Explainer| What changes for refugees as Egypt’s new asylum system takes effect

As of Friday, August 21, Egypt has entered a new phase in how it manages refugee and asylum-seeker affairs, with the executive regulations of the Asylum Law now in force.

The asylum law itself was issued back in December 2024 and took effect the day after its publication. But it is the start of the executive regulations that truly opens the door to a new system: one that, for the first time, shifts responsibility for registering asylum seekers, reviewing their applications, and granting refugee status from UNHCR—which had carried out this role for more than 70 years—to Egyptian authorities.

So what changes for refugees and asylum seekers as the file moves from UNHCR to the Egyptian government? And why are some sounding the alarm?

What’s new?

Since 1954, UNHCR has registered asylum seekers, determined their status, and issued their documents, while Egyptian authorities handled residency permits. The new law hands these functions to the “Permanent Committee for Refugee Affairs,” a body under the prime minister that will now oversee the full range of refugee and asylum-seeker affairs. Under the law, the committee is to include representatives from the ministries of foreign affairs, justice, interior, and finance.

​The shift comes as the number of registered refugees and asylum seekers in Egypt has risen sharply, particularly since war broke out in Sudan in April 2023. UNHCR estimates that more than a million registered people from 65 nationalities now live in Egypt, led by Sudanese nationals, followed by Syrians, South Sudanese, and Eritreans.

Every asylum seeker or refugee in Egypt currently holds a UNHCR card recording their legal status. Under the executive regulations, these cards remain valid until they expire or the new committee issues replacement documents, with special arrangements for cards expiring within the first six months. The committee is also expected to take over existing case files in coordination with UNHCR.

Why the pushback from rights groups?

Rights organizations’ objections are not centered on the principle of establishing a national asylum system, but on the safeguards governing it and the broad powers it grants to government bodies.

Rights groups have issued louder warnings in recent months, accusing Egypt of mistreating refugees and subjecting them to security crackdowns. Amnesty International has documented arrests of Sudanese, Syrian, and South Sudanese nationals—including some registered with UNHCR—as well as what it calls unlawful deportations. That record has made safeguards against detention and forced return among the most contested points in the new law.

Before the law was ratified, Amnesty International urged President Abdel Fattah El-Sisi to reject it. The organization argued that although the law defines “refugee” in line with the 1951 Refugee Convention, it permits arbitrary detention on migration-related grounds, restricts the right to seek asylum, fails to provide adequate safeguards against unlawful return, imposes restrictions on freedom of movement, and does not sufficiently guarantee rights to education, housing, and social security.

When the president ratified the law that same month, Amnesty criticized the move, saying it came “despite growing domestic and international criticism of its devastating impact on refugee rights.”

Amnesty also took issue with the broad grounds for denying or revoking refugee status, which include committing a “serious crime,” with no clear exemption for political offenses, or engaging in acts that “conflict with national security or public order.” It further flagged that status can be revoked for violating “the values and traditions of Egyptian society” or for taking part in political, party, or union activity.

According to the organization, the law also lacks adequate procedural safeguards around legal representation, access to information in a language the asylum seeker understands, and the ability to appeal detention decisions or rulings on an application.

In December 2024, four independent UN special rapporteurs and experts raised similar concerns, pointing to the added requirement that fear of persecution be "well-founded" for an application to be accepted, as well as ambiguity around the circumstances, duration, and appeal mechanisms for detaining asylum seekers.

They also found that protection from forced return is not clearly guaranteed to an asylum seeker throughout the review of their application or any appeal of its rejection. A gap made more troubling by arrests and deportations of refugees and asylum seekers that have already occurred.

The Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights (EIPR), an independent rights organization, says the regulations did add safeguards such as a hearing, legal representation, interpretation, and protections for some of the most vulnerable groups. However, that these procedural improvements could not fix flaws EIPR believes exist in the law itself, chief among them: the explicit non-refoulement provision, the principle that a refugee cannot be forcibly returned to a country where they would face danger, applies only to those who have already been granted refugee status, not to asylum seekers whose applications are still pending.

