Fresh Claim Means Different
What a fresh claim actually is — and why most aren’t
A Free Guide from Migrant Law Partnership
This is a guide, not legal advice. Every case turns on its own facts. If your case is about asylum, Legal Aid is available and you should try to find a Legal Aid solicitor before paying anyone privately.
The clue is in the word
Fresh means different. Not louder. Not tidier. Not better-argued. Different.
That is the whole guide in two lines. If you understand that, you understand more than most people who ask us about fresh claims.
Most people who contact us think a fresh claim is a rematch. Same team, same fixture, better tactics. It isn’t. A fresh claim is a different fixture. If you turn up with the same team wearing the same kit, you will get the same result.
Start with the judge’s decision, not your story
When your appeal was dismissed, the judge wrote a decision. That decision — the Tribunal determination — is now the settled starting point for everything that follows. It says what the judge accepted, what the judge did not accept, and why the case was refused.
You may disagree with all of it. That does not matter. It is the ground you now stand on.
Any lawyer who advises you on a fresh claim without reading that determination is guessing. The first thing to do is find your copy. If you have lost it, ask the Tribunal, ask your previous solicitor, or make a subject access request.
Without the determination, no one can tell you whether you have a fresh claim. With it, the question becomes obvious: what has changed since?
The test, in English
The rule is called paragraph 353. It has two parts.
One: is what you are putting forward significantly different from what has already been considered?
Two: taken together with what came before, does it give you a realistic prospect of success in front of a judge?
If yes to both, it is a fresh claim and you get a right of appeal if it is refused. If no to either, it is not a fresh claim and there is no appeal — only judicial review, which is difficult, expensive, and rarely gets anywhere.
Part one is the easier hurdle. Part two is where most cases fall.
What “different” actually looks like
Different means it was not in front of the Home Office or the Tribunal before, and it changes the picture. In practice, that usually means one of five things.
New evidence about the original claim
Documents you could not get before. A court paper. An arrest warrant. A medical report. A witness who has only now come forward. Something real, that was genuinely unavailable at the time, and that answers a point the judge decided against you.
More of the same is not different. Another supportive letter from a family member saying what earlier letters said will not do it.
Your circumstances have changed
You have converted to a different religion. You have come out. You have become politically active in a way that has put you on the radar in your country. You have developed a serious medical condition. Something genuine has changed about you, and it matters to the risk you face on return.
Your country has changed
A coup. A war. A change of government. A shift in how the authorities treat a particular group. New country evidence — Home Office Country Policy and Information Notes, UNHCR, Amnesty, Human Rights Watch — showing that the world you would go back to is not the world the judge decided about.
The law has moved on
Sometimes the higher courts change the legal position for people like you. A new Country Guidance case. A Supreme Court or Court of Appeal judgment. If the law that was applied to your case is no longer the law, that can be the basis of a fresh claim.
Something you could not say before
People sometimes cannot put forward the real basis of their claim at the time. Survivors of sexual violence. LGBTQ+ people from countries where being open would be dangerous. If there is a genuine reason you could not disclose something before, and there is now real evidence of it, that can support a fresh claim.
Late disclosure is not fatal. But it needs handling honestly, with proper evidence, not as an afterthought.
What does not work
This is the section most people do not want to read. Read it anyway. It will save you money.
Saying it again, louder
Restating your original claim, with the same evidence, is not a fresh claim. It does not matter how well written it is or how strongly you feel the Home Office got it wrong.
Disagreeing with the judge
If the judge made findings against you and you disagree, that was a matter for your appeal — and for any onward appeal on a point of law. A fresh claim is not a way to reopen findings you did not successfully challenge at the time.
The same story, better told
More detail. More emotion. More letters saying the same thing. This is still the same claim. It will not be treated as significantly different.
When you lost on the law, not on being believed
This one matters. If your claim was refused not because you were disbelieved but because the facts — even taken at their highest — did not amount to a real risk of persecution, then telling the same story again cannot help you.
An example. The judge accepted everything you said, but decided that what you described did not amount to persecution. Or that the police in your country would protect you. Or that you could safely move to another part of the country. In each case, the problem is not that you need to say it more convincingly. The legal answer would be the same however you tell it.
To move forward from here, something has to change the legal picture. New evidence about the risk. Changed country conditions. New case law. A genuinely new basis of claim. Not the same case with a fresh coat of paint.
Being a victim is not, by itself, a claim
The National Referral Mechanism decides one thing. Immigration law asks a different one.
The NRM asks: were you a victim of trafficking or modern slavery? A Reasonable Grounds and then a Conclusive Grounds decision answer that question — and in our experience the NRM does that job well and sympathetically.
