“Inadmissibility of non-EU applications for asylum 345A. An asylum application may be treated as inadmissible and not substantively considered if the Secretary of State determines that: (i) the applicant has been recognised as a refugee in a safe third country and they can still avail themselves of that protection; or (ii) the applicant otherwise enjoys sufficient protection in a safe third country, including benefiting from the principle of non-refoulement; or (iii) the applicant could enjoy sufficient protection in a safe third country, including benefiting from the principle of non-refoulement because: (a) they have already made an application for protection to that country; or (b) they could have made an application for protection to that country but did not do so and there were no exceptional circumstances preventing such an application being made, or (c) they have a connection to that country, such that it would be reasonable for them to go there to obtain protection. Safe Third Country of Asylum 345B. A country is a safe third country for a particular applicant, if: (i) the applicant’s life and liberty will not be threatened on account of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion in that country; (ii) the principle of non-refoulement will be respected in that country in accordance with the Refugee Convention; (iii) the prohibition of removal, in violation of the right to freedom from torture and cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment as laid down in international law, is respected in that country; and (iv) the possibility exists to request refugee status and, if found to be a refugee, to receive protection in accordance with the Refugee Convention in that country. 345C. When an application is treated as inadmissible, the Secretary of State will attempt to remove the applicant to the safe third country in which they were previously present or to which they have a connection, or to any other safe third country which may agree to their entry. Exceptions for admission of inadmissible claims to UK asylum process 345D. When an application has been treated as inadmissible and either (i) removal to a safe third country within a reasonable period of time is unlikely; or (ii) upon consideration of a claimant’s particular circumstances the Secretary of State determines that removal to a safe third country is inappropriate the Secretary of State will admit the applicant for consideration of the claim in the UK.”
“17. This Part applies to a person who has made an asylum claim if the Secretary of State certifies that– (a) it is proposed to remove the person to a specified State, (b) in the Secretary of State’s opinion, the person is not a national or citizen of the specified State, and (c) in the Secretary of State’s opinion, the specified State is a place – (i) where the person’s life and liberty will not be threatened by reason of his race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, and (ii) from which the person will not be sent to another State otherwise than in accordance with the Refugee Convention.”
“19. Where this Part applies to a person– (b) he may not bring an immigration appeal in reliance on an asylum claim which asserts that to remove the person to the State specified under paragraph 17 would breach the United Kingdom's obligations under the Refugee Convention, (c) he may not bring an immigration appeal in reliance on a human rights claim if the Secretary of State certifies that the claim is clearly unfounded.”
“If a case assessed as suitable for inadmissibility action appears to stand a greater chance of being promptly removed if referred to Rwanda (a country with which the UK has a Migration and Economic Development Partnership (MEDP), rather than to the country to which they have a connection, TCU should consider referring the case to Rwanda. An asylum claimant may be eligible for removal to Rwanda if their claim is inadmissible under this policy and (a) that claimant’s journey to the UK can be described as having been dangerous and (b) was made on or after1 January 2022 . A dangerous journey is one able or likely to cause harm or injury. … Those progressed for consideration for relocation to Rwanda under the MEDP will be taken from the detained and non-detained cohort and be identified in line with processing capacity. Priority will be given to those who arrived in the UK after9 May 2022 . … Decision makers must take into account country information of the potential country/countries to where removal may occur in deciding whether referral into a particular route is appropriate in the particular circumstances of that claimant.”
“2.1 The objective of this Arrangement is to create a mechanism for the relocation of asylum seekers whose claims are not being considered by the United Kingdom, to Rwanda, which will process their claims and settle or remove (as appropriate) individuals after their claim is decided, in accordance with Rwanda domestic law, the Refugee Convention, current international standards, including in accordance with international human rights law and including the assurances given under this Arrangement. 2.2 For the avoidance of doubt, the commitments set out in this Memorandum are made by the United Kingdom to Rwanda and vice versa and do not create or confer any right on any individual, nor shall compliance with this Arrangement be justiciable in any court of law by third parties or individuals.”
