes assist administrative decision-making and remain subject to the applicable law and evidence in individual cases.
The distinction between temporary visits and involuntary return is also important. Some Eritreans living abroad obtain documents through arrangements involving a diaspora tax, declarations of regret, or recognition of temporary diaspora status. Their ability to visit Eritrea does not establish that a person with a different military or political history can safely be deported.
In his May 2026 report, the UN Special Rapporteur described serious risks faced by Eritrean refugees forcibly returned from neighboring countries, particularly Ethiopia. He identified concerns involving arbitrary detention, torture, enforced disappearance, and forced conscription (Babiker, 2026, para. 99).
The evidence concerns returns from regional host countries and should not be treated as direct proof of what would happen to every individual deported from Britain. It nevertheless provides relevant information about conditions that British authorities must assess. The Home Office itself acknowledges the scarcity of reliable evidence concerning involuntary returnees and the unpredictable nature of their treatment.
6. Diplomatic Pressure and the Prospects for Migrant Returns
Britain's threat against Eritrea follows an earlier use of visa-related pressure against Angola, Namibia, and the Democratic Republic of Congo. In February 2026, the Home Office announced that all three governments had agreed to cooperate with returns following British warnings and restrictions affecting preferential visa services (Home Office, 2026d).
The government presented these agreements as evidence that immigration-related diplomatic penalties could secure concessions. The announcement also stated that removal flights had begun. However, it did not establish how many individual removals to each country resulted directly from the policy.
Diplomatic acceptance of a readmission arrangement and the completion of individual removals are different outcomes. Each return depends on confirming nationality, obtaining necessary documentation, establishing legal eligibility for removal, and coordinating transportation with the receiving state.
Eritrea presents particular difficulties because of its restrictive administrative system and the human rights concerns associated with involuntary return. The British government has itself criticized the country's indefinite national-service system. These concerns create a tension between the government's objective of increasing returns and its responsibility to assess protection claims arising from Eritrean conditions.
Relations between Eritrea and Ethiopia have also deteriorated. In October 2026, both governments exchanged accusations concerning military activity near the disputed frontier and developments in the Tigray region. Reuters reported Eritrea's denial of Ethiopian allegations concerning an incursion, alongside subsequent military movements close to the border (Reuters, 2026).
The renewed tensions do not establish that every Eritrean returnee faces additional danger. They may, however, become relevant to future assessments where military mobilization, conscription, or perceived political allegiance affects an individual's circumstances. Such developments require evidence-based evaluation rather than assumptions about an inevitable escalation.
Britain and Eritrea continue to maintain formal diplomatic relations, including a British embassy in Asmara. These channels allow negotiations to continue despite disagreement over migration and human rights. An effective arrangement could establish procedures for confirming nationality, supplying travel documents, and receiving individuals whom Britain can lawfully remove.
Eritrean consular practices create additional operational difficulties. The UN Special Rapporteur reported in 2026 that Eritreans abroad may encounter demands involving the diaspora tax or declarations of regret when requesting passports and other civil documents. He characterized aspects of these practices as coercive and raised concerns about their use against diaspora communities (Babiker, 2026, paras. 84–85).
Such practices are relevant because documentation can determine whether a return can proceed. Even where Britain has made a lawful removal decision, the absence of recognized travel documents or effective receiving-state arrangements may prevent its implementation.
If Eritrea continues refusing returns, Britain may impose statutory visa restrictions while remaining unable to remove some individuals. If Eritrea agrees to receive its citizens, the separate legal protections governing each removal will continue to apply. A diplomatic agreement cannot authorize deportation where a person's established risk engages the prohibition of refoulement.
The effectiveness of Mahmood's policy will depend on the extent of Eritrean cooperation, the number of legally permissible returns that can actually be completed, and whether the statutory conditions for maintaining visa restrictions continue to exist.
Also read
Conclusion
Britain can legally threaten Eritrea with visa penalties and, subject to the requirements of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022, suspend entry clearance for its nationals. International law also recognizes Eritrea's obligation to receive its own citizens. These principles establish responsibilities on both sides, but they do not give Britain a unilateral power to compel Eritrean officials to accept particular individuals.
The legal limits on removal are especially significant because many Eritreans have credible protection claims arising from indefinite national service, political repression, and the treatment of suspected deserters. Refugee law restricts returns involving persecution, while Article 3 ECHR prohibits deportation where the required risk of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment is established. Criminal convictions and unsuccessful asylum applications do not automatically extinguish these protections.
The October 2026 ultimatum leaves two questions unresolved: whether Eritrea will agree to cooperate and how many Eritrean nationals Britain can lawfully remove if that cooperation is secured. Visa restrictions may change the diplomatic relationship between London and Asmara, but their effectiveness depends on practical arrangements that cannot be created by British legislation alone.
Britain's ability to impose a visa ban is consequently much broader than its ability to secure individual returns. Eritrea's duty to receive its nationals and Britain's duty to protect people against prohibited treatment remain legally distinct. Neither government's immigration objectives can eliminate the obligations imposed by international law.
References
Babiker, M.A. (2026) Situation of human rights in Eritrea: Report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Eritrea, Mohamed Abdelsalam Babiker. United Nations Human Rights Council, A/HRC/62/20, 7 May. Available at: https://docs.un.org/en/A/HRC/62/20 (Accessed: 15 October 2026).
Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025 (2025) c. 31, 2 December. United Kingdom. Available at: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2025/31/contents (Accessed: 15 October 2026).
Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (1950) Rome, 4 November 1950, entered into force 3 September 1953, ETS No. 5, 213 UNTS 221. Available at: https://www.coe.int/web/conventions/full-list2?module=treaty-detail&treatynum=005 (Accessed: 15 October 2026).
Convention relating to the Status of Refugees (1951) Geneva, 28 July 1951, entered into force 22 April 1954, 189 UNTS 137. Available at: https://treaties.un.org/Pages/showDetails.aspx?objid=080000028003002e (Accessed: 15 October 2026).
Eritrea (1995) Proclamation on National Service No. 82/1995, 23 October. Available at: https://www.refworld.org/legal/legislation/natlegbod/1995/32119 (Accessed: 15 October 2026).
European Court of Human Rights (2008) Saadi v. Italy, Grand Chamber judgment, 28 February, Application No. 37201/06, ECHR 2008-II. Available at: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-85276 (Accessed: 15 October 2026).
Home Office (2025) Country policy and information note: National service and illegal exit, Eritrea. Version 7.0, December. London: Home Office. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/eritrea-country-policy-and-information-notes/country-policy-and-information-note-national-service-and-illegal-exit-eritrea-december-2025-accessible (Accessed: 15 October 2026).
Home Office (2026a) How many people are granted asylum in the UK? Immigration system statistics, year ending June 2026 [online]. Published 27 August. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/immigration-system-statistics-year-ending-june-2026/how-many-people-are-granted-asylum-in-the-uk (Accessed: 15 October 2026).
Home Office (2026b) How many people come to the UK via illegal entry routes? Immigration system statistics, year ending June 2026 [online]. Published 27 August. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/immigration-system-statistics-year-ending-june-2026/how-many-people-come-to-the-uk-via-illegal-entry-routes (Accessed: 15 October 2026).
Home Office (2026c) Immigration Rules Appendix Family Reunion (Sponsors with Protection) [online]. Updated 3 August. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/immigration-rules/immigration-rules-appendix-family-reunion-sponsors-with-protection (Accessed: 15 October 2026).
Home Office (2026d) ‘Three countries to take back illegal migrants after visa threat’ [online]. GOV.UK, 6 February. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/three-countries-to-take-back-illegal-migrants-after-visa-threat (Accessed: 15 October 2026).
Human Rights Act 1998 (1998) c. 42, 9 November. United Kingdom. Available at: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/section/6 (Accessed: 15 October 2026).
Human Rights Committee (1999) General Comment No. 27: Freedom of movement (Article 12), CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.9, 1 November. Geneva: United Nations. Available at: https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/366604 (Accessed: 15 October 2026).
Immigration Act 1971 (1971) c. 77, 28 October. United Kingdom. Available at: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1971/77/contents (Accessed: 15 October 2026).
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966) New York, 16 December 1966, entered into force 23 March 1976, 999 UNTS 171. Available at: https://treaties.un.org/Pages/showDetails.aspx?clang=_en&objid=0800000280004bf5 (Accessed: 15 October 2026).
International Law Commission (2014) Draft articles on the expulsion of aliens, with commentaries, in Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its sixty-sixth session, A/69/10, Chapter IV. New York: United Nations. Available at: https://legal.un.org/ilc/documentation/english/reports/a_69_10.pdf (Accessed: 15 October 2026).
Loren, A. (2026) ‘Eritreans face total UK visa ban in row over return of small boat migrants’, The Independent, 15 October [online]. Available at: https://www.the-independent.com/news/uk/politics/eritreans-meaning-visas-shabana-mahmood-b3067125.html (Accessed: 15 October 2026).
Nationality and Borders Act 2022 (2022) c. 36, 28 April. United Kingdom. Available at: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2022/36/contents (Accessed: 15 October 2026).
Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (2002) c. 41, 7 November. United Kingdom. Available at: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2002/41/contents (Accessed: 15 October 2026).
Reuters (2026) ‘Ethiopian troops enter town on border with Eritrea, stoking war fears’, Reuters, 13 October [online]. Available at: https://www.reuters.com/world/africa/ethiopian-troops-enter-town-border-with-eritrea-stoking-war-fears-2026-10-13/ (Accessed: 15 October 2026).
Sentencing Act 2026 (2026) c. 2, section 45. United Kingdom. Available at: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2026/2/section/45 (Accessed: 15 October 2026).
UK Borders Act 2007 (2007) c. 30, 30 October. United Kingdom. Available at: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2007/30/section/32 (Accessed: 15 October 2026).
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) (2016) MST and Others (National Service – Risk Categories) Eritrea CG, decision promulgated 7 October, [2016] UKUT 00443 (IAC). Available at: https://www.refworld.org/jurisprudence/caselaw/gbrutiac/2016/112990 (Accessed: 15 October 2026).
Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (1961) Vienna, 18 April 1961, entered into force 24 April 1964, 500 UNTS 95. Available at: https://treaties.un.org/Pages/showDetails.aspx?objid=0800000280033940 (Accessed: 15 October 2026).