IMMIGRATION AND ASSYLUM

Immigration and Assylum

Immigration and Assylum

Q1- In the UK there is a list of supposedly safe third countries in s 94(4) of the Nationality Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 including Uganda, Sudan and Kenya In 1992 the immigration ministers of the EC adopted the London Resolution on Manifestly Unfounded Applications for Asylum which provides that minimum standards can be diluted in cases where the application has no substance or was based on deliberate misuse of procedures; or where the applicant had previously visited a safe third country. The 1995 smallest assurances Resolution permits for the abolition of the right to apply in such situations if an independent body has made a contradictory conclusion (para 19). Non-suspensive requests are envisaged in situations involving safe third countries and fraud or misuse of the methods (paras 21,22). Furthermore, the right to go in the territory to claim asylum is harshly restricted and may be eradicated if the case is deemed to fall into any of the manifestly unfounded classes (para 24). In the UK such situations are often considered as clearly unfounded and subjected to the accelerated exclusions method but, as Van der Klaauw contends, manifestly unfounded presupposes a consideration of the matter of the submission, and this should engage access to the procedure. The new EU directives have failed to take up the opening to limit admissibility denials to positions where there is a third homeland eager to take the applicant or where the applicant may have discovered defence in a homeland of first asylum. Indeed most matters affecting admissibility and requests are left to nationwide legislatures. Cooperation on asylum represented a exclusive opening; an opening to lift the minimum standards and haphazard advances of member states. This opportunity has been missed to the detriment of asylum seekers and human rights. Asmallest widespread denominator approach can be seen apparently with reference to the denial of advantages to asylum seekers that do not make their assertion directly upon arrival. The UK presented this controversial start, regardless of a annals of learned and judicial condemnation (Blake, 2001 p 112; R v SS Social Security ex p JCWI and ex p B [1997] 1 WLR 275), in s 55 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. The consequences of s 55 are considered underneath but at this issue it is interesting to note that lobbying by the UK led to the identical provision being encompassed in item 16(1) of the EU directive “On smallest measures for the greeting of Asylum Seekers”. The European assembly on Refugees and Exiles has lately published a comprehensive report on the new European plans which concludes that European asylum policy after Amsterdam has been a missed opening (ECRE, 2004). The point is endorsed by Blake: The point about a harmonised procedure is that safe country decisions are not merely an exercise of national sovereignty to dump unwanted claimants on whatever other territory can be persuaded to accept them, but a constructive effort in international protection, to ensure proper and ...