South AfricaRefugeeStatusReport 2026

South Africa entered 2026 with a recorded asylum-seeker population larger than its recognised refugee population. UNHCR’s year-end figures place 82 358 people in the asylum-seeker category, representing 59.9% of the combined total. Home Affairs’ separate appeals series records 70 976 active cases at the same year-end. The two measures describe a substantial body of unresolved claims across the system, with different units and overlapping coverage.^[1][6]

The annual population series declined by 33 949 between 2024 and 2025, a change of 19.8%. Both recorded status categories fell, although the dataset supplies no account of how much of the change arose from movements of people or the administration of records. The composition also varies across countries of origin, which makes a national total an incomplete description of the population served by the asylum system.^[1]

The legal developments reviewed here concern access to an assessment and the treatment of subsequent applications. Their operational significance lies in how claims enter and move through the system. Home Affairs’ published targets extend to 2029/30, but the sources reviewed provide no numerical refugee population forecast to that horizon. This report therefore examines institutional performance and the evidence needed to assess the effect of reform.^[3][5][7]

UNHCR’s operational snapshot for 31 August 2026 records 138 047 registered refugees and asylum seekers in South Africa.^[2] The latest annual breakdown, for the end of 2025, gives 55 177 refugees and 82 358 asylum seekers, bringing the combined population to 137 535.^[1]

People awaiting a decision made up 59.9% of the 2025 total. Under the Refugees Act, an asylum seeker is a person seeking recognition as a refugee; recognition follows a determination of the claim. The distinction helps explain what each population figure measures.^[9]

The asylum-seeker count fell from 167 411 in 2021 to 84 316 in 2022, then rose to 100 313 by the end of 2024. UNHCR recorded 82 358 for 2025. These changes need to be read as movements in a reported administrative count: explaining the contribution of migration, case decisions and record keeping requires further evidence.

The August 2026 figure comes from the operational portal. Its South Africa row combines registered refugees and asylum seekers. The annual database is used for the category breakdown and historical charts. Each figure retains its source date.

The 2025 decline affected both status categories

Refugees accounted for 15 994 of the reduction in the combined annual total, and asylum seekers for 17 955. Relative to their own 2024 populations, these were declines of 22.5% and 17.9%. This matters for interpretation because recognition of an asylum seeker, considered on its own, transfers a person between the two categories while leaving their combined total unchanged. Explaining a fall in that total requires an account of entries and exits from the reported population, including any changes to its coverage.^[1]

The scale of the earlier change between 2021 and 2022 also limits the usefulness of projecting a straight line from the historical series. A population forecast would need an estimate of future additions to the records and a basis for estimating removals. The published stocks do not identify those components. For this reason, the report uses the series to describe the recorded population over time and treats explanations for its movement as a separate research question.

DR Congo and Ethiopia together account for 77 880 people in the end-2025 records, equivalent to 56.6% of the combined refugee and asylum-seeker population. Somalia follows with 21 836 people, placing these origins at the top of the recorded population shown below.^[1]

Within Ethiopia’s total, 27 969 people are recorded as asylum seekers and 10 650 as refugees. The Somali population includes 17 931 refugees and 3 905 asylum seekers, showing how the mix of recognised status and pending claims differs across origins.

Population composition and recognition rates

Asylum seekers represent 72.4% of Ethiopia’s recorded group. Refugees represent 82.1% of the Somali group. These proportions describe the status of people present in the year-end dataset, drawing together claims made over different periods. A recognition rate would require decisions made during a defined period and the corresponding number of claims decided. The population table supplies neither denominator nor decision cohort.^[1]

From an institutional perspective, the concentration of the recorded population in a few origin groups makes country-level disaggregation useful when analysing the composition of a caseload. The aggregate data leaves the age of claims and their procedural stage unresolved. It also contains no measure of the merits of an individual case. A claim about why one origin group has a higher refugee share would require evidence about decision histories and changes in the recorded population.

The Refugees Act distributes responsibility across refugee reception offices, officials who determine claims and statutory bodies that deal with reviews or appeals. Sections 24, 24A and 24B provide the framework for those decisions. This division of work creates several points at which performance can be measured, each with a different caseload and reporting purpose.^[9]

Home Affairs’ performance plan makes that division explicit in its target for new applications. The initial determination receives a 30-working-day allocation within an intended 180-working-day process; the indicator definition assigns the remaining 150 working days to appeals and reviews. The target begins at registration on the Asylum Seeker Management System. Any interval before that registration falls outside the clock described by the indicator.^[7]

This creates a measurement issue for assessing access to the asylum system. A result measured from registration describes the experience of the registered cohort. Understanding access before registration requires another source of evidence, such as records of attempts to obtain an appointment and the time taken to register. The July judgment’s concern with entry to a merits assessment makes the boundary of that performance measure relevant to an evaluation of implementation.