“9.1 Rwanda will ensure that: 9.1.1 At all times it will treat each Relocated Individual, and process their claim for asylum, in accordance with the Refugee Convention, Rwandan immigration laws and international and Rwandan standards, including under international and Rwandan human rights law, and including but not limited to ensuring their protection from inhuman and degrading treatment and refoulement; 9.1.2 Each Relocated Individual will have access to an interpreter and to procedural or legal assistance at every stage of their asylum claim, including if they wish to appeal a decision made on their case; 9.1.3 If a Relocated Individual’s claim for asylum is refused, that Relocated Individual will have access to independent and impartial due process of appeal in accordance with Rwandan laws. 9.1.4 If a Relocated Individual does not apply for asylum, Rwanda will access the individual’s resident status on other grounds in accordance with Rwandan immigration laws.”
“21.2 The role of the Joint Committee will be to: 21.2.1 Monitor and review the application and implementation of this Arrangement and to make non-binding recommendations in respect thereof; and 21.2.2 Provide a forum for the Participants to exchange information, discuss best practice including relevant guidance from external state holders, and resolve issues of a technical or administrative character.”
“Rwanda: Country Information on the Asylum System”; and “Rwanda: Country Information on General Human Rights in Rwanda”
“If you wish to submit reasons not already notified to the Home Office why your protection claim should not be treated as inadmissible, or why you should not be required to leave the UK and be removed to the country or countries we may ask to admit you (as mentioned above), you should provide those reasons in writing within 7 calendar days [for detained cases] or 14 calendar days [for non-detained cases] of the date of this letter. After this period ends, we may make an inadmissibility decision on your case, based on the evidence available to us at that time.”
“139. … On the basis of the well-established principles underlying its case-law underart.3 of the Convention in relation to expulsion of asylum-seekers, the Court considers that the above-mentioned duty requires from the national authorities apply the “safe third country” concept to conduct a thorough examination of the relevant conditions in the third country concerned and, in particular the accessibility and reliability of its asylum system. … 140. Furthermore, a number of the principles developed in the Court’s case-law regarding the assessment of risks in the asylum-seeker’s country of origin also apply, mutatis mutandis, to the national authorities’ examination of the question whether a third country from which the asylum-seeker came is “safe”. 141. In particular, while it is for the persons seeking asylum to rely on and to substantiate their individual circumstances that the national authorities cannot be aware of, those authorities must carry out of their own motion an up-to-date assessment, notably, the of the accessibility and functioning of the receiving country’s asylum system and the safeguards it affords in practice. The assessment must be conducted primarily with reference to the facts which were known to the national authorities at the time of expulsion, but it is the duty of those authorities to seek all relevant generally available information to that effect. Generally, deficiencies well documented in authoritative reports, notably of the UNHCR, Council of Europe and EU bodies, are in principle considered to have been known. The expelling state cannot merely assume that the asylum-seeker will be treated in the receiving third country in conformity with the Convention standards but, on the contrary, must first verify how authorities of that country apply their legislation on asylum in practice.”
“188. In assessing the practical aspect of assurances and determining what weight is to be given to them, the preliminary question is whether the general human-rights situation in the receiving state excludes accepting any assurances whatsoever. However, it will only be in rare cases that the general situation in a country will mean that no weight at all can be given to assurances. 189. More usually, the Court will assess first, the quality of assurances given and, second, whether, in light of the receiving state’s practices, they can be relied upon. In doing so, the Court will have regard inter alia to the following factors: (1) Whether the terms of the assurances have been disclosed to the Court; (2) Whether the assurances are specific or are general and vague; (3) Who has given the assurances and whether that person can bind the receiving state; (4) If the assurances have been issued by the central government of the receiving state, whether local authorities can be expected to abide by them; (5) Whether the assurances concerns treatment that is legal or illegal in the receiving state; (6) Whether they have been given by a Contracting State; (7) The length and strength of bilateral relations between the sending and receiving states, including the receiving state’s record in abiding by similar assurances; (8) Whether compliance with assurances can be objectively verified through diplomatic or other monitoring mechanisms, including providing unfettered access to the applicant’s lawyers; (9) Whether there is an effective system of protection against torture in the receiving state, including whether it is willing to co-operate with international monitoring mechanisms (including international human-rights NGOs), and whether it is willing to investigate allegations of torture and to punish those responsible; (10) Whether the applicant has previously been ill-treated in the receiving state; (11) Whether the reliability of the assurances has been examined by the domestic courts of the sending/Contracting State.”
