Upper Tribunal upholds Secretary of State’s decision that Asylum Claim is inadmissible under post Brexit Immigration rules
R (on the application of Tikue) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
In an important hearing yesterday, the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) considered, for the first time, post Brexit immigration rules on the admissibility of asylum claims where those seeking international protection had made a protection claim elsewhere prior to entering the United Kingdom. The Rules (Rule 345A-D) were introduced to fill the lacuna left behind after the UK’s withdrawal from the EU which meant that the Dublin III Regulation was no longer applicable in the UK.
The Upper Tribunal (UTJ Blum) refused the applicant’s oral permission application and upheld the Secretary of State’s decision that an asylum claim was inadmissible under Rule 345A on the basis that the Applicant had previously claimed asylum in the Republic of Ireland who had responsibility for the determination of that claim. The Secretary of State was correct to recognise that Ireland was a safe third country to which the European Convention on Human Rights and the Geneva Convention applied. It was also held that the Secretary of State had correctly certified his human rights claim as being bound to fail.
Ryan Kohli was instructed on behalf of the Secretary of State for the Home Department.
