“CO-OPERATION OF THE NATIONAL AUTHORITIES WITH THE UNITED NATIONS. 1. The Contracting States undertake to co-operate with the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, or any other agency of the United Nations which may succeed it, in the exercise of its functions, and shall in particular facilitate its duty of supervising the application of the provisions of this Convention. 2. In order to enable the Office of the High Commissioner or any other agency of the United Nations which may succeed it, to make reports to the competent organs of the United Nations, the Contracting States undertake to provide them in the appropriate form with information and statistical data requested concerning: (a) The condition of refugees, (b) The implementation of this Convention, and; (c) Laws, regulations and decrees which are, or may hereafter be, in force relating to refugees.”
“….those applying for resettlement under the MRS must have been recognised as refugees within the 1951 Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol. They must also have close ties with the UK through family or possibly also historical links to the UK (e.g. periods spent here as a student). Close ties are usually taken to mean spouse, minor child or parents/grandparents over the age of 65. In exceptional circumstances other relationships will be considered; parent/grandparent (in the singular) under 65, family members aged 18 or over; son, daughter, sister, brother, uncle, aunt. No other categories of family relationship will meet the close ties requirement. The family members in the UK do not need to have been accepted as refugees but must be settled here or have limited leave in a category leading to settlement and this includes family members here under the Humanitarian Protection or Discretionary Leave provisions. Those who are here in a temporary capacity (e.g. visitors, students, for medical treatment etc) would not normally provide the mandate refugee with a close tie with the UK.
“Assessing the Claim of Those Mandate Refugees Referred by the BRC, or Who Claim in Person at a Post Abroad. Caseworkers should not need to assess the refugee status of a mandate refugee whose application is made abroad via UNHCR/BRC (for in-country applications see below). However, if the case has not been referred via UNHCR/British Red Cross, but has instead been referred by a British Post abroad as a result of an entry clearance application, caseworkers should confirm with UNHCR in London that the applicant has been recognised as a mandate refugee as claimed. Consideration of the case should usually be limited to an assessment of: • the applicant’s circumstances in the present country of refuge; and • whether the UK is the most appropriate country for resettlement. It may be that there is a case to be made for applicants to remain where they are or, alternatively, that there is a case for resettlement outside the present country of refuge to another safe third country. The applicant must have close ties with the UK-usually close family, but also possible history (e.g. periods spent here as a student). The family members in the United Kingdom do not need to have been accepted as refugees but must be settled here or have limited leave in a category leading to settlement and this includes family members here under the Humanitarian Protection or Discretionary Leave provisions. Those who are here in a temporary capacity (e.g. visitors, students, for medical treatment etc) would not normally provide the mandate refugee with a close tie with the UK. For the purposes of clarifying what constitutes close family the categories are: • spouse • children (minor’s)[sic] • parents/grandparents over 65 Exceptional Circumstances The following family members will only meet the close ties requirement in exceptional circumstances: • parent/grandparent (in the singular) under 65 • family members aged 18 or over: son, daughter, sister, brother, uncle, aunt. No other categories of family relationship will meet the closeties requirement.”
“27. First the five separate categories of family member read as if they are alternatives to each other. For example the third category is “parents/grandparents over 65” and the fourth category is “parent/grandparent (in the singular) under 65” which suggests that a person is unlikely to be in both categories. It would also be unusual to have a person who could be both in the “close ties” category (meaning that entry would be granted) and also in the “exceptional circumstances” category (meaning that there would be not entry without exceptional circumstances). This would be the effect of the Claimants’ interpretation. This is because, for example, a minor child with parents in the United Kingdom would be in the second category (with leave to enter) but probably (depending on ages of parents) also in the fourth category, meaning that exceptional circumstances needed to be shown. 28. Secondly the relevant part of the policy begins noting that “the applicant must have close ties with the UK”
“95. C1, in being resettled in England, would be reunited with her mother who is over 65 in age and with whom she has a very strong family tie. There is therefore a very close family tie based on the relationship of “parents over 65” and it is apparently accepted by the SSHD that in that context “parents” can mean “parent”
“63…..The Judge correctly set out the scheme at §§60-68, identifying at §64 that a state (of proposed re-settlement) is “not required to accept a refugee”. 64 The duty is one of ‘co-operation’, not slavish acceptance. Co-operation denotes give and take and being prepared to listen to a case made by a party with whom one is ‘operating’. It cannot denote a pre-determined position whereby the UK is entitled simply to shut its ears to a UNHCR submission, whatever the merits, unless and until the application satisfies the UK’s own pre-figured criteria. If that were the case, then notwithstanding the article 35 obligation, the SSHD would be entitled to shut her ears to a UNHCR submission, whatever the urgency, however dire the need, however unlikely the refugee was to obtain re-settlement elsewhere, simply on the basis that her own ‘close ties’ criteria were not met even though there were very strong links to the UK (which, on the SSHD’s case, is the position in this case).”
