I start with reference to refugee journeys and how they are rarely linear but are instead ‘fragmented’ because of poor conditions in many places of ostensible refuge and states’ containment mechanisms. I highlight that there has been little consideration of the role litigation plays in refugee journeys. This is despite refugees increasingly turning to courts to seek protection, not from persecution in their home country, but from a place of ‘refuge’. While there are myriad studies of how courts interpret refugee definitions, in this first global and comparative study of protection from refuge jurisprudence, I examine how judges approach the remedy: refuge. Using feminist approaches to international law,I also consider whether these judicial approaches assist or hinder refugees’ (or particular refugees’) journeys towards a safe haven with a particular focus on gender but also intersectional factors such as youth, disability, sexuality and parenthood. I argue that when protection from refuge claims first come before decision-making bodies, judges adopt rich and robust ideas of refuge. However, most of these victories have been ephemeral. Decision-makers reverse or dilute initial successes and adopt rudimentary understandings of refuge. This trajectory transforms these judgments from refugee protection to migration management decisions.