(LIBYA) U.K. removal efforts involving people who passed through Libya are facing fresh delays as migrants lodge claims that they were victims of modern slavery and human trafficking. Those claims trigger the National Referral Mechanism (NRM) and pause deportations while the government assesses protection claims.

How the pause works: NRM referrals and stages

Once a person asserts exploitation abroad—commonly in Libyan detention sites or transit hubs—a referral to the NRM is made so the Home Office can decide if there are initial “reasonable grounds” to believe the person is a potential victim. During that period:

• Deportation is usually halted.
• The individual receives government-funded support.
• If the initial threshold is met, the person remains in the system for a longer “conclusive grounds” decision, which further extends protection and delays removal.

Officials stress that removing someone before their claim is fully assessed would breach safeguards designed to protect people who were exploited.

“Removing someone before their claim is fully assessed would breach the safeguards designed to protect people who were exploited.”
(paraphrase of officials’ position)

Legal and practical effects

The effect of an NRM referral is both immediate and legal:

• Courts have issued injunctions to stop removals when judges find a real risk that a person could not continue their modern slavery claim from abroad or might face destitution if removed too soon.
• Injunctions have been granted where migrants say they were forced into labor or prostitution in third countries en route to the U.K., including Libya.
• These rulings mean flights do not take off with passengers who have unresolved protection claims tied to exploitation.

Decision-makers must weigh medical evidence, personal statements, and any corroboration. Where there is doubt, the process errs on the side of caution, maintaining the pause while the file moves through the two-stage assessment.

What the Home Office considers

The Home Office’s assessment looks at:

• Whether someone was under the control of traffickers.
• Whether they were subject to force, threats, or deception.
• Whether they were exploited for labor or sex.

Key points:

• The process does not require a criminal conviction against alleged traffickers.
• It looks for indicators and patterns consistent with trafficking or slavery.
• In Libya-related accounts, common descriptions include extortion, detention in informal camps, forced labor, or coercion by smugglers who demand payment or inflict abuse.

How NRM referrals are made

For people who say they were harmed in Libya, the pathway is well-known among community groups and removal-defense lawyers:

• A person can ask a designated “first responder” to make an NRM referral, which pulls the case into the formal system.
• The government publishes the NRM referral form, used by first responders to submit details of potential victims, on its official site.
• That form and related guidance are available through the Home Office’s page for human trafficking victims: referral and assessment forms.

Once submitted, the form places the individual under the NRM while a decision is made.

Court involvement and judicial reasoning

Judges have intervened when there is evidence that removal would:

• Prevent meaningful access to the NRM process.
• Deny necessary medical care tied to exploitation.
• Undermine credibility assessments that require stability and proper consideration of trauma.

On that basis, courts have:

1. Paused removals and ordered the Home Office to finish the reasonable grounds inquiry before attempting removal.
2. Where necessary, required the Home Office to wait until the conclusive grounds stage concludes.

Even where initial claims are refused, lawyers can seek urgent court intervention if new evidence emerges or if mental health considerations were not properly evaluated.

Political debate and tensions

The situation has sharpened political debate:

• Supporters of the NRM argue that halting deportation is the point of a victim-centered system: it avoids sending trafficking victims back into harm’s way or into conditions where they cannot present evidence.
• Critics call certain late-stage filings “vexatious” and argue some people only raise exploitation after they are told they will be removed, creating procedural barriers that are hard to overcome quickly.

According to analysis by VisaVerge.com, this tension reflects a clash between immigration enforcement timelines and the safeguards built into anti-trafficking procedures; when protection is at stake, the latter takes priority.

Operational implications for removals

In practice, the legal duty to assess claims shapes daily operations:

• When a flight is scheduled, officials must check whether any passenger has entered the NRM and whether a reasonable grounds decision is pending.
• If so, removal usually cannot proceed without risking a court challenge.
• Even refusals can be revisited if new evidence or welfare concerns (such as serious mental health issues) are raised, adding complexity and delays.

Support available during assessment

Advocates highlight that delays carry costs but are essential to meeting obligations:

• While in the NRM, individuals generally receive safe housing, counseling, and legal help.
• That support is not indefinite; it is tied to the NRM stages and ends when a case is resolved.
• During the assessment window, the person is shielded from removal so evidence can be collected and considered without the pressure of imminent deportation.

Government stance and system protection

Government voices emphasize the need to protect the NRM from abuse but acknowledge legal limits:

• The Home Office must give serious consideration to any account of trafficking or enslavement, whether alleged abuse happened in a country of origin, in Libya during transit, or elsewhere.
• Even critics accept that the Home Office cannot simply disregard a trafficking assertion.
• The design of the NRM is to pause enforcement until the issue is settled.

That is why deportations involving people who report abuse in Libya or along other routes are frequently postponed, even at late notice, and why court injunctions have become a familiar feature of removal operations.

Final takeaway

The outcome of each case rests on evidence: some claims are upheld after full review; others are rejected. The common thread is the pause—once the NRM is engaged, enforcement steps back and protection steps forward.

Until there are changes in law or policy, the National Referral Mechanism will remain the principal reason deportations are halted when people report modern slavery and trafficking in Libya and beyond.