What happens to those who entered the country irregularly?

Before the new law, anyone seeking protection could register with UNHCR regardless of how they had entered Egypt, and UNHCR's status-determination procedures did not tie the right to file an application to a fixed deadline.

Now, the executive regulations require anyone who entered Egypt irregularly to file an asylum application with the committee within 45 days of entry. The law ties missing this deadline to penalties that can include imprisonment and fines.

EIPR describes this deadline as “unfairly short,” particularly since more than 90% of those who arrived in Egypt over the past two years did so irregularly, according to figures it cites from UNHCR. The group warns that the text does not clearly guarantee the ability to file an asylum application after the deadline has passed.

Amnesty International shares this concern, arguing that the 45-day window fails to account for people fleeing war, torture, or human trafficking, or for their ability to access a lawyer or gather the evidence an application requires. UN rapporteurs likewise cautioned against penalizing people seeking protection simply for how they entered the country.

What if an asylum application is rejected?

Here too, the process changes substantially. Under the system UNHCR administered, a rejected applicant received the reasons for the decision and had 30 days to appeal, with the appeal reviewed by staff other than those who made the initial decision.

Under the new regulations, an asylum seeker has 15 days from notification of rejection to file a formal grievance request with the same committee, which must rule on it within 30 days. Only after that can the applicant turn to the Administrative Judiciary Court, the branch of Egypt’s courts that hears challenges to government decisions.

EIPR views this timeframe as short, particularly for applicants who need legal assistance or time to gather documents. More troubling, in its view, is that the text does not guarantee deportation will be automatically suspended while a grievance or judicial appeal is pending.

Do the regulations protect rights to work, health, education, and movement?

The law provides for rights including work, education, healthcare, and freedom of religious practice, and the regulations add detail on health services and basic education.

UNHCR welcomed the provisions on work, including self-employment, primary healthcare, and primary education, but recommended clarifying how these rights would be exercised under the laws governing each sector. It also recommended exempting refugees from labor law requirements that may be difficult for them to meet given their status, such as producing certain identity documents.

EIPR points to a further practical problem tied to residency permits: obtaining or renewing one can take between 18 months and two years, while the regulations set the validity of the new asylum-seeker card at just six months. Because access to some services depends on holding a valid residency permit, EIPR is calling for the asylum document itself to serve as sufficient proof of legal status and access to basic rights.

The regulations also allow authorities, citing “national security and public order,” to impose measures on asylum seekers including periodic reporting requirements and notification of any change of residence; measures that, during war, counterterrorism operations, or other exceptional circumstances, can extend to geographic restrictions on movement. EIPR argues that the broad wording of these terms gives authorities wide latitude to restrict movement.

Where do the biggest concerns lie now?

Beyond disputes over specific provisions, the largest change remains the transfer of a system that had operated within UNHCR since 1954 to a new government institution now responsible for more than a million case files.

As of this story’s publication, no decision has been issued forming the “Permanent Committee for Refugee Affairs” or naming its members, despite the legal deadline having passed. The only step taken so far has been the February appointment of Ambassador Salah El-Din Abdel-Sadek, former head of the State Information Service, as the committee’s chairman. EIPR has warned this creates a “transitional vacuum,” with the regulations taking effect before the new system is able to process applications or renew documents.

A separate issue concerns those UNHCR has already recognized as refugees. The regulations require them to submit their documents to the committee but, according to EIPR, do not explicitly provide for automatic recognition of the refugee status they previously obtained. This raises concerns that their cases could be fully reopened and subjected once again to status determination from scratch, potentially putting at risk protections and rights they had already been found to be entitled to. EIPR also criticizes the absence of detailed safeguards on whether refugees must consent to the transfer of their data from UNHCR to Egyptian authorities.