{"id":29086,"date":"2026-06-10T10:35:41","date_gmt":"2026-06-10T15:35:41","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/?p=29086"},"modified":"2026-06-10T10:35:41","modified_gmt":"2026-06-10T15:35:41","slug":"uk-court-recognizes-climate-migration-as-a-human-right-fa-v-the-secretary-of-state-for-the-home-department-2025","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2026\/06\/10\/uk-court-recognizes-climate-migration-as-a-human-right-fa-v-the-secretary-of-state-for-the-home-department-2025\/","title":{"rendered":"UK Court Recognizes Climate Migration as a Human Right: FA v. the Secretary of State for the Home Department (2025)"},"content":{"rendered":"

In November 2025, one of the first climate-related asylum appeals was reviewed in the UK, by the UK\u2019s First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) and approved on human rights grounds. In FA v Secretary of State for the Home Department (SSHD)<\/a>,<\/em> the appellant (FA) argued that climate-related hardship, poor mental health relating to the loss of his house to a typhoon, and family (partner) separation would constitute a violation of his human rights if he were returned to the Philippines, particularly the right to private and family life (Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)). The Tribunal Judge determined that the individual would be allowed to remain in the UK, preventing his removal back to his home country, the Philippines. This blog post discusses how this case fits in with the UK legal system, other European climate migration cases, and broader legal approaches to climate-related migration to receiving countries. It proceeds by providing a background on the UK asylum system and the FA<\/em> case, how the case tackled the question of \u2018climate refugees\u2019, how the case relates to decisions by other domestic courts, and pathways forward for potential climate-related protections for those seeking asylum in the UK. With the latter, it considers the impact of a potential case at the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR).<\/p>\n

Background<\/strong><\/p>\n

When a person claims asylum in the UK, they explain their reasons for seeking asylum in a series of interviews (\u2018screening\u2019 and \u2018substantive\u2019) and then wait for an outcome decision from the UK Home Office. Some decisions are issued relatively quickly, while others can take many months or longer. If the claim is refused, the applicant can lodge an appeal within 14 days with the First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber). After time is taken to provide and review more evidence, the appeal culminates in a hearing. The FA<\/em> case demonstrates a successful outcome following an oral hearing.<\/p>\n

The Appellant applied for asylum in November 2020. In both his screening and substantive interviews, he stated that the basis of his claim was the loss of his home during Typhoon Ondoy in 2009. The Appellant received a refusal decision later that month, with the Respondent treating his claim as falling outside the Refugee Convention (Non-Convention reason). The Appellant appealed this decision within the required 14-day period. The appeal materials submitted by the appellant and their legal team* included a Country Expert Report and a psychiatric report. These materials evidenced the Appellant\u2019s claim that they did not receive aid, and that corruption is affecting the delivery of aid. They also demonstrate that the Philippines is among the countries most at risk from climate crises. According to the report, typhoons are becoming stronger and more destructive due to climate change, and flooding has worsened significantly, especially in urban areas such as Marikina City. The report further states that people in poverty are particularly vulnerable because of unstable livelihoods, and that the effects of climate change can also have serious impacts on mental health. The psychiatric report outlined that removal to the Philippines would worsen the Appellant\u2019s PTSD symptoms and lead to an increased and real risk of severe mental harm would affect his ability to reintegrate there. Supplementary materials were submitted later to the court, taking into account the wet season in the Philippines, during which several severe typhoons caused widespread damage, case law examples, and further details in relation to climate change.<\/p>\n

The hearing, originally scheduled for February 2025, was adjourned due to a lack of interpreters and relisted for November 2025. In July 2025, the International Court of Justice its advisory opinion on the \u2018Obligations of States in respect of Climate Change<\/a>\u2019. During the 2025 wet season, further typhoons struck the Philippines, forcing the Appellant\u2019s father and sister to evacuate their home. Around the same period, a major corruption scandal emerged concerning the so-called \u201cAnti-Flood Project,\u201d in which public funds allocated for climate mitigation infrastructure, including dikes, were misappropriated. This led to widespread protests in the Philippines. Further submissions to the court thus included updated evidence and a supplementary witness statement addressing the ongoing impact of typhoons on the Appellant\u2019s family. As such, this evidence helped advance the argument that the government had failed to do sufficient climate adaptation and the impact of climate change upon the appellant\u2019s family and private life.<\/p>\n