The published population series measures the stock of people in specified categories. An appeals return measures cases before a particular authority, and a processing-time indicator follows new applications through a defined period. Taken at their stated scope, these measures provide different views of the same public system. A fuller account of its capacity would connect registrations to decisions and subsequent outcomes while accounting for cases that remain open at the end of each reporting period.

Scalabrini: access to the asylum process

7 July 2026 · CCT 126/25 · [2026] ZACC 30

In Scalabrini Centre of Cape Town and Another v Minister of Home Affairs and Others, the Court confirmed the invalidity of sections 4(1)(f), 4(1)(h), 4(1)(i) and 21(1B) of the Refugees Act. The challenged provisions allowed specified immigration-document offences, irregular entry or late reporting to prevent a claim from reaching an assessment on its merits. Section 21(1B) required an interview about the absence of an asylum transit visa, and the Court found that the provision failed constitutional scrutiny.

The Court’s reasoning centred on non-refoulement, the protection against return to persecution or serious harm, and the need to consider the merits of a protection claim. Its order confirmed invalidity, with paragraph 109 recording that the respondents sought no suspension. Regulations 8(1)(c)(i), 8(2), 8(3) and 8(4) had been invalidated by the High Court, and the attempted appeal against them was defective.^[3]

Home Affairs’ implementation statement

7 October 2026

Home Affairs confirmed in its 7 October statement that it had issued an operational directive to give effect to the July judgment. The department said it was obliged to implement the Court’s ruling, which concerns access to the process through which a protection claim is heard. Recognition as a refugee continues to require a determination under the Act, and citizenship follows a separate legal process.^[4]

Irankunda: subsequent applications

12 May 2026 · CCT 214/24 · [2026] ZACC 18

The May decision in Director-General, Department of Home Affairs and Others v Irankunda and Another concerned an application made after an earlier asylum claim had failed. The majority held that the Act provides no right for a failed asylum seeker to make a subsequent application, addressing the statutory framework governing that stage of a claim.

The Court distinguished a first application arising from circumstances that changed after a person left their country, known as a sur place claim. Such an application is processed as a first asylum claim. Rogers J and Nicholls AJ dissented on subsequent applications, favouring an interpretation that would permit a further claim after a material change in circumstances.^[5]

What the timing permits researchers to conclude

The year-end 2025 population and active appeals counts predate both judgments. Their recorded movements therefore cannot be attributed to these 2026 decisions. The August operational population observation follows the July ruling, but a single combined count provides no measure of registrations arising from its implementation. Establishing that effect would require a dated series of applications and outcomes, with information about changes in access and reporting practice.

Home Affairs reported 70 976 active appeals at the end of 2025, compared with 79 870 at the end of 2024. That is a reduction of 8 894 cases, or 11.1%.^[6]

During the 2025/26 financial year, Home Affairs removed 19 064 cases from a ringfenced backlog of 133 582 appeals through several routes, including determinations and withdrawals. The published figure records removals from the caseload without a breakdown of refugee recognition outcomes.

The department’s statement describes the active reduction as more than 12%; the counts yield 11.1%. For ringfenced removals, 19 064 ÷ 133 582 gives 14.3%, compared with the statement’s 14.2%.

Because the appeals figures count cases and UNHCR’s statistics count people, adding them would introduce overlap. Their reporting periods also differ: the active caseload is measured at calendar year-end, and ringfenced removals cover a financial year.

Capacity and the rate of case resolution

Home Affairs attributes the improvement to reforms that included the appointment of 40 additional advocate members and changes to hearing schedules. It also reports expanded work with UNHCR on the quality and consistency of decisions.^[6] Those statements identify changes in resources and operating practice. The aggregate caseload figures provide insufficient detail to isolate the contribution of each reform to the reduction.

A falling active caseload records the balance between cases entering and leaving that caseload. The available statement gives starting and closing stocks, alongside removals from a separately defined ringfenced backlog. Estimating a clearance date by dividing the remaining active cases by ringfenced removals would combine different populations and overlook future additions. A defensible clearance forecast would need a consistent case series with inflows and completed outcomes for the same cohort.

Home Affairs’ Annual Performance Plan sets a 2026/27 target of adjudicating 90% of new applications at Refugee Status Determination Officer level within 30 working days of registration. For 2029/30, its target extends across the process, seeking adjudication of 90% of new applications within 180 working days, including appeals and reviews.^[7]

UNHCR’s published strategy sets a 2027 goal for increased access to national and development opportunities for self-reliance and livelihoods.^[8] Progress against that goal and the department’s processing targets will need to be assessed through subsequent reports on delivery.

