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 a way which complied with the Convention.
Held: Germany did apply the convention criteria differently, but the difference was not so great as to mean that they did not apply it correctly, and other protections may be available to them under German law. The order for removal stood. However: ‘Before certifying as ‘manifestly unfounded’ an allegation that a person has acted in breach of the human rights of a proposed deportee the Home Secretary must carefully consider the allegation, the grounds on which it is made and any material relied on to support it. But his consideration does not involve a full-blown merits review. It is a screening process to decide whether a deportee should be sent to another country for a full review to be carried out there or whether there appear to be human rights arguments which merit full consideration in this country before any removal order is implemented. No matter what the volume of material submitted or the sophistication of the argument deployed to support the allegation, the Home Secretary is entitled to certify if, after reviewing this material, he is reasonably and conscientiously satisfied that the allegation must clearly fail’
Bingham, Hope, Hutton, Millett, Scott LL
Times 18-Oct-2002, [2002] UKHL 36, [2002] 3 WLR 1276, [2003] 1 AC 920, [2002] 4 All ER 785, [2002] INLR 620, [2003] Imm AR 227, [2002] 14 BHRC 185
House of Lords, Bailii
Geneva Convention and Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees, Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 11(1)(b)
England and Wales
Citing:
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 on the Application of Santia Yogathas v Secretary of State for Home Department Admn 25-May-2001
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 . .
Cited by:
Cited – Bagdanavicius, Bagdanaviciene v the Secretary of State for Home Department Admn 16-Apr-2003
The applicants sought asylum, saying they had been subjected to repeated ill-treatment by Lithuanian Mafiosi. The claims were rejected as clearly unfounded, denying any right to an appeal.
Held: The court could examine the basis upon which the . .
Cited – Secretary of State for the Home Department, Regina on the Application of Soumahoro; Regina on the Application of Nadarajah; and similar CA 19-Jun-2003
In each case asylum applicants had been certified as suitable to be returned to the first country at which they had arrived on fleeing their home countries.
Held: To determine whether article 8 was engaged given the territoriality principle, . .
Cited – Atkinson, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 10-Oct-2003
. .
Cited – Atkinson v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 5-Jul-2004
The applicant sought judicial review of the respondent’s certification under s94 that his cliam for asylum was hopeless. He said that he had acted as an informer against criminal gangs in Jamaica, and that the state of Jamacia could not provide him . .
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 . .
Cited – Regina (Nadarajah) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 2-Dec-2002
The Claimant was a Tamil from Sri Lanka claiming asylum. He was married in 1991; his wife was also Tamil. In 1995 his claim for asylum in Germany failed. What then happened was disputed. The Claimant said that he voluntarily returned to Sri Lanka, . .
Cited – Regina (Nadarajah) v Secretary of State for the Home Department; Abdi v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 22-Nov-2005
The asylum applicant challenged a certificate given by the respondent that the claim for asylum was manifestly ill-founded. The respondent had made a mistake in applying the appropriate policy, but had sought to correct the error. The claimants . .
Cited – Temiz, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 13-Oct-2006
The claimant sought judicial review of the refusal by the respondent to give him permission to stay in the United Kingdom. As a Turkish national he had absconded after being ordered to be removed, and had since gone into business here.
Held: . .
Cited – Secretary of State for the Home Department v JN CA 14-May-2008
The Secretary of State appealed against a declaration that paragraph 3(2)(b) of Part 2 of Schedule 3 to the 2004 Act was incompatible with Article 3. The clause was said to restrict the Home Secretary from considering anything beyond the country . .
Cited – ZT (Kosovo) v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 4-Feb-2009
The claimant sought asylum. The respondent on her appeal certified that the claim was clearly unfounded. The House was asked how further submissions might be made and what approach should be taken on a request for judicial review of such a decision. . .
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 . .
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, Human Rights
Leading Case
Updated: 10 November 2021; Ref: scu.177451