When asking whether it was correct to certify the removal of an asylum seeker to a third country, in the light of a country’s compliance with the Convention, the issue should be approached in an intensely practical fashion. The question was not primarily whether the third country’s laws were compliant, but rather what was the practical effect of those laws for the particular applicant’s circumstances. Here the applicant had come from Sri Lanka via Germany. Any deficiency in Germany’s laws did not put him at risk of further persecution, by him being returned from there to Sri Lanka.
Judges:
Richards J
Citations:
Times 25-Jul-2001, [2001] EWHC Admin 377
Links:
Statutes:
Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (1951) (Cmd 9171)
Cited by:
Appeal from – Regina (Yogathas) v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 9-Sep-2001
When assessing the propriety of an order requiring an asylum seeker to be removed and returned to a third country, it was wrong to look at the processes which might be applied by that third country. The court should look at the outcome of the . .
At first instance – Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex Parte Thangarasa; Same Ex parte Yogathas HL 17-Oct-2002
The applicants were asylum seekers who had been ordered to be returned to Germany, the country to which they had first escaped, for their asylum claims to be dealt with. They objected, asserting that Germany would not deal with their applications in . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Immigration
Updated: 29 May 2022; Ref: scu.140335
