Asylum best practice

Question 1

Immigration Rules 345A–D

Answer 1

Rules on inadmissibility and safe third country cases - came into force on 1 January 2021

Question 2

Family reunion rules

Answer 2

352A, 352D and 319X

Question 3

Safe third country certifications

Answer 3

Schedule 3 AITCA 2004

Question 4

The HO will treat an applicant claiming to be a minor as an adult only if

Answer 4

inter alia, two HO officers independently find that the applicant’s physical appearance and demeanor very strongly suggests that they are 25 or older (see HO guidance, ‘Assessing Age’ and BF (Eritrea) [2019] EWCA Civ 872 [65]).

Question 5

Ali [2017] EWCA Civ 138; TN [2020] EWHC 481 (Admin)

Answer 5

Age-disputed young people should not be detained

Question 6

Language analysis commonly scheduled for

Answer 6

applicants claiming to be Kurds from Iran or Iraq, or to be from Syria, Egypt, Eritrea, or Ethiopia

Question 7

Article 1F

Answer 7

The HO can exclude an individual from refugee status under Article 1F of the Convention if they have committed war crimes, crimes against humanity, terrorist acts or other serious criminal offences, even where they meet the refugee definition in Article 1A(2), before their application (Convention Article 1F) or after their grant of status (Convention Article 33(2); Qualification Directive 14).

Note: the act relied on must be a criminal offence in the UK.

A serious offence involves conviction with a two-year sentence (NIAA 2002, s.72).

Question 8

AM (Zimbabwe) [2020] UKSC 17 [183]

Answer 8

breach of Article 3 occurs if the removal of a seriously ill person shows:

(1) substantial grounds for believing that
(2) they would face a real risk
(3) of being exposed to a serious, rapid and irreversible decline in their health resulting in intense suffering or to a significant reduction in life expectancy
(4) due to the absence of appropriate treatment or lack of access to such treatment in the receiving country.

Question 9

Removal breaches Article 8 when:

Answer 9

(1) it would be unreasonable to expect the applicant’s child (British or seven years’ residence) to leave the UK (Appendix FM, EX.1),
(2) there are insurmountable obstacles to family life continuing abroad (Appendix FM, EX.2), or
(3) removal would result in “unjustifiably harsh consequences” for the applicant or their family member (Appendix FM, GEN.3.2(2)).

Question 10

s96

Answer 10

applies where a person relies on a matter that could have been raised in an earlier appeal but has no satisfactory reason for not doing so

Question 11

Sheidu (Further submissions; appealable decision) [2016] UKUT 000412 (IAC)

Answer 11

However, if the FS include an HR claim, then their refusal carries a right of appeal, regardless of the HO’s claims (Sheidu [2016] UKUT 412 (IAC)). The UT held that if the HO makes a decision specified in NIAA 2002, s.82(1), then it carries a right of appeal.

Question 12

In the appeals regime from 1993 until the amendments introduced by the 2014 Act, there was no specific right of appeal against the refusal of an asylum or human rights claim. The right of appeal was against

Answer 12

the consequent decision, for example to refuse the individual leave, or to remove him.

Question 13

If you decide an appeal cannot be lodged on a publicly funded basis, you must

Answer 13

provide the CW4 and all key documents to the client.

Advise them of their options, the HO decision’s impact on Asylum Support, and the risk of the HO initiating enforcement action.

Question 14

The six main points you should address with your client after they receive their (positive) decision are:

Answer 14

1. The decision’s reasoning
2. Attached rights / conditions
3. Application steps for further leave
4. Applicable HO fees and legal aid availability for further applications
5. Implications of criminality or condition breach on progress to settlement
6. Third-sector support options