The day before the hearing, further evidence was filed relating to Typhoon Tino, which was impacting the Philippines on the day of the hearing.<\/p>\n

On 13 November 2025, the Tribunal issued its decision. During the same week, Typhoon Uwan was affecting the Philippines. Within the 14-day appeal period, the case was not appealed by the Home Office to the Upper Tribunal. Only decisions that are successful at the Upper Tribunal are incorporated into the \u2018country guidance\u2019 that immigration agents and judges must follow, according to UK law<\/a>. As a result, its judgement on climate harm is not calcified into broader guidance, which UK immigration officers and judges would have to incorporate into decision making. However, it has set a foundational precedent that could be used in similar appeals in the future. For example, a positive decision regarding Article 8 of the ECHR, the right to family and private life, could have ramifications for those displaced by transboundary dams<\/a>, highlighting asylum-related human rights obligations in the context of individualized and compounded vulnerability.<\/p>\n

Legal arguments<\/strong><\/p>\n

The legal framework relied primarily on Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, both within and, if necessary, outside the Immigration Rules, requiring an assessment of whether removal would be disproportionate. Sections 117A\u2013D of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 were also engaged in the proportionality assessment.<\/p>\n

The appellant has established a private life in the UK and has resided there for approximately 12 years. During this time, he has been in a relationship with his British-Filipino partner and has worked as a carer since receiving permission to work.<\/p>\n

The appellant has been diagnosed with PTSD as a result of his experiences during severe typhoons in the Philippines. It was submitted that his mental health would significantly deteriorate if he were required to return, particularly due to separation from his partner, whose daily emotional and physical support is central to his stability. Submissions also addressed the lack of adequate mental health provisions in the Philippines, alongside the state\u2019s failure to implement effective climate adaptation and mitigation measures.<\/p>\n

Objective evidence was relied upon to demonstrate a significant rise in suicide rates within affected Filipino communities, linked to the increasing severity of typhoons. Additionally, between the adjourned and resumed hearings, evidence emerged of widespread government corruption involving the misappropriation of funds intended for flood prevention infrastructure, further exacerbating the risks posed by typhoons.<\/p>\n

As such, the Judge decided that the appellant would be allowed to remain in the UK, marking a successful appeal on human rights grounds.<\/p>\n

Climate\u2026 \u2018refugee\u2019?<\/strong><\/p>\n

Although the appeal was made only on human rights grounds, the judge also opined on whether climate constituted a \u2018[Refugee] Convention reason\u2019. In defending the case, the Home Office made explicitly clear their approach to climate- and environmental-related movements, maintaining that tropical storms are not grounds for claiming asylum. In the appeal, Judge Adio agreed with the Home Office that under UK law climate change does not fit into a Convention reason. The Judge briefly discussed whether the appellant could be considered for asylum, and determined that, due to the Convention reasons needed for persecution based on race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, this case does not meet the Convention requirements. Importantly, the FA case does not<\/em> set the precedent that climate change could be a reason for asylum, and the Judge makes clear that the appeal could not succeed on asylum grounds.<\/p>\n

However, in deciding on human rights grounds, he did accept that climate change would have an effect on the appellant\u2019s mental health and integration back in the Philippines, and so decided to allow the appellant to stay in the UK. Accordingly, in the FA<\/em> case, the appellant had to demonstrate that the government of the Philippines had failed at climate adaptation in order to meet the bar for Article 8. The appellant also had to prove significant obstacles to reintegration, and to establish a credible link between climate change in the Philippines and the deterioration of mental health, including any increase in suicide rates and evidencing a lack of adequate mental health support available in the Philippines. While, when it comes to the refugee<\/em> definition, which was not relevant to the arguments of this case, Matthew Scott demonstrates<\/a> that it could be invoked in climate cases where government distribution of aid or adaptation has been discriminatory.<\/p>\n

