Read the Arabic version here.
In an expeditious move, without meaningfully consulting stakeholders or civil society, Egypt’s parliament passed its first-ever asylum law. The legislation drew widespread backlash, with critics warning it could jeopardize the rights of refugees and asylum seekers. At least 22 Egyptian and international human rights organizations have voiced strong opposition to the law in its current form. Nevertheless, Egyptian President Abdel Fattah El-Sisi ratified the law on December 16, 2024, and it was subsequently published in the official gazette. Its executive regulations are expected to be issued within six months after enactment.
The law comes within the context of the Comprehensive Strategic Partnership signed between the European Union and Egypt in March 2024, which allocated a €200 million grant to address migration issues, including efforts to curb irregular migration to Europe. According to a European diplomatic source, Egypt’s swift enactment of the asylum law was part of this agreement.
For the first time in Egypt’s legislative history, the law introduces a framework to regulate the settlement of refugees into the country, including the right to apply for Egyptian citizenship. While this marks a potential shift for Egypt from being a transit country to a destination for refugees, several controversial provisions undermine this promise, as the law allows the revocation of refugee status and deportation at any time based on vague and broadly defined grounds.
A deeper analysis of [the law’s] provisions uncovers risks that could gravely endanger the rights of asylum seekers and refugees
Lawmakers have emphasized that this law is a response to the rising increase of asylum seekers from neighboring countries, asserting that it upholds Egypt’s constitutional and international obligations. On the surface, the law appears to comply with these commitments, mirroring the language of human rights treaties Egypt has ratified. Yet, a deeper analysis of its provisions uncovers risks that could gravely endanger the rights of asylum seekers and refugees within its borders.
This article aims to examine the key flaws in the law, emphasizing that, in its current form, many of its provisions fail to align with Egypt’s international and constitutional obligations and do not effectively safeguard the rights of asylum seekers and refugees. Consequently, this law cannot be regarded as a promising regulation for asylum affairs in Egypt, nor can it be relied upon to ensure the country’s transformation into a host state capable of protecting refugee rights in accordance with fundamental human rights standards.
Organizational flaws
Since 1954, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) has been responsible for registering and maintaining refugee data, as well as reviewing and deciding on asylum applications, under a memorandum of understanding with Egypt. However, the new law shifts these responsibilities to a newly established body called the “Permanent Committee for Refugee Affairs.” This committee will oversee all aspects of refugee matters, including their information management, asylum application decisions, and the revocation of refugee status.
Although the law broadly states that the committee will cooperate with the UNHCR and other international organizations concerned with refugee affairs, it fails to specify any transitional measures to ensure the smooth transfer of responsibilities or shift from the current legal framework to the new one. Alarmingly, the law will be applied retroactively, meaning its provisions will affect all asylum seekers and refugees, including those who obtained refugee status before the law’s enactment.
Alarmingly, the law will be applied retroactively, meaning its provisions will affect all asylum seekers and refugees, including those who obtained refugee status before the law’s enactment
As a result, all refugee and asylum seeker records currently registered with the UNHCR—amounting to nearly 800,000 as of September 2024—will be handed over to the newly formed committee upon its establishment without a clear mechanism. This lack of clarity risks delaying the review of pending asylum applications currently under the UNHCR’s jurisdiction and undermining the efficiency and fairness of decisions, which should adhere to transparent standards.
The law leaves pressing questions unanswered, according to Egyptian lawyers in conversation with TIMEP. What will happen to current asylum seekers whose applications are being reviewed by the UNHCR? Will their files be transferred to the new committee, which will re-evaluate their applications? Will the UNHCR’s decisions granting refugee status to those currently recognized as refugees also be subject to review? Will humanitarian assistance for asylum seekers continue under the UNHCR’s management after the new law takes effect, and if so, how?
These and many other questions remain unanswered by the new law, leaving refugees, asylum seekers, and their legal advocates in a state of uncertainty. The publication of the executive regulations have yet to be released.
Broad and vague powers
The law grants the committee sweeping powers to reject asylum applications, revoke refugee status, and impose unspecified discretionary measures against asylum seekers and refugees based on vague and overly broad grounds. For instance, Article 8 denies refugee status to anyone listed as part of terrorist entities or designated as a terrorist in Egypt, or to those who commit acts deemed harmful to national security or public order. The clause fails to clearly define what these acts entail or specify the criteria for such classifications, creating room for problematic prosecutions.
Similarly, Article 9 authorizes the revocation of refugee status for anyone who violates the Egyptian constitution, laws, or regulations, or fails to uphold Egyptian societal values and traditions. This extends to those who engage in political activities, as well as individuals working within unions.
In other words, refugee status could be revoked for anyone criticizing the Egyptian government under the pretext of “harming national security,” a charge frequently employed by the Egyptian regime. Similarly, human rights defenders may face severe restrictions on their freedom of expression, fearing the loss of their refugee status. The same risks apply to those seeking to exercise their right to engage in political activities or join labor unions.
Furthermore, the committee could strip refugee status from members of the LGBTQI+ community or followers of non-Abrahamic religions, citing violations of “Egyptian societal values.” Freedom of expression, freedom of religion, and the right to join unions are fundamental rights that Egypt is obligated to respect, protect, and fulfill for all individuals within its territory under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Revoking refugee status from individuals exercising these rights constitutes arbitrary action and stands in clear violation of Egypt’s international and constitutional commitments.
Egypt’s human rights record reveals a systematic and widespread pattern of repression, justified under the guise of safeguarding national security and combating terrorism
Egypt’s human rights record reveals a systematic and widespread pattern of repression, justified under the guise of safeguarding national security and combating terrorism. This includes punitive measures such as prolonged pretrial detention, torture, enforced disappearances, and the denial of fair trial and legal defense rights.
