Certifying asylum and human rights claims as “clearly unfounded”

24 June 2016

In FR and Anor (Albania), R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2016] EWCA Civ 605 the Court of Appeal has given an important ruling as to the approach that needs to be followed by the Secretary of State in certifying asylum and human rights claims as “clearly unfounded” under section 94(3) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002.  The Court emphasised the need for the Secretary of State to give separate consideration to a claim for asylum, where she decides whether the claim should be refused, and the decision on the issue of certification.  Certification is only possible where the claim permits of only one answer before a tribunal and would be bound to fail.  On the facts of these cases, the Court quashed the certificates.

In the case of KL the appellant was represented by Monica Carss-Frisk QC of Blackstone Chambers and Joseph Markus of Garden Court North Chambers, instructed by Jo Renshaw of Turpin & Miller LLP.

In the case of FR the appellant was represented by Monica Carss-Frisk QC of Blackstone Chambers and David Jones of Garden Court Chambers, instructed by Naim Hasani of Duncan Lewis Solicitors.

News

News

UK Covid-19 Inquiry’s Module 6 report: Government failures caused virus to spread “like wildfire” in care homes

The UK Covid-19 Inquiry has published its report for Module 6, investigating the pandemic's impact on the care sector.

News

Garden Court North ranked as leading set by Chambers and Partners for 2027

Garden Court North Chambers has been ranked as a leading set across five practice areas by Chambers and Partners for 2027.

News

European Court of Justice allows appeal to proceed in part in EU mission staff case

Garden Court North's Antje Kunst acted in a case with implications for the judicial protection of staff serving in EU security missions.

News

Tom Royston appears in breakthrough Upper Tribunal appeal of universal credit award and housing cost provisions

The Upper Tribunal allowed an appeal on universal credit entitlement with significant implications for social security claimants’ access to justice.