Litigators in dialogue: the role of international courts<\/strong><\/p>\n

Teitiota v. New Zealand<\/em><\/a>, the only climate migration case at an international human rights court, was used heavily as a reference for the legal team on the FA<\/em> case. In Teitiota<\/em>, the Human Rights Committee which oversees the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which the UK has ratified, ruled that climate change counts as one of the reasons a person cannot be \u2018refouled\u2019, that is, forcibly returned to their country of origin. Teitiota <\/em>also provided guidance for linking climate change with an appellant\u2019s mental health. Other cases brought by Tuvaluan applicants<\/a> to New Zealand\u2019s Immigration and Protection Tribunal, including AD (Tuvalu)<\/em>, were a source of influence for the case and provided encouragement that climate-linked protection arguments may succeed if supported by the right evidential foundation and careful legal framing.<\/p>\n

Both the FA<\/em> case and the AD (Tuvalu)<\/em> case engage climate change as a human rights issue outside the traditional refugee framework. In the FA<\/em> case, the Tribunal accepted that climate change-related harms and discriminatory distribution of disaster relief engaged the ECHR (Article 8). In the AD(Tuvalu)<\/em>, the Tribunal considered climate hazards, state adaptation measures, and international cooperation obligations, ultimately finding no real risk because the state was taking steps within its capacity, but in both decisions climate impacts and state responses were central to the human rights analysis. More broadly, Duarte Agostinho v. Portugal<\/em><\/a>, a case at the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) served as guidance for potential extraterritorial applications of a duty to protect individuals from climate harm, particularly when the UK has been part of causing such harm. Similarly, in the FA<\/em> case, the appellant and his legal team had to demonstrate a clear pattern of harm, evidencing governmental failure in climate mitigation and adaptation, and, where relevant, showing corruption or systemic shortcomings that exacerbated vulnerability. Making a health-related claim different to those advanced in Teitiota<\/em>, the appellant needed to prove significant obstacles to reintegration<\/a>, and to establish a credible link between climate change in the Philippines and the deterioration of his mental health, including an increase in suicide rates and a lack of adequate mental health support available in the Philippines.<\/p>\n

While the International Court of Justice\u2019s advisory opinion<\/a> on state obligations in the context of climate change offers little else beyond Teitiota<\/em>, it was useful to FA\u2019s litigators in generating a \u2018bigger picture\u2019 of British responsibility for, and obligations in relation to, climate damage and rights protection. The opinion was incorporated into written submissions to the Tribunal. In that opinion, the ICJ emphasized<\/a> states\u2019 responsibility to regulate and prevent climate-related harms, the attribution of responsibility for human-driven climate impacts, and the growing recognition of serious climate harms as engaging human rights protections. As such, it provided additional international context capable of supporting the broader human rights framework advanced on the appellant\u2019s behalf.<\/p>\n

While advisory opinions of the ICJ are not binding in UK domestic law, they may carry persuasive weight in human rights adjudication, particularly where domestic courts and tribunals are required to interpret Convention rights in light of developing international principles. The incorporation of the opinion into submissions therefore reflected an attempt to situate the appellant\u2019s case within an evolving global legal landscape concerning climate responsibility and rights protection.<\/p>\n

Judge Adio\u2019s decision, however, was grounded primarily in the specific factual matrix of the case, particularly the obstacles to reintegration and the appellant\u2019s established private life. The determination did not expressly engage with, or rely upon, the ICJ advisory opinion. Any consonance between the broader climate-related reasoning advanced in submissions and the evolving principles identified by the ICJ should therefore be understood as contextual rather than as forming an explicit basis for the Tribunal\u2019s reasoning.<\/p>\n

