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 decision and the test laid down, namely whether that third country might itself deal with him otherwise than in accordance with the Convention.
Judges:
Lord Justice Chadwick, Lord Justice Laws and Sir Anthony Evans
Citations:
Times 15-Nov-2001, [2001] EWCA Civ 1611
Links:
Statutes:
Asylum and Immigration Act 1996 2, Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (1951) (Cmd 9171)
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – 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:
Appeal from – 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 . .
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Immigration, Human Rights
Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.166839
