The relevant test of whether an order returning an asylum applicant to another country would infringe his human rights was whether there were substantial grounds for believing that the petitioner faced a real risk of relevant ill treatment if returned. There must be substantial grounds for believing that the claimant would face a real risk of the adverse effect which he or she claims to fear. A reviewing court must assess the judgment which would or might be made by an adjudicator on appeal: ‘although the [Convention] rights may be engaged, legitimate immigration control will almost certainly mean that derogation from the rights will be proper and will not be disproportionate.’
Judges:
Collins J, Mr C M G Ockelton and Mr J Freeman
Citations:
[2001] INLR 354, [2002] Imm AR 213
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Appealed to – Kacaj v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 14-Mar-2002
. .
Cited by:
Appeal from – Kacaj v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 14-Mar-2002
. .
Cited – Regina v Sectretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Razgar etc HL 17-Jun-2004
The claimant resisted removal after failure of his claim for asylum, saying that this would have serious adverse consequences to his mental health, infringing his rights under article 8. He appealed the respondent’s certificate that his claim was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Immigration, Human Rights
Updated: 12 May 2022; Ref: scu.181861