The court considered whether it was safe to return the applicant to Italy, and said: ‘a system which will, if it operates as it usually does, provide the required standard protection for the asylum seeker will not be found to be deficient because of aberrations.’
Judges:
Kenneth Parker J
Citations:
[2011] EWHC 3012 (Admin)
Links:
Statutes:
Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002
Citing:
Approved – Regina v Secretary of State for Department (ex parte Adan) and Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department (ex parte Subaskaran) etc CA 23-Jul-1999
Where a country was a signatory to the Convention, but chose to interpret it so as not to give the same protection against oppression by non-state agents which would be given here, the Home Secretary was wrong to certify such countries, in this case . .
Cited by:
Cited – EM (Eritrea), Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 19-Feb-2014
SSHD must examine safety of country for return
The Court was asked: ‘Is an asylum seeker or refugee who resists his or her return from the United Kingdom to Italy (the country in which she or he first sought or was granted asylum) required to establish that there are in Italy ‘systemic . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Immigration
Updated: 26 September 2022; Ref: scu.448510