One of the claims heard at London’s Royal Courts of Justice was brought by 3 female Sudanese trainees looking for to reverse the Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood’s March 2026 ban cracking down on declared abuse of the visa system.
Represented by Duncan Lewis law firm, two of the women are medical professionals and one is a pharmacist, holding master’s deals from Oxford University and University College London (UCL).
“Our customers argued before the High Court last week that the Home Secretary had actually picked Sudan for the imposition of a blanket restriction on an approximate basis, with no evidence of visa abuse devoted by Sudanese nationals,” said Duncan Lewis Solicitor Manini Menon.
They argued that had the Home Secretary evaluated the realities of their cases, it would have appeared to her that they each meant to travel to the UK solely for the function of study and had no objective whatsoever to remain in the UK after graduation.
What’s more, the case declared the government failed to consider other alternatives to the blanket restriction and in executing the policy, had unjustly limited the department’s capability to make choices on a case-by-case basis.
Regardless of the policy’s stated purpose of dealing with “visa abuse” of trainees declaring asylum, the plaintiffs stated the Home Office stopped working to examine whether any such abuse occurred amongst nationals of the targeted countries, with Mahmood having confessed she did not perform such queries.
Rather, she now claims the visa brake was never ever targeted at “visa abuse” at all but rather that it looked for to avoid all in-country asylum claims by impacted nationals– a position that legal representatives say is inconsistent with the federal government’s public declarations.
On revealing the policy, the Home Secretary said: “Britain will constantly offer sanctuary to individuals getting away war and persecution, but our visa system need to not be abused.”
Our customers are all medical professionals working on problems of public health and sexual and reproductive rights … all of which HM Government has actually identified in its foreign policy as being essential UK top priorities in Sudan
Manini Menon, Duncan Lewis
The Home Office mentioned asylum applications from the 4 targeted nations increased by more than 470% in four years, a figure the plaintiffs argued was arbitrarily determined and bears no relationship to the realities.
The figure drew criticism at the time, with specialists calling it a “distortion” considered that just 120 Sudanese students applied for asylum in the year up to September, out of an overall of more than 110,000 asylum declares to the UK.
What’s more, while the 4 affected countries have actually seen large enrolment percentage boosts, none of them are near the top of the list for the overall number of trainees declaring asylum.
Legal representatives for the trainees called them “skilled, high-achieving females” who have actually secured admission to some of the top universities on the planet.
“It is disappointing that the Home Secretary has chosen that they should be deprived of the opportunity to take up their offers of research study solely on account of their nationality, with no assessment of the specific realities of their cases,” stated Menon.
“This is particularly so in scenarios where our clients are all physician dealing with concerns of public health and sexual and reproductive rights (consisting of removal of the practice of FGM), all of which HM Federal government has actually acknowledged in its diplomacy as being essential UK priorities in Sudan,” she highlighted.
Menon said the case had been “hugely expedited” due to the incoming start of the scholastic year, with a judgement expected next week. It was heard alongside another legal obstacle brought by a more four trainees from the targeted countries.
The PIE News understands Oxford University has actually agreed to keep offers and scholarships open for the plaintiffs till this August 31.
On The Other Hand, University College London (UCL) has actually agreed to defer its deal by one year if the plaintiffs succeed, to offer the afflicted student time to raise the funds for her research studies, following the sudden termination Chevening Scholarships for impacted people after the policy’s execution in March 2026.
In a funding campaign for the legal expenses, among the students stated she understood the UK government’s issue that visa paths ought to not be abused, but that her scenarios show the problematic nature of blanket policies.
“The focus of my career is supporting health systems in low-income and conflict-affected settings, particularly in Sudan and the surrounding region,” she said.
“I have actually taken a trip to the UK and to Europe on a number of occasions considering that the outbreak of war in Sudan– if I had any intent of claiming asylum, I might have done so then, without going to the difficulty of applying to (and protecting admission to) one of the most prestigious universities in the world.”
“Yet the impact of the Home Secretary’s policy is to treat me and numerous others like me as ‘violent’ candidates,” she composed.