These broad powers granted to the committee cannot be viewed in isolation from the state’s broader repressive practices. Nor can they be separated from the proposed amendments to the Criminal Procedure Code currently under discussion in the Egyptian parliament, which severely undermines guarantees of fair trial and the right to defense.
Together, these factors raise serious concerns about the potential misuse of vague charges in a politically motivated manner to deny refugee status to individuals Egypt does not wish to protect. This could result in their forced return to countries where their lives and freedoms are at risk, in violation of the legal safeguards Egypt is obligated to uphold.
Undermining the principle of non-refoulement
Article 13 of the law narrowly prohibits extraditing a refugee to their country of nationality or habitual residence but falls short of banning deportation to other countries where the individual may face persecution or threats to their life and freedom.
Moreover, this prohibition applies only to those formally granted refugee status by the committee, as outlined in Article 13 of the law. It does not protect asylum seekers from expulsion, nor does it safeguard those whose refugee status has been revoked by the committee based on the previously mentioned vague and arbitrary grounds. In such cases, the committee merely instructs the ministry of interior to deport the individual following the revocation of their status, with no clear legal measures or safeguards explicitly provided in the law. These critical details have been deferred to the yet-to-be-published executive regulations, leaving glaring gaps in the protection of vulnerable refugees and asylum seekers.
While the 1951 Refugee Convention permits the expulsion of a refugee in exceptional cases—specifically when there are reasonable grounds to deem them a threat to the host country’s security or when they have been convicted of a particularly serious crime—the UNHCR explicitly requires a narrow and restrictive interpretation of this provision. According to the UNHCR, not every offense can be classified as a public security threat; the crime must be exceptionally grave to warrant such action.
In this context, the committee’s unchecked authority to revoke refugee status and deport individuals who fail to respect Egyptian societal values or who broadly violate Egyptian laws and regulations falls far short of international standards. Moreover, the UNHCR recommends that expulsion should be considered only as a last resort and only when other measures—such as detention, house arrest, or resettlement in a third country—are insufficient to mitigate any danger posed to society. The law, however, fails to incorporate such safeguards, leaving refugees vulnerable to arbitrary decisions and violations of their rights.
On the other hand, international human rights instruments impose a binding obligation on Egypt to protect all individuals from being expelled to countries where their lives or freedoms could be at risk, regardless of their legal status as refugees. These instruments include the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment and the OAU Convention Governing the Specific Aspects of Refugee Problems in Africa, both of which Egypt is a party to and is constitutionally bound to uphold.
In its current form, the proposed law violates Egypt’s international and constitutional commitments
In its current form, the proposed law violates Egypt’s international and constitutional commitments. It creates avenues for the return of individuals to countries where their lives and freedoms may be in grave danger, based on reasons that are disproportionate to the risks they may face. This legislative flaw reinforces the Egyptian government’s documented practice of carrying out mass deportations of asylum seekers and refugees to countries where their lives and freedoms are at serious risk.
For instance, in April 2022, UN experts condemned Egypt’s expulsion of at least 68 Eritrean asylum seekers, including children, despite the likelihood that they would face torture and other severe violations upon their return to Eritrea. Similarly, Amnesty International and the UNHCR have reported the mass deportation of thousands of Sudanese refugees and asylum seekers to Sudan, following their detention in inhumane conditions in Egypt.
Denying asylum seekers’ rights
While the law differentiates between asylum seekers and refugees, it fails to provide any temporary protections for asylum seekers to guarantee their basic rights, such as access to education, humanitarian assistance, and protection from deportation to countries where their lives and freedoms are at risk. Moreover, Article 8 of Law No. 82 of 2016 criminalizes providing any form of support or assistance to asylum seekers.
This legislative gap marks a regression from the current framework, under which the UNHCR offers temporary protection to asylum seekers while their cases are being processed. Accordingly, asylum seekers are at least afforded protection from forced deportation and access to essential humanitarian aid—protections that the new law neglects entirely.
While the law permits appeals against committee decisions—including those regarding the acceptance or rejection of asylum applications—before the Administrative Court in Egypt’s State Council, it does not explicitly guarantee asylum seekers the right to exhaust all legal avenues before being deported. According to Article 7, the committee instructs the ministry of interior to deport rejected asylum seekers after notifying them of the decision. However, the text does not clarify whether deportation occurs only after all appeals have been resolved, raising concerns about the potential enforcement of committee decisions before judicial review is completed.
These concerns are further amplified by documented practices of the ministry of interior, which has reportedly forced asylum seekers into signing so-called “voluntary return” documents under duress. These documents are often neither translated nor adequately explained, leaving asylum seekers unaware of their content or implications. Such practices undermine the principles of due process and legal protection, leaving asylum seekers vulnerable to arbitrary deportation.
Funding suspension needed
In its current form, Egypt’s refugee law fails to provide meaningful protection for the rights of refugees and asylum seekers, nor does it mark a promising step toward Egypt becoming a host country that meets international standards. Consequently, the Egyptian parliament must amend the law to ensure the protection and guarantee of fundamental rights for asylum seekers and refugees.
Furthermore, the European Union should suspend migration-related funding under its “Comprehensive Strategic Partnership” with Egypt until adequate legal safeguards are established to protect these groups in line with international standards. In this regard, the EU should clearly articulate the shortcomings of the law and the specific criteria Egypt must meet to regain access to funding.
Obai Kurd Ali is the Legal Unit Manager at TIMEP and specializes in international human rights law, with 10 years of experience in the Syrian conflict.
Halem Henish is an Egyptian human rights lawyer and a Legal Associate at the Tahrir Institute for Middle East Policy (TIMEP).