The official sources reviewed contained no South Africa-specific refugee population forecast through 2030. Their plans describe the intended performance of the asylum system and access to opportunities, so the outlook presented here follows those published commitments. Updated population records will be needed to assess how the number of people in each status category changes over that period.

What the targets imply for the outlook

The 90% threshold leaves a portion of the new-application cohort outside the stated turnaround target. Even full achievement of the indicator would therefore leave the duration of those cases as a further question. The target’s focus on new applications also means that progress against it would need to be assessed alongside the separate effort to resolve older appeals. Faster decisions for a new cohort and clearance of accumulated cases measure different aspects of administrative performance.^[7]

In a system with unchanged inflows and reporting coverage, a shorter period awaiting a decision would reduce the number of claims pending at a point in time. If access to registration expanded during the same period, additions to the recorded population could offset that effect. These are conditional relationships used to interpret the outlook; the reviewed evidence supplies no estimates of their magnitude in South Africa through 2030.

Assessment of the next reporting periods will turn on the relationship between access and throughput. Registration counts, the age of open cases and the outcomes of completed claims would allow researchers to examine whether recorded improvements extend across the process. UNHCR’s livelihood goal poses a further question about conditions after recognition, for which administrative case statistics offer limited evidence.

Documentation links the administration of a claim to the evidence available to organisations dealing with its holder. Section 22 documentation relates to an application pending determination; sections 24 and 27 address recognition and the documents associated with refugee status.^[9] UNHCR’s documentation material describes a Home Affairs verification contact printed on permits issued by email, providing an issuer-level route for enquiries about validity.^[10]

An identity lookup adds evidence about the record held against an identifier. In VerifyNow’s authorised NIIS service, the response contains the source outcome and available identity fields, together with the check time. An expiry value returned by the source appears as Record expiry date.^[11] The scope of that result is relevant to the weight an organisation places on it: the identity record, the document presented and the legal conditions attached to a person’s status answer different questions.

Measuring the contribution of verification to this system would require evidence about source coverage and the frequency of discrepancies, followed by the outcomes of cases in which records were corrected or clarified. The sources reviewed establish the function of the check; they provide no basis for a national estimate of its effect on fraud or access to services.

Product reference: VerifyNow refugee and asylum ID verification.

This report uses sources available as at 7 October 2026. Historical population charts come from a downloaded UNHCR annual database snapshot with South Africa selected as the country of asylum, and the full origin dataset reconciles to its national total. The August figure comes from the operational portal and is presented with that source’s date and reporting basis.

UNHCR’s country-page narrative and some operational publications carry other totals. The annual series provides the basis for the historical comparisons in this edition, with further evidence required to explain the causes of changes in the reported population.

AI assisted the research and drafting, after which numerical claims were checked against the source records and percentages recalculated. The account of the Court’s decisions draws on the final judgments, and Home Affairs’ reported actions are attributed to its statements.

The discussion of administrative capacity draws inferences from the definitions and periods of the published measures. Relationships between registration, processing time and the pending caseload are presented as conditional analysis. They carry no estimated effect size and make no numerical prediction of the population through 2030.

1. 1.
   Refugee Population Statistics Database: South Africa, 2020–2025

   UNHCR. Year-end observations; downloaded 7 October 2026.

   Annual data (JSON)Origin data (JSON)
2. 2.
   South Africa Multi-Country Office: operational population portal

   Government / UNHCR. South Africa observation: 31 August 2026.

3. 3.
   Scalabrini Centre of Cape Town and Another v Minister of Home Affairs and Others [2026] ZACC 30

   Constitutional Court of South Africa. 7 July 2026.

4. 4.
   Home Affairs statement on implementation of the Scalabrini judgment

   Government Communication and Information System / SAnews. 7 October 2026.

5. 5.
   Director-General, Department of Home Affairs and Others v Irankunda and Another [2026] ZACC 18

   Constitutional Court of South Africa. 12 May 2026.

6. 6.
   Refugee appeals caseload and ringfenced backlog update

   Department of Home Affairs. 9 July 2026; counts refer to calendar 2024/2025 and financial 2025/26.

7. 7.
   Annual Performance Plan 2026/27

   Department of Home Affairs. 2026/27 plan.

8. 8.
   South Africa: country operation and strategy

   UNHCR. Strategy reviewed 7 October 2026.

9. 9.
   Refugees Act 130 of 1998, consolidated text

   Department of Home Affairs. Consolidation reflecting amendments effective 1 January 2020.

10. 10.
    Registration, Documentation and Identity

    UNHCR South Africa. Reviewed 7 October 2026.

11. 11.
    Refugee and asylum ID verification: service scope

    VerifyNow. Implementation reviewed 7 October 2026.

Submit a correction or a newer official source