Brussels, Belgium, 16 April 2025 鈥  The 探花精选 (探花精选) warns that the EU鈥檚 new proposals to extend the number of countries considered to be 鈥渟afe鈥 throughout the asylum process are 鈥減art of a broader trend towards hollowing out refugee rights鈥.

Meron Ameha Knikman, 探花精选鈥檚 Senior EU Advocacy Advisor, says:

鈥淭he EU鈥檚 new proposals around which countries are considered to be 鈥渟afe鈥 throughout the asylum process and for returns are extremely concerning. They are part of a broader trend towards deterrence and hollowing out refugee rights, rather than welcoming people with dignity and respect. 

鈥淎nyone who applies for protection in the EU should have their individual claim assessed fully and on its own merits - regardless of where they are fleeing from. It鈥檚 simply not possible to claim that countries from which 20% or fewer applicants are granted international protection in the EU are 鈥榮afe鈥 for everyone - particularly those with specific vulnerabilities or from marginalised groups. 

鈥淲e know that recognition rates often  between different EU states. For example, while 98% of people from Afghanistan were recognised as refugees in Greece in 2024, this figure was as low as 41% in Germany and 39% in Belgium, highlighting the difficulties of identifying the risks people face in different countries.

鈥淲e are also concerned about the provisions which allow the EU to exempt certain areas of 鈥渟afe鈥 countries, deeming these to be unsafe for people to go back to. The reality is that any truly safe country must offer protection across its entire territory and to all individuals. The EU鈥檚 approach undermines the premise that the country is safe in the first place, and ignores the often quickly changing circumstances surrounding conflict, displacement and other conditions on the ground.

鈥淚t is extremely complex to assess a country鈥檚 overall safety. The 探花精选 is calling on the EU and its member states to adopt a transparent approach, and consult with international and civil society actors originating from or operating in the countries in question. As ever, it must also put the needs of the most vulnerable individuals front and centre, or risk them bearing the brunt of these changes.鈥