Irish High Court finds decision to list the UK as a safe country for asylum seekers is unlawful – UK visa news

As reported final week, the Irish Excessive Court docket has held that the choice to place the UK on the checklist of secure third nations to return folks looking for asylum to has been held illegal. The case is A & anor v The Minister for Justice, Eire and the Legal professional Basic & anor [2024] IEHC 164.

Legislative background

Following Brexit, the Dublin Regulations now not utilized to the UK and so in December 2020 Eire made an order designating the UK as a secure third nation for the aim of the Worldwide Safety Act 2015. Because of this the place an individual is deemed to have handed by such a secure third nation, their asylum declare could be deemed inadmissible with the intention of returning them to that nation to have their declare processed as a substitute.

The ability to designate a rustic as secure was a brand new one, inserted into the 2015 Act by the Withdrawal of the UK from the European Union (Consequential Provisions) Act 2020. The 2020 Act additionally added a brand new foundation for treating an asylum declare as inadmissible the place there was a connection to a chosen secure third nation, a prohibition towards refoulement for purposes deemed inadmissible and an influence to make a return order for an individual whose declare had been deemed inadmissible, requiring them to go away Eire.

The candidates

Applicant A is an Iraqi man who claimed asylum in Eire on 18 Could 2021. He had claimed asylum within the UK in March 2018 and this had been refused in December 2019. On 4 October 2021 the UK accepted Applicant A to be returned to the UK. His software was then deemed inadmissible on 3 March 2022 because the UK was thought of to be a secure nation.

He appealed that call (earlier than the announcement of the UK’s Rwanda coverage) and submitted that the UK shouldn’t be thought of a secure third nation usually and/or in his explicit circumstances. He additionally stated that he had returned to Iraq between the 2 asylum claims and so there was an error find that he had a connection to the UK.

The tribunal dismissed his attraction, discovering that there was no proof he had left the UK after his unsuccessful asylum declare and that the UK “would respect and adhere to the principal of non-refoulement in accordance with its international obligations under Article 3 ECHR”.

A discover was then issued on 5 August 2022 confirming his asylum declare was inadmissible and {that a} return order could be made. On 30 August 2022 his representatives made additional submissions primarily based on a change of circumstances, stating that there was a danger he could be despatched to Rwanda which had not been designed by Eire as a secure third nation.

These submissions have been rejected, partly as a result of the applicant was not more likely to be affected by the Rwanda coverage as he had arrived earlier than 1 January 2022. A judicial evaluate software was then lodged by Applicant A.

Applicant B is a Nigerian nationwide who claimed asylum in Eire on 24 Could 2022, having beforehand been within the UK with go away as a pupil. An inadmissibility determination was issued on 10 Could 2023 and a judicial evaluate difficult that call was lodged on 7 June 2023.

The judicial evaluate

The judicial evaluate included a problem to the lawfulness of the choice in mild of the UK’s Rwanda coverage. The court docket set out the historical past of the Rwanda coverage to this point, together with considerations in regards to the Invoice as raised by UNHCR and the Bar Council, and makes a degree of noting Home of Lords considerations in regards to the treaty.

The grounds for judicial evaluate additionally included that the designation of the UK as a secure third nation was illegal due to the failure to hold out a significant evaluate and/or that it was irrational. There have been additionally challenges on knowledge safety grounds and that Eire’s secure nation return system didn’t adjust to EU regulation.

The court docket stated that the proceedings additionally known as into query the authorized foundation for giving impact to a secure third nation idea in Eire, given it’s topic to frequent EU coverage on asylum and operates throughout the Widespread European Asylum System.

The Excessive Court docket held [at 168] that there was a spot between EU regulation and Irish home regulation and that the latter had failed to incorporate all the mandatory safeguards required underneath EU regulation. Specifically:

The failure to require the Minister to be happy that an individual wouldn’t be subjected to severe hurt on switch to a 3rd nation, if designated as secure, signifies that Eire is in breach of the necessities of EU regulation, particularly Article 3(3) of the Dublin III Rules.

On that foundation it was held that the choice to designate the UK as a secure nation was illegal and the Minister had exceeded their powers in doing so.

There was one other problem which was to the failure of the Minister to hold out a evaluate of whether or not the UK was nonetheless a secure third nation following the announcement of the Rwanda coverage, however the court docket declined to deal with this level [175]. Nevertheless, the court docket did discover that the shortage of provision in home regulation for a evaluate of the protection of the third nation on the level a return determination is made was additionally illegal [192-193].

The Excessive Court docket declined to resolve different grounds on the idea that it was not mandatory in mild of the discovering of unlawfulness as above.

The court docket concluded by granting a declaration that the designation of the UK as a secure third nation was opposite to Eire’s obligations underneath EU regulation and that selections made in reliance on that must be quashed.

Conclusion

Though the Rwanda coverage was not the figuring out issue on this case, if Eire does search to treatment the legislative points and remake the choice in a lawful manner then it is going to absolutely be of relevance at that time. The decide additionally made the purpose at paragraph 11 that this case involved the place earlier than the provisions within the Unlawful Migration Act 2023 round obligatory inadmissibility had been introduced in.

This case is a helpful reminder that what the UK is doing in relation to asylum coverage does have an effect on its relationship with different nations. Presumably if EU nations are unable to return folks looking for asylum to the UK, they are going to be reluctant to simply accept any the UK needs to return.