Climate migration protections in the UK: A legal future?<\/strong><\/p>\n

While the FA<\/em> case is a promising first step, the need for a binding precedent demonstrates the long road ahead for recognition for climate-related asylum claims in the UK. Helen Dempster et al. have argued<\/a> that the UK should, at the very least, suspend all climate-related removals and deportations, in line with the principle of non-refoulement articulated in Teitiota v. New Zealand<\/em> and the ICJ Advisory Opinion. This was the approach temporarily adopted by the Labour Government in 2004<\/a> following the Indian Ocean tsunami. While a policy decision, a similar result could be effectively unlocked through a successful Upper Tribunal appeal. As a result, incorporation into \u2018country guidance\u2019 would allow climate factors to be valid reasons against removal, with stronger legal base and a longevity not afforded by temporary actions, as was seen in 2004. Similarly, it could broaden the scope to slow-onset climate change, as well as sudden-onset natural disasters.<\/p>\n

Other cases that use the FA<\/em> precedent could go further. If a case loses the First-tier appeal, or succeeds but is further challenged by the Home Office, then it could escalate to the Upper Tribunal, Court of Appeal, Supreme Court, and then the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). There is a possibility to appeal the case to the Human Rights Committee (which oversees the ICCPR) if the claim is related to the right to life (Teitiota v. New Zealand<\/em>) or the right to family and private life (the FA<\/em> case) and all domestic remedies have been exhausted.<\/p>\n

Climate migration protections and the possibility of ECtHR jurisdiction <\/strong><\/p>\n

This case is the first in the UK, but not the first in Europe, nor the first under the umbrella of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) system. In Italy, the Supreme Court of Cassation decided that environmental disaster was grounds for humanitarian protection, accepting that climate change can constitute a violation of the rights to life and dignity (IL v. Ministry of the Interior<\/em><\/a>). The court mandated<\/a> that protection considerations should reflect this. A later decision affirmed<\/a> that climate change (particularly climate-induced flooding) could be part of inhuman and degrading treatment, where returning the individual was infeasible in the context of the extreme poverty, climate-induced disasters and failures of the home state to intervene. Additional protections<\/a> have been established in Italy and in the UK for those who have experienced climate-induced trafficking, including humanitarian protection and refugee status<\/a>.<\/p>\n

In a case from Switzerland<\/a>, a Somali individual had experienced the bombing of agricultural fields, claiming environmental reasons for asylum. The court found that the individual failed credibility tests and failed to establish that he was individually, rather than generally, targeted by the bombing. As such, he did not meet the standard for protection under Article 3 (prohibition of torture, inhumane and degrading treatment). Furthermore, to qualify for refugee protection, he had to prove he had been individually and directly targeted by any environmental elements in his application. Similarly, an asylum appeal in Belgium<\/a> affirmed that the applicant, who identified as a \u2018climate refugee\u2019 fleeing drought and water scarcity, had to show why he was specifically at risk under Article 2 (right to life) and Article 3. He could not do so, and therefore his petition was rejected.<\/p>\n

So far, climate-related asylum appeals have not reached the ECtHR, but if a case were escalated to the court it could have ramifications for the UK similar to <\/a>KlimaSeniorinnen v. Switzerland<\/em><\/a>. <\/em>In France, an appeal for asylum on climate grounds progressed as far as the Conseil d\u2019Etat, France\u2019s highest administrative court. In that case, while a court in Bordeaux<\/a> prevented the return of an individual to Bangladesh on the basis that the pollution there would affect his health, this was later overturned by the Conseil d\u2019Etat, which considered only access to healthcare rather than environmental factors. It has been argued<\/a> that this case could be challenged at the ECtHR due to the French courts\u2019 insufficient interpretation of its own asylum law in discord with the ECHR.<\/p>\n

Conclusion<\/strong><\/p>\n

It remains to be seen how asylum appeals may shift the UK\u2019s immigration policy from the ground-up, either domestically or through the ECtHR, if the government does not expand protections at the top level<\/a>. At present, the FA<\/em> case has established that human rights can help protect individuals facing climate-related harm, in this early step towards climate justice for those forced to move.<\/p>\n

