Sudan: No Safe Area for Return — Updated 2026 Country Conditions

Last updated: 16 September 2026

Photo: Sudan - Nina R

Sudan return risk in 2026 is severe across all parts of the country. There is no safe area where civilians can return without facing risk of conflict-related harm, ethnic targeting, sexual violence, or famine. Furthermore, internal relocation analysis is exceptionally difficult — RSF-controlled zones and SAF-controlled zones each present distinct risk profiles, and movement between them is hazardous. Therefore, asylum decisions involving Sudanese claimants must engage with the comprehensive risk environment rather than proposing relocation as an alternative to refugee protection. This article surveys Sudan return risk in 2026 by zone and profile.[1]

Read alongside the broader Sudan country report and the related articles on RSF Darfur atrocities and displacement crisis.

Risk in RSF-Controlled Zones

RSF-controlled zones include most of Darfur (excluding parts of North Darfur), parts of Kordofan, and parts of central and western Sudan. Furthermore, the RSF advance through Gezira and Sennar in 2024 extended RSF control to additional areas. Risks in RSF-controlled zones include: ethnic targeting (genocide determination); sexual violence; forced displacement; property seizure; arbitrary detention; and famine.[2]

Highest-risk RSF zone profiles

• Non-Arab Darfuri ethnic groups (Masalit, Fur, Zaghawa, others).
• Sexual violence survivors at continuing risk.
• Civilians in El Fasher (siege).
• Civilians from areas of recent RSF advance (Sennar, Gezira).
• Former SAF members in RSF-controlled areas.

Risk in SAF-Controlled Zones

SAF-controlled zones include Port Sudan and the Red Sea coast, parts of eastern Sudan, parts of northern Sudan, and contested areas in Khartoum and central Sudan. Furthermore, the SAF has retaken some areas previously held by RSF in 2024-2026 operations. Risks in SAF-controlled zones include: aerial bombardment in contested areas; arbitrary detention of suspected RSF sympathisers; mass detention of opposition activists; and continuing humanitarian crisis.[3]

Highest-risk SAF zone profiles

• Suspected RSF sympathisers (broadly defined).
• 2019 revolution activists; democracy advocates.
• Journalists.
• Civilians from contested areas (artillery exposure).
• Former Bashir-era opposition figures.

Khartoum: Contested and Devastated

The Khartoum metropolitan area was contested through 2024 and largely retaken by SAF by mid-2025. However, the area has been extensively damaged. Civilian infrastructure — water, electricity, healthcare — remains severely disrupted. Furthermore, returnees face risks: arbitrary detention by SAF security; unexploded ordnance; lack of basic services. Many former Khartoum residents have not returned even where their homes are in areas under SAF control.[4]

Port Sudan: De Facto Capital

Port Sudan has become the de facto capital. The city has not seen direct combat. SAF and the civilian government operate from there. Furthermore, international diplomatic missions have relocated to Port Sudan. However, the city is severely overcrowded with displaced persons; basic services are stretched; and arbitrary detention of suspected RSF sympathisers has been documented. Therefore, Port Sudan is not a "safe area" in the asylum sense.[5]

Famine as a Return Risk

The IPC Phase 5 famine declaration (August 2024 and subsequent) identifies regions where return would expose civilians to imminent risk of starvation. Furthermore, the famine context engages Paposhvili-style analysis even where Convention grounds may be marginal. As a result, Sudan return risk is elevated by the food security context across multiple regions.[6]

Sudan presents a comprehensive risk environment in which no safe area for return exists. The combination of conflict, ethnic targeting, sexual violence, famine, and displacement crisis means that return cannot be safely proposed for most civilian profiles.
UNHCR Position on Returns to Sudan (updated 2024)

Sudan Return Risk by Profile

Evidence for Sudan Asylum Claims

Strong Sudan cases include:[7]

• Country expert report: Profile-matched analysis citing US determination, UN Fact-Finding Mission, HRW.
• Personal narrative: Detailed witness statement covering ethnicity, region, specific events.
• Documentary evidence: Where available — ID, family records, media coverage.
• Medical/psychiatric evidence: Where torture, sexual violence has occurred.
• Family/community statements: Documenting continuing threats.
• Internal relocation analysis: Why no safe area exists for the profile.

Conclusion

Sudan return risk in 2026 is severe across all parts of the country. RSF-controlled zones, SAF-controlled zones, contested areas, and even Port Sudan present distinct risk profiles. Furthermore, famine, sexual violence, and ethnic targeting elevate the comprehensive risk environment. Therefore, no safe area for return exists for most civilian profiles. To commission a Sudan expert report, use the find expert witness service. For broader context, see the country reports section.