“The British High Commission in Kigali led initial conversations with the [Government of Rwanda] regarding the [MEDP] and participated in negotiations in support of the Home Office. Since these negotiations began, there has been a renewed focus on our bilateral relationship with an increase in contact at an official and ministerial level. Prior to signing the agreement, Home Office officials visited the Rwanda on many occasions, meeting government and non-governmental interlocutors, and carried out further discussions virtually. The Rwandan Permanent Secretary to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs also led a delegation to London for further talks. These negotiations have been conducted transparently and in good faith throughout. In light of the considerations described in this witness statement, and the manner in which the negotiations [with] our Rwandan counterparts were conducted, we are confident that Rwanda will honour its commitments under the MEDP.”
“The applicant could enjoy sufficient protection in a safe country … because: (b) [he] could have made an application for protection to that country but did not do so and there were no exceptional circumstances preventing such an application being made.”
“(2) The Secretary of State shall from time to time (and as soon as may be) lay before Parliament statements of the rules, or of any changes in the rules, laid down by him as to the practice to be followed in the administration of this Act for regulating the entry into and stay in the United Kingdom of persons required by this Act to have leave to enter, including any rules as to the period for which leave is to be given and the conditions to be attached in different circumstances … If a statement laid before either House of Parliament under this subsection is disapproved by a resolution of that House passed within the period of forty days beginning with the date of laying (and exclusive of any period during which Parliament is dissolved or prorogued or during which both Houses are adjourned for more than four days), then the Secretary of State shall as soon as may be make such changes or further changes in the rules as appear to him to be required in the circumstances, so that the statement of those changes be laid before Parliament at latest by the end of the period of forty days beginning with the date of the resolution (but exclusive as aforesaid).”
“Decision makers must take into account country information of the potential country/countries to where removal may occur deciding whether referral into a particular route is appropriate in the particular circumstances of the claimant.” is insufficient. The Claimants further rely on the following statement made by the Home Secretary in pre-action correspondence. “…. certain claims may require a more intensive scrutiny than others. In particular it is evident from the Home Office’s Country Policy Information Team (‘CPIT’) reports that claimants with certain characteristics will need particularly careful consideration before a decision can be made that Rwanda is a safe country for them.”
“An Act to make provision to end rights to free movement of persons under retained EU law and to repeal other retained EU law relating to immigration to confer power to modify retained direct EU legislation relating to social security co-ordination and for connected purposes.”
“Paragraph 6 ensures any directive rights that will have been saved by EUWA 2018 and would, in the absence of this paragraph, be retained, cease to apply in so far as they are inconsistent with, or are otherwise capable of affecting the interpretation, application or operation of, immigration legislation or functions. For example, the residence rights that are derived from Articles 20 and 21 of the TFEU (rights of citizenship and free movement) will be retained EU law and, unless they are disapplied, would provide a right to reside in the UK for certain groups, for example “CHEN” carers who are primary carers of an EU citizen child who is in the UK and is self-sufficient. However, the rights derived from Articles 20 and 21 would continue to apply in non-immigration contexts unless disapplied.”
“Article 31 Refugees unlawfully in the country of refugee 1. The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of article 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence. 2. The Contracting States shall not apply to the movements of such refugees restrictions other than those which are necessary and such restrictions shall only be applied until their status in the country is regularized or they obtain admission into another country. The Contracting States shall allow such refugees a reasonable period and all the necessary facilities to obtain admission into another country.”