The FA<\/em> case demonstrates how assumptions about what constitutes a \u201cstrong\u201d or \u201cweak\u201d claim can underestimate the transformative potential of human rights law. What initially appeared to lack Convention grounds became, through careful evidential development and doctrinal reframing, a meaningful step toward integrating climate change into Article 8 analysis. The FA<\/em> case reminds us not to dismiss claims prematurely or reduce applicants to the label of \u201ceconomic migrant,\u201d but instead to foreground vulnerability and the real risks faced upon return. It offers cautious hope that persistent and strategic advocacy may gradually expand protection, whether through Article 3, Article 8, humanitarian protection, or, ultimately, successful asylum claims grounded in climate-related harm.<\/p>\n

*The authors wish to highlight the work of Gamal Basha, Qore Legal, and Ronan Toal, Garden Court Chambers in researching and litigating FA v. the Secretary of State for the Home Department (2025).<\/em><\/p>\n

<\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

In November 2025, one of the first climate-related asylum appeals was reviewed in the UK, by the UK\u2019s First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) and approved on human rights grounds. In FA v Secretary of State for the Home Department (SSHD), the appellant (FA) argued that climate-related hardship, poor mental health relating to the loss […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2336,"featured_media":27042,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[5673,69207],"tags":[69195],"class_list":{"0":"post-29086","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-litigation","8":"category-cross-cutting-issues","9":"tag-climate-migration","10":"czr-hentry"},"yoast_head":"\nUK Court Recognizes Climate Migration as a Human Right: FA v. the Secretary of State for the Home Department (2025) - Climate Law Blog<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2026\/06\/10\/uk-court-recognizes-climate-migration-as-a-human-right-fa-v-the-secretary-of-state-for-the-home-department-2025\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"UK Court Recognizes Climate Migration as a Human Right: FA v. the Secretary of State for the Home Department (2025) - Climate Law Blog\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"In November 2025, one of the first climate-related asylum appeals was reviewed in the UK, by the UK\u2019s First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) and approved on human rights grounds. In FA v Secretary of State for the Home Department (SSHD), the appellant (FA) argued that climate-related hardship, poor mental health relating to the loss […]\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2026\/06\/10\/uk-court-recognizes-climate-migration-as-a-human-right-fa-v-the-secretary-of-state-for-the-home-department-2025\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Climate Law Blog\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2026-06-10T15:35:41+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/files\/2025\/09\/Blog-2-cover-image-scaled.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"2560\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"1920\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Anna Rose Pilgrim and Gamal Basha\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@toniatigre\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@sabincenter\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Anna Rose Pilgrim and Gamal Basha\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"14 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2026\\\/06\\\/10\\\/uk-court-recognizes-climate-migration-as-a-human-right-fa-v-the-secretary-of-state-for-the-home-department-2025\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2026\\\/06\\\/10\\\/uk-court-recognizes-climate-migration-as-a-human-right-fa-v-the-secretary-of-state-for-the-home-department-2025\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Anna Rose Pilgrim and Gamal Basha\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/94247827102369c1aca7677bb743077f\"},\"headline\":\"UK Court Recognizes Climate Migration as a Human Right: FA v. the Secretary of State for the Home Department (2025)\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-06-10T15:35:41+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2026\\\/06\\\/10\\\/uk-court-recognizes-climate-migration-as-a-human-right-fa-v-the-secretary-of-state-for-the-home-department-2025\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":2964,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/#organization\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2026\\\/06\\\/10\\\/uk-court-recognizes-climate-migration-as-a-human-right-fa-v-the-secretary-of-state-for-the-home-department-2025\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/files\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/Blog-2-cover-image-scaled.jpg\",\"keywords\":[\"Climate Migration\"],\"articleSection\":[\"Climate Litigation\",\"Cross-cutting