Our Clients Challenge the UK Government's Student Visa Ban on Nationals of Afghanistan, Cameroon, Myanmar and Sudan (the so called "Visa Brake")

Today is the second day of a 2.5-day High Court trial in Sadat and Others v Secretary of State for the Home Department, a challenge to the Government's "Visa Brake" policy brought on behalf of our four clients. Introduced through changes to the Immigration Rules in March 2026, the Visa Brake prevents nationals of Afghanistan, Cameroon, Myanmar and Sudan from obtaining student visas to study in the UK.

Our clients are four women from Afghanistan, Sudan and Cameroon who secured places at UK universities before the Visa Brake came into force. They had also been awarded, or were being considered for, prestigious scholarships. Like many other individuals affected by the Visa Brake, our clients had already invested years in their education and secured opportunities to study in the UK before those opportunities were suddenly closed off.

After the Visa Brake was introduced, the Home Office instructed universities not to issue the Confirmation of Acceptance for Studies (CAS) required for a student visa application. As a result, universities withdrew or withheld offers for affected students, leaving our clients and many others unable to take up the places they had been offered. The claimants' case is that the Visa Brake is unlawful as it operates as a blanket restriction banning anyone from the affected nationalities from studying in the UK, irrespective of the fact that they wish to return to their home country subsequent to studying in the UK, whether they have established lives outside their country of nationality, hold long-term residence rights elsewhere, or can demonstrate compelling reasons why they should not be caught by the Visa Brake.

The Home Office has said that students affected by the Visa Brake can still ask for their circumstances to be considered outside the usual immigration rules. However, the claimants argue that, in practice, there is no realistic way for students to do so where the system is set up to prevent affected students from accessing the very process through which they would need to make that request.

Central to the case is the argument that the Home Office, despite accepting that its decision is racially discriminatory, failed to properly consider and address the impact of the Visa Brake, particularly on women from countries where access to higher education is already severely restricted. In Afghanistan, for example, women are prohibited from attending university, meaning that studying abroad may represent one of the few realistic routes to higher education.

Recognising the urgency of the issues raised, Mr Justice Coppel KC Ordered that the claim be expedited and listed for a rolled-up hearing, which is taking place on 28 July 2026.

The claimants are represented by Ahmed Aydeed (Partner) and his team Unkha Banda (solicitor), Ralitsa Peykova (solicitor), Natalie Hawes (solicitor), Megan Hovvels (trainee solicitor) and Sumrah Anwar (paralegal), alongside Raza Husain KC, Raj Desai, Darryl Hutcheon of Matrix Chambers and Aislinn Kelly-Lyth of Blackstone Chambers.

Pursuant to a consent order filed by the parties, the court has also agreed to link the claims of Farah & Ors, which is a similar challenge to the visa brake, to the lead claims of Sadat & Ors. Farah & Ors are represented by Duncan Lewis.

DPG is grateful to contributions from Sudanese Scholars UK, Kings College London, the University of Oxford (in particular Somerville & Mansfield), the University of Sussex, the University of Birmingham, the University of Bristol, The Weidenfeld-Hoffman Trust, Afghans for Progressive Thinking Youth, and Amnesty International.