Immigration law asks a different question: is there a reason you cannot return to your country of nationality? A positive NRM decision does not answer it.
This is one of the least well explained parts of the system. People go through the NRM, receive a positive Conclusive Grounds decision, and reasonably assume that recognition as a victim of modern slavery gives them the right to stay. It does not. Discretionary leave for trafficking victims is narrow. It depends on assisting a criminal investigation, on needing to remain to pursue a compensation claim, or on personal circumstances that make return unreasonably harsh or dangerous. Positive Conclusive Grounds decisions vastly outnumber grants of leave. That is not an accident. They are answering different questions.
So the real question, for immigration purposes, is the same as ever. Why can you not return to your country of nationality?
Exploitation in the UK may or may not answer that. If a trafficking network with reach in your home country would retaliate against you, that answers it. If there is a real risk of being re-trafficked on return, that answers it. If you have mental health needs that would collapse without treatment unavailable at home, that answers it. If reintegration would be unreasonably harsh in a way that goes beyond the ordinary difficulty of returning home, that may answer it.
But if none of those apply — if the exploitation happened here and there is no proper reason to think return would be dangerous — being a recognised victim of modern slavery is a serious thing that happened to you. It is not, by itself, an immigration case.
This view is not popular. It is the correct one. And telling people early is kinder than letting them spend months hoping for something that was never going to arrive.
Credibility findings
If the judge decided parts of your account were not credible, those findings normally stand. You cannot simply reargue that you were telling the truth.
There are limited exceptions:
- New evidence that could not reasonably have been available at the time, and which directly answers the credibility point
- Expert medical or psychological evidence explaining why your original account appeared inconsistent — for example, trauma affecting memory
- Expert country evidence showing the judge misunderstood the situation in your country
- You can now disclose something you could not disclose before, with evidence supporting the reason for the delay
These are exceptions. Most negative credibility findings are hard to shift, and any fresh claim that depends on shifting them has to be built properly, not asserted.
Fresh claim, human rights application, or neither?
People confuse three different things.
A fresh asylum or protection claim
You have had asylum or humanitarian protection refused, appeal rights are exhausted, and you are putting forward something significantly different about the risk on return. Legal Aid is available. We do not do Legal Aid work.
An application on family or private life grounds
Your case is about your life in the UK — a partner, children, long residence — and this has never been the basis of an application to the Home Office. That is a first application under the family and private life rules, not a fresh claim under paragraph 353. Different route, different rules, different funding. Not covered by Legal Aid. We take these privately.
Neither
Some people who have had a claim refused have no realistic new claim to make. If nothing has changed, if the legal problems with the previous claim cannot be answered by new evidence or new circumstances, and if there is no separate family or private life case to make, there may not be a viable application at all.
An honest lawyer will tell you this. It is worse than useless to spend money on a fresh claim that has no prospect of success — particularly under the tighter Home Office rules that came in from April 2026.
Funding
Legal Aid is available for fresh asylum claims. It is not available for family or private life applications.
There is a serious shortage of Legal Aid asylum solicitors, and many firms cannot take new cases. You may need to try several before you find one who can help. Keep trying.
We do not do Legal Aid. If your case is about asylum protection and you would be eligible, look for a Legal Aid solicitor before you pay anyone privately. For family or private life applications, or where you can afford private representation, we can help. Our fees are on our website.
Before you contact a solicitor
Do these four things first. It will save time, money, and a lot of frustration.
- Find your Tribunal determination. Without it, no proper advice is possible.
- Find your original Home Office refusal and any decisions since.
- Write down, in a sentence or two, what is different now from when your case was decided. If you cannot, you may not have a fresh claim.
- Gather any new documents or evidence you already have.
Where to find help
Legal Aid solicitors:
- Law Society Find a Solicitor: solicitors.lawsociety.org.uk — filter by Immigration and Legal Aid available
- Gov.uk Legal Aid Provider Search: find-legal-advice.justice.gov.uk
Free legal information:
- Right to Remain Toolkit: righttoremain.org.uk/toolkit — detailed section on fresh claims and further submissions
- Asylum Aid: asylumaid.org.uk
- Refugee Council: refugeecouncil.org.uk
About this guide
Written by Migrant Law Partnership, a not-for-profit immigration law firm. We handle privately funded immigration cases only. We do not provide Legal Aid asylum representation.
For the latest position on further submissions, the Right to Remain Toolkit is constantly updated and is the best free resource we know of.
If you spot errors or have suggestions, contact us through migrantlawpartnership.com.
Last updated: August 2026