Issues\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2026\\\/06\\\/10\\\/uk-court-recognizes-climate-migration-as-a-human-right-fa-v-the-secretary-of-state-for-the-home-department-2025\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2026\\\/06\\\/10\\\/uk-court-recognizes-climate-migration-as-a-human-right-fa-v-the-secretary-of-state-for-the-home-department-2025\\\/\",\"name\":\"UK Court Recognizes Climate Migration as a Human Right: FA v. the Secretary of State for the Home Department (2025) - Climate Law Blog\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2026\\\/06\\\/10\\\/uk-court-recognizes-climate-migration-as-a-human-right-fa-v-the-secretary-of-state-for-the-home-department-2025\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2026\\\/06\\\/10\\\/uk-court-recognizes-climate-migration-as-a-human-right-fa-v-the-secretary-of-state-for-the-home-department-2025\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/files\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/Blog-2-cover-image-scaled.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-06-10T15:35:41+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2026\\\/06\\\/10\\\/uk-court-recognizes-climate-migration-as-a-human-right-fa-v-the-secretary-of-state-for-the-home-department-2025\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2026\\\/06\\\/10\\\/uk-court-recognizes-climate-migration-as-a-human-right-fa-v-the-secretary-of-state-for-the-home-department-2025\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2026\\\/06\\\/10\\\/uk-court-recognizes-climate-migration-as-a-human-right-fa-v-the-secretary-of-state-for-the-home-department-2025\\\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/files\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/Blog-2-cover-image-scaled.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/files\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/Blog-2-cover-image-scaled.jpg\",\"width\":2560,\"height\":1920},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2026\\\/06\\\/10\\\/uk-court-recognizes-climate-migration-as-a-human-right-fa-v-the-secretary-of-state-for-the-home-department-2025\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"UK Court Recognizes Climate Migration as a Human Right: FA v. the Secretary of State for the Home Department (2025)\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/\",\"name\":\"Climate Law Blog\",\"description\":\"\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Sabin Center for Climate Change Law\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/files\\\/2023\\\/02\\\/21-SabinBlog_Banner-1.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/files\\\/2023\\\/02\\\/21-SabinBlog_Banner-1.png\",\"width\":2752,\"height\":260,\"caption\":\"Sabin Center for Climate Change Law\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/sabincenter\"]},[{\"@type\":[\"Person\"],\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/94247827102369c1aca7677bb743077f\",\"name\":\"Anna Rose Pilgrim\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"@id\":\"\",\"inLanguage\":\"en_US\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/files\\\/2026\\\/06\\\/Anna-Pilgrim-Headshot-150x150.jpeg\",\"caption\":\"Anna Rose Pilgrim\"}},{\"@type\":[\"Person\"],\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/94247827102369c1aca7677bb743077f\",\"name\":\"Gamal Basha\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"@id\":\"\",\"inLanguage\":\"en_US\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/files\\\/2026\\\/06\\\/G-Square1-150x150.jpg\",\"caption\":\"Gamal Basha\"}}]]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"UK Court Recognizes Climate Migration as a Human Right: FA v. the Secretary of State for the Home Department (2025) - Climate Law Blog","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2026\/06\/10\/uk-court-recognizes-climate-migration-as-a-human-right-fa-v-the-secretary-of-state-for-the-home-department-2025\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"UK Court Recognizes Climate Migration as a Human Right: FA v. the Secretary of State for the Home Department (2025) - Climate Law Blog","og_description":"In November 2025, one of the first climate-related asylum appeals was reviewed in the UK, by the UK\u2019s First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) and approved on human rights grounds. In FA v Secretary of State for the Home Department (SSHD), the appellant (FA) argued that climate-related hardship, poor mental health relating to the loss […]","og_url":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2026\/06\/10\/uk-court-recognizes-climate-migration-as-a-human-right-fa-v-the-secretary-of-state-for-the-home-department-2025\/","og_site_name":"Climate Law Blog","article_published_time":"2026-06-10T15:35:41+00:00","og_image":[{"width":2560,"height":1920,"url":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/files\/2025\/09\/Blog-2-cover-image-scaled.