“Are certain measures never penalties in the 1951 Convention sense? The drafters have emphasised that expulsion does not fall under the prohibition of penalty’s Art. 31, para. 1. Given that the provision is situated in the context of immigration control, this caveat is hardly surprising. The same conclusion follows from a contextual analysis drawing on Art.31, para. 2. That provision assumes that the contracting State in question might wish to remove the refugee in question.”
“Paragraph 1 [of article 31] does not impose an obligation to regularise the situation of the refugee nor does it prevent the Contracting States from imposing and expulsion order on him. However, a refugee may not be expelled if no other country is willing to admit him; he may not be put over the ‘green border’.”
“The public interest referred to in point (d) of the first subparagraph of paragraph 1 must be public interest that is recognised in domestic law (whether in regulations under section 18(1) of the 2018 Act or otherwise).”
“Your information may be shared with other UK government departments or agencies including the National Health Service, local authorities, asylum authorities of other countries, international organisations, and other bodies. Any information sharing is to enable us and other organisations to carry out functions, including the prevention and detection of crime.”
“An asylum claimant may be eligible for removal to Rwanda if the claim is inadmissible under the policy and (a) that claimant’s journey to the UK can be described as having been dangerous and (b) was made on or after1 January 2022 . A dangerous journey is one able or likely to cause harm or injury. For example, this would include those that travel via small boat, or clandestinely in lorries.”
“7.11 Innovative structures 7.11.1 Sometimes central government departments have objectives which more easily fit into bespoke structures suited to the business in hand, or to longer-range plans for the future of the business. Such structures might for example, include various types of mutual or partnership. 7.11.2 Proposals of this kind are by definition novel and thus require explicit Treasury consent. In each case, proposals are judged on their merits against the standard public sector principles after examining the alternatives, taking account of any relevant experience. The Treasury will always need to understand why one of the existing structures will not serve: e.g. the NDPB format has considerable elasticity in practice. …”
“149 Public sector equality duty (1) A public authority must, in the exercise of its functions, have due regard to the need to— (a) eliminate discrimination, harassment, victimisation and any other conduct that is prohibited by or under this Act; (b) advance equality of opportunity between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it; (c) foster good relations between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it. (2) A person who is not a public authority but who exercises public functions must, in the exercise of those functions, have due regard to the matters mentioned in subsection (1). (3) Having due regard to the need to advance equality of opportunity between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it involves having due regard, in particular, to the need to— (a) remove or minimise disadvantages suffered by persons who share a relevant protected characteristic that are connected to that characteristic; (b) take steps to meet the needs of persons who share a relevant protected characteristic that are different from the needs of persons who do not share it; (c) encourage persons who share a relevant protected characteristic to participate in public life or in any other activity in which participation by such persons is disproportionately low. (4) The steps involved in meeting the needs of disabled persons that are different from the needs of persons who are not disabled include, in particular, steps to take account of disabled persons' disabilities. (5) Having due regard to the need to foster good relations between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it involves having due regard, in particular, to the need to— (a) tackle prejudice, and (b) promote understanding. (6) Compliance with the duties in this section may involve treating some persons more favourably than others; but that is not to be taken as permitting conduct that would otherwise be prohibited by or under this Act. (7) The relevant protected characteristics are— age; disability; gender reassignment; pregnancy and maternity; race; religion or belief; sex; sexual orientation.” (a) eliminate discrimination, harassment, victimisation and any other conduct that is prohibited by or under this Act; (b) advance equality of opportunity between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it; (c) foster good relations between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it. (a) remove or minimise disadvantages suffered by persons who share a relevant protected characteristic that are connected to that characteristic; (b) take steps to meet the needs of persons who share a relevant protected characteristic that are different from the needs of persons who do not share it; (c) encourage persons who share a relevant protected characteristic to participate in public life or in any other activity in which participation by such persons is disproportionately low. (a) tackle prejudice, and (b) promote understanding. age; disability; gender reassignment; pregnancy and maternity; race; religion or belief; sex; sexual orientation.”