“[18]………The development plan is a carefully drafted and considered statement of policy, published in order to inform the public of the approach which will be followed by planning authorities in decision-making unless there is good reason to depart from it. It is intended to guide the behaviour of developers and planning authorities. As in other areas of administrative law, the policies which it sets out are designed to secure consistency and direction in the exercise of discretionary powers, while allowing a measure of flexibility to be retained. Those considerations point away from the view that the meaning of the plan is in principle a matter which each planning authority is entitled to determine from time to time as it pleases, within the limits of rationality. On the contrary, these considerations suggest that in principle, in this area of public administration as in others (as discussed, for example, in R (Raissi) v Secretary of State for the Home Department), policy statements should be interpreted objectively in accordance with the language used, read as always in its proper context. [19] That is not to say that such statements should be construed as if they were statutory or contractual provisions. Although a development plan has a legal status and legal effects, it is not analogous in its nature or purpose to a statute or a contract. As has often been observed, development plans are full of broad statements of policy, many of which may be mutually irreconcilable, so that in a particular case one must give way to another. In addition, many of the provisions of development plans are framed in language whose application to a given set of facts requires the exercise of judgment. Such matters fall within the jurisdiction of planning authorities, and their exercise of their judgment can only be challenged on the ground that it is irrational or perverse (Tesco Stores Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment and ors, per Lord Hoffmann, p 780). Nevertheless, planning authorities do not live in the world of Humpty Dumpty: they cannot make the development plan mean whatever they would like it to mean.”
“The applicant must have close ties with the UK – usually close family… For the purposes of clarifying what constitutes close family the categories are: • spouse • children… • parents/grandparents over 65…”
“8. Below I have set out some examples of cases which the UK has accepted as having “exceptional” circumstances for the purposes of the Mandate policy. In each case, the exceptional/compassionate circumstances were exclusive to the applicants themselves; Case example one: 9. A 62 year old principal applicant living in Syria with his 63 year old wife requested entry to the UK to join his son. The applicants did not meet the normal criteria for acceptance because of their ages but the principle applicant had heart failure and needed surgery. Failing health left them both vulnerable to abuse as elderly refugees and their adult son in the UK was willing to care for them. Case example two: 10. A 43 year old single woman in Iraq suffering from cancer requested entry to join her mother and sister in the UK. She did not fulfil the first criteria. However, she was accepted under exceptional circumstances because she was a single woman, suffering with secondary cancer, no treatment was available in Iraq and her mother in the UK had also been diagnosed with terminal cancer. Case example three: 11. An 80 year old single woman with no children in Jordan asked to join her sister, niece and nephew in the UK. Due to her age, she was a very vulnerable woman at risk with no effective male protection (having never been married). With deteriorating health, she was struggling to care for herself and her only relatives were her sister and niece and nephew in the UK who were willing to accommodate and support her. Case example four: 12. A 27 year old single woman in Malawi requested entry to join her mother in the UK. Due to epilepsy and having suffered sexual abuse in a Malawi refugee camp, the applicant was very vulnerable. She had no effective male protection and her mother and siblings were settled in the UK and willing to accommodate her.”
“…I have given further consideration to whether [ST] and [ET]’s present circumstances are exceptional so that we should consider whether there is room for exercising discretion to conclude that they meet the secondary criteria of a close family tie of a daughter aged over 18/sibling as provided under the Mandate scheme. 6. It is not disputed that the instability, and associated hostility, in Syria has escalated since the application was submitted by UNHCR in August 2011. And it is acknowledged that UNHCR have categorised the sisters as women-at-risk being without accompanying adult male family members. We note that, at the time of the application, UNHCR stated that [ST] and [ET] lived with an Aunt. Your representations do not mention this point specifically but confirm that the sisters are living with fellow Iraqi refugees. In considering whether [ST]’s and [ET]’s circumstances are exceptional for the purposes of the Mandate policy I note that the environment they are living in is the same for other residents. I note also that, although the situation for women in Syria, generally, may have deteriorated, these circumstances are not exclusive to [ST] and [ET]. Finally, I note the stated medical condition of [family members] in the UK but, consistent with all considerations under the Mandate resettlement scheme policy, it is the factors appertaining to the applicants that apply, not those of relatives in the UK. 7. Without underestimating the seriousness of the situation that they experience each day, and having fully considered the updated facts of the case, and noting that UNHCR continue to submit Iraqi “women-at-risk” cases in Syria under normal priority, I must therefore conclude that, compared to other Iraqi women in Syria, their predicament is not compelling insomuch as demonstrating exceptional circumstances for the purposes of the Mandate policy. And in view of this conclusion, ST and ET are not entitled to be considered against the wider close ties definition of daughter aged 18; and/or sibling. I therefore see no reason to change the decision made on9 January 2012 .”
“The applications have also been reconsidered in the light of the claimed exceptional circumstances. We are satisfied that your clients’ circumstances are not exceptional when compared to other refugees in Turkey in the same situation whose only durable solution is resettlement. In the absence of any exceptional circumstances, there is no necessity to consider the wider family members criteria.”
“Periods previously spent in the UK have also been considered, but it was decided that neither the two years [C1] spent here at school in the 1970’s, nor their three years here between 2005 and 2008 as asylum seekers fulfilled this requirement.”
“99. The decision-makers appear to have made a fundamental error in considering stage (5). This was that the “possible history” was limited to “periods spent here as a student”