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Anna Rose Pilgrim and Gamal Basha","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@toniatigre","twitter_site":"@sabincenter","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Anna Rose Pilgrim and Gamal Basha","Est. reading time":"14 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2026\/06\/10\/uk-court-recognizes-climate-migration-as-a-human-right-fa-v-the-secretary-of-state-for-the-home-department-2025\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2026\/06\/10\/uk-court-recognizes-climate-migration-as-a-human-right-fa-v-the-secretary-of-state-for-the-home-department-2025\/"},"author":{"name":"Anna Rose Pilgrim and Gamal Basha","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#\/schema\/person\/94247827102369c1aca7677bb743077f"},"headline":"UK Court Recognizes Climate Migration as a Human Right: FA v. the Secretary of State for the Home Department (2025)","datePublished":"2026-06-10T15:35:41+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2026\/06\/10\/uk-court-recognizes-climate-migration-as-a-human-right-fa-v-the-secretary-of-state-for-the-home-department-2025\/"},"wordCount":2964,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#organization"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2026\/06\/10\/uk-court-recognizes-climate-migration-as-a-human-right-fa-v-the-secretary-of-state-for-the-home-department-2025\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/files\/2025\/09\/Blog-2-cover-image-scaled.jpg","keywords":["Climate Migration"],"articleSection":["Climate Litigation","Cross-cutting Issues"],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2026\/06\/10\/uk-court-recognizes-climate-migration-as-a-human-right-fa-v-the-secretary-of-state-for-the-home-department-2025\/","url":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2026\/06\/10\/uk-court-recognizes-climate-migration-as-a-human-right-fa-v-the-secretary-of-state-for-the-home-department-2025\/","name":"UK Court Recognizes Climate Migration as a Human Right: FA v. the Secretary of State for the Home Department (2025) - Climate Law Blog","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2026\/06\/10\/uk-court-recognizes-climate-migration-as-a-human-right-fa-v-the-secretary-of-state-for-the-home-department-2025\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2026\/06\/10\/uk-court-recognizes-climate-migration-as-a-human-right-fa-v-the-secretary-of-state-for-the-home-department-2025\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/files\/2025\/09\/Blog-2-cover-image-scaled.jpg","datePublished":"2026-06-10T15:35:41+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2026\/06\/10\/uk-court-recognizes-climate-migration-as-a-human-right-fa-v-the-secretary-of-state-for-the-home-department-2025\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2026\/06\/10\/uk-court-recognizes-climate-migration-as-a-human-right-fa-v-the-secretary-of-state-for-the-home-department-2025\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2026\/06\/10\/uk-court-recognizes-climate-migration-as-a-human-right-fa-v-the-secretary-of-state-for-the-home-department-2025\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/files\/2025\/09\/Blog-2-cover-image-scaled.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/files\/2025\/09\/Blog-2-cover-image-scaled.jpg","width":2560,"height":1920},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2026\/06\/10\/uk-court-recognizes-climate-migration-as-a-human-right-fa-v-the-secretary-of-state-for-the-home-department-2025\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"UK Court Recognizes Climate Migration as a Human Right: FA v. the Secretary of State for the Home Department (2025)"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#website","url":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/","name":"Climate Law Blog","description":"","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#organization","name":"Sabin Center for Climate Change Law","url":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/files\/2023\/02\/21-SabinBlog_Banner-1.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/files\/2023\/02\/21-SabinBlog_Banner-1.png","width":2752,"height":260,"caption":"Sabin Center for Climate Change Law"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/x.com\/sabincenter"]},[{"@type":["Person"],"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#\/schema\/person\/94247827102369c1aca7677bb743077f","name":"Anna Rose Pilgrim","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","@id":"","inLanguage":"en_US","url":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/files\/2026\/06\/Anna-Pilgrim-Headshot-150x150.jpeg","caption":"Anna Rose Pilgrim"}},{"@type":["Person"],"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#\/schema\/person\/94247827102369c1aca7677bb743077f","name":"Gamal Basha","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","@id":"","inLanguage":"en_US","url":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/files\/2026\/06\/G-Square1-150x150.jpg","caption":"Gamal Basha"}}]]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/29086","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2336"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=29086"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/29086\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":29155,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/29086\/revisions\/29155"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/27042"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=29086"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=29086"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=29086"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}