“It is proposed to remove you to Rwanda (a possibility notified to you in the Notice of Intent, issued previously). It is considered that Rwanda is a place where your life and liberty will not be threatened by reasons of your race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or opinion; and a place from which you will not be sent to another State otherwise than in accordance with the Refugee Convention or otherwise than in accordance withArticle 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights . Rwanda is also considered to be a country with an effective asylum system, which can be expected to properly meet your protection needs”
“On18 May 2022 , Home Office Officials observed when undertaking your initial contact and asylum registration questionnaire you stated that you left Iraq 1 month prior to encounter in the UK, using your official passport and travelled to Turkey, staying for approximately 5 days. You then stated that you travelled through unknown counties [sic] by car and foot before you ended up in Dunkirk, France You arrived in the UK by boat.”
“Your witness statement states that you travelled from Turkey to France in the back of 3 or 4 lorries, on foot and in a cargo train and in a van. It says that you stopped in an unidentified country for approximately 7 days where you were provided with food drink, and accommodation by a charity organisation, and stayed in the “Jungle” in Dunkirk for approximately 1 day. You have claimed that paragraph 345A(iii)(b) is not applicable in your case because were not able to claim in asylum in France as you were under the control of an agent. You have provided two reports from Dr Aidan McQuade and Steve Harvey challenging the assertions in our letter dated13 June 2022 wherein it was deemed that there were no exceptional circumstances preventing you from claiming asylum prior to coming to the UK. Your evidence now asserts that you were in a situation of “constrained agency” and had developed a dependency on your smugglers. You assert that your lack of knowledge of your environment and your rights subsequently prevented you from claiming asylum prior to arriving in the UK. It is noted that the reports of Dr Aidan McQuade and Steve Harvey were concluded on written evidence of your account only. While this new evidence is noted it is considered that for the reasons given in the letter of13 June 2022 , there were no exceptional circumstances preventing you from claiming asylum on route to the UK. Therefore, the previous conclusions drawn relating to paragraph 345A of the immigration rules are maintained.”
“On11/05/2022 , Home Office Officials observed when undertaking your initial contact and asylum registration questionnaire you stated that you left Vietnam three and a half months prior to being encountered in the UK and travelled to Ukraine by car, train and walking, where you stayed for 3 months. You then stated you travelled through unknown countries by train, car and foot but couldn’t recognise where you were until you arrived in France. You then stated you arrived in the UK on09/05/2022 by boat.”
“7. As to what procedural fairness requires in this context … the Secretary of State should inform the Claimant of, and allow him or her an opportunity to make representations on, the following matters: (1) The Secretary of State is considering whether the Claimant was previously present in or had a connection to one or more safe third States and what the name of each such State was. (2) The Secretary of State is considering whether to declare the asylum claim inadmissible and to remove the Claimant to Rwanda. (3) The Secretary of State considers that Rwanda is a safe country. (4) The Secretary of State will consider whether there is any reason specific to the Claimant why Rwanda would not be a safe third country in the individual circumstances of the Claimant.”
“… that issue must be addressed by looking at whether the policy can be operated in a lawful way or whether it imposes requirements which mean that it can be seen from the outset that a material and identifiable number of cases will be dealt with in an unlawful way.”
“27. I would accept Mr Eadie’s summary of the general principles that can be derived from these authorities: (i) in considering whether a system is fair, one must look at the full run of cases that go through the system; (ii) a successful challenge to a system on grounds of unfairness must show more than the possibility of aberrant decisions and unfairness in individual cases; (iii) a system will only be unlawful on grounds of unfairness if the unfairness is inherent in the system itself; (iv) the threshold of showing unfairness is a high one; (v) the core question is whether the system has the capacity to react appropriately to ensure fairness (in particular where the challenge is directed to the tightness of time limits, whether there is sufficient flexibility in the system to avoid unfairness); and (vi) whether the irreducible minimum of fairness is respected by the system and therefore lawful is ultimately a matter for the courts. I would enter a note of caution in relation to (iv). I accept that in most contexts the threshold of showing inherent unfairness is a high one. But this should not be taken to dilute the importance of the principle that only the highest standards of fairness will suffice in the context of asylum appeals.”