What Is Complementary Protection? When Refugee Status Doesn't Apply

Last updated: 16 September 2026

Photo: Swiss-American Friendship Concert at United Nations in Geneva - United States Mission Geneva

Complementary protection is the umbrella term for the various legal mechanisms that protect people who do not qualify as refugees but who would still face serious harm on return. The 1951 Refugee Convention has five specific persecution grounds — race, religion, nationality, particular social group, and political opinion. Many people fleeing real harm fall outside those grounds. Therefore, modern asylum systems include layers of additional protection: complementary protection, subsidiary protection, humanitarian protection, withholding of removal, and CAT protection. This guide explains the difference, identifies the situations where complementary protection applies, and shows how to argue it in the alternative when a refugee claim is contested.[1]

For broader asylum guidance see the asylum guide collection.

What Complementary Protection Covers

Complementary protection covers people whose return would breach a state's non-refoulement obligations under sources other than the Refugee Convention. These include the European Convention on Human Rights (Article 3), the Convention Against Torture (Article 3), the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Articles 6 and 7), and various regional human rights instruments.[2]

Where complementary protection applies

Several recurring fact patterns produce complementary protection rather than refugee status:

• Generalised armed conflict: Where the violence is severe but not directed at the claimant for a Convention reason.
• Healthcare-collapse cases: Where return would mean denial of life-sustaining treatment under the Paposhvili standard.
• Torture risk without political ground: A person at risk of torture for non-Convention reasons (e.g., known criminal background that has placed them at risk from non-state actors).
• Family/clan persecution outside PSG: Some honour cases where PSG is contested.
• Trafficking-related risk: Where Convention grounds are not engaged but Article 4 ECHR (slavery and forced labour) or Article 3 ECHR may be.

The Main Complementary Protection Frameworks

Different jurisdictions implement complementary protection through different legal instruments. Therefore, the relevant framework depends on where the claim is made.[3]

UK: humanitarian protection

UK humanitarian protection under paragraph 339C of the Immigration Rules applies where a person would face a real risk of serious harm on return. Serious harm includes the death penalty or execution; torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment; and a serious and individual threat by reason of indiscriminate violence in armed conflict. The grant is for 5 years initial leave with a path to indefinite leave to remain.

EU: subsidiary protection

EU subsidiary protection under Article 15 of the Qualification Directive (2011/95/EU) covers the same three categories as UK humanitarian protection. The Court of Justice of the European Union's Elgafaji decision (Case C-465/07, 2009) interpreted Article 15(c) to include cases where the level of indiscriminate violence is such that mere presence on the territory creates real risk.

US: withholding of removal and CAT protection

The US has two parallel mechanisms. Withholding of removal under INA section 241(b)(3) prohibits removal to a country where life or freedom would be threatened on a Convention ground (with a higher burden of proof than asylum). CAT protection prohibits removal where it is more likely than not that the person will be tortured. CAT applies regardless of Convention ground.

Canada: person in need of protection

Canadian "Person in Need of Protection" status under section 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act covers people facing torture or risk to life or risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment. Recognised persons receive permanent resident status — broader rights than the US framework provides.

The Paposhvili Standard for Medical Cases

The European Court of Human Rights' decision in Paposhvili v Belgium (2016) sets the standard for medical-condition complementary protection cases. Article 3 ECHR can be violated where the person faces a risk of "serious, rapid and irreversible decline in his or her state of health resulting in intense suffering or to a significant reduction in life expectancy" because adequate treatment is not available in the country of return.[4]

The UK Supreme Court applied the Paposhvili standard in AM (Zimbabwe) v SSHD [2020] UKSC 17. The decision confirmed that the Paposhvili threshold is a meaningful test for medical cases. Subsequent Upper Tribunal decisions have applied the standard to a range of conditions including HIV/AIDS, cancer requiring specialist treatment, and severe mental health conditions.

Article 3 ECHR may be breached where the cumulative effects of lack of access to medical treatment in the country of return would produce a real risk of serious decline in health or life expectancy.
European Court of Human Rights, Paposhvili v Belgium, App No 41738/10 (13 December 2016)

Always Argue Complementary Protection in the Alternative

Strong asylum cases argue refugee status as the primary case and complementary protection as the alternative. The decision-maker may accept the persecution but doubt the Convention reason. Therefore, building the alternative case from the start prevents losing on the Convention ground point alone.[5]

Conclusion

Complementary protection ensures that people who would face torture, inhuman treatment, or generalised lethal violence are not returned even where their fear does not fit the five Refugee Convention grounds. UK humanitarian protection, EU subsidiary protection, US CAT protection, and Canadian PIN status all serve this function. As a result, every asylum case should be argued under both the Refugee Convention and the relevant complementary protection framework. To commission a country expert report supporting a complementary protection argument, use the find expert witness service. For broader asylum guidance see the asylum guide collection.