Mr Musisi sought entry to the United Kingdom as a visitor from Kenya. When that application looked as though it might fail, he claimed political asylum as a refugee from Uganda. His application for asylum was refused on the basis that he had come from a safe third country, Kenya. This decision was challenged on the basis that Kenya was not safe – that in fact he would almost certainly be removed to Uganda. The Minister of State rejected this submission on the grounds that: ‘It is the respondent’s belief that Kenya as a signatory to the United Nation’s Convention relating to the status of refugees would not knowingly remove a Uganda citizen to Uganda if there was reason to believe he would be persecuted there. ‘
Held: ‘I cannot escape the conclusion that the Secretary of State’s decision in relation to the appellant were taken on the basis of a confidence in Kenya’s performance of its obligation under the Convention which is now shown to have been, at least to some extent, misplaced . . The fact of such breaches must be very relevant to any assessment of the danger that the appellant, if returned to Kenya, would be sent home to Uganda. Since the decision of the Secretary of State appears to have been made without taking that fact into account, they cannot, in my opinion, now stand. ‘ and ‘The Court must, I think, be entitled to subject an administrative decision to the more rigorous examination, to ensure that it is in no way flawed, according to the gravity of the issue which the decision determines. The most fundamental of all human rights is the individual’s right to life and when an administrative decision under challenge is said to be one which may put the applicant’s life at risk, the basis of the decision must surely call for the most anxious scrutiny. ‘
Judges:
Lord Bridge
Citations:
[1987] AC 514
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Bugdaycay HL 19-Feb-1986
Three applicants had lied on entry to secure admission, stayed for a considerable time, and had been treated as illegal immigrants under section 33(1). The fourth’s claim that upon being returned he would been killed, had been rejected without . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department Ex Parte Abdi, Same v Same, Ex Parte Gawe HL 15-Feb-1996
Two Somali nationals were refused asylum and sought to challenge a decision rejecting their claim that to be sent to Spain would be contrary to the United Kingdom’s obligations under the Geneva Convention of 1951.
Held: Adjudicators are . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Abdi, Same v Same, ex parte Gawe QBD 24-Feb-1994
The Secretary of State must state all the facts on which his opinion had based when ordering the deportation of an Asylum-seeker as to the safety of the destination country. ‘In a situation in which it is to be expected that most or all of the . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Abdi and Another CA 21-Apr-1994
The Home Secretary has no duty to show the factual evidence he had relied upon as to the safety of a deportee’s destination country.
The Home Secretary need not state all information on which his certificate was based. The court recognised the . .
Cited – ST Eritrea, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 21-Mar-2012
The Tribunal had confirmed the appellant’s refugee status, but the respondent had ordered nevertheless that she be returned. The judge’s order setting aside that decision had been overturned in the Court of Appeal.
Held: The claimant’s appeal . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Immigration
Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.219249