“First safe country”

[motorbiking]

I’m not the one who doesn't understand it. I’m not the one who keeps asking questions. Your view about drafting styles is not only wrong it’s irrelevant.

You are also confused about the origin of the safe 3rd country concept. You haven’t done any research. It has been in existence for over 20 years.

 

[noseall]

I’m not the one who doesn't understand it.

Really?

No requirement​

---

The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) is clear: “there is no requirement under international law for asylum-seekers to seek protection in the first safe country they reach”.

The UN Refugee Convention does not make this requirement of refugees, and UK case law supports this interpretation. Refugees can legitimately make a claim for asylum in the UK after passing through other “safe” countries.

Read more.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Mr Jenrick wasn’t explicit about what he meant by “refugee convention”, but if he was referring to the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, his claim was wrong.

The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) is clear: “there is no requirement under international law for asylum-seekers to seek protection in the first safe country they reach”.

After Mr Jenrick’s interview, the prime minister’s official spokesperson reportedly told journalists: “The first safe country principle is recognised internationally as a feature of the common European asylum system”. It sounds like this is a reference to the Dublin regulation – an EU law that sets out how countries should handle asylum seekers. But the UK is no longer part of this treaty thanks to its departure from the trade bloc.

Jennrick and MBK - (wrong) on the same page.

 

[noseall]

basically seem to be attempting a strategy of throwing lots of irrelevant information at the wall in the hope that some of it sticks.

Standard MBK waffle.

 

[motorbiking]

Really?

No requirement​

---

The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) is clear: “there is no requirement under international law for asylum-seekers to seek protection in the first safe country they reach”.

The UN Refugee Convention does not make this requirement of refugees, and UK case law supports this interpretation. Refugees can legitimately make a claim for asylum in the UK after passing through other “safe” countries.

Read more.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Mr Jenrick wasn’t explicit about what he meant by “refugee convention”, but if he was referring to the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, his claim was wrong.

The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) is clear: “there is no requirement under international law for asylum-seekers to seek protection in the first safe country they reach”.

After Mr Jenrick’s interview, the prime minister’s official spokesperson reportedly told journalists: “The first safe country principle is recognised internationally as a feature of the common European asylum system”. It sounds like this is a reference to the Dublin regulation – an EU law that sets out how countries should handle asylum seekers. But the UK is no longer part of this treaty thanks to its departure from the trade bloc.

Jennrick and MBK - (wrong) on the same page.

A different scenario. That dishonest nosenout pretends is relevant.

It’s also no longer correct.

 

[noseall]

A different scenario.

To this scenario that I criticised as wrong...

Please do share where they say a person from A who has found safety in county B, can subsequently choose to move to C.

Nonsense. Read your own posts and links boyo. You are on the back foot again...

No requirement​

---

The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) is clear: “there is no requirement under international law for asylum-seekers to seek protection in the first safe country they reach”.

The UN Refugee Convention does not make this requirement of refugees, and UK case law supports this interpretation. Refugees can legitimately make a claim for asylum in the UK after passing through other “safe” countries.

Read more.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Mr Jenrick wasn’t explicit about what he meant by “refugee convention”, but if he was referring to the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, his claim was wrong.

The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) is clear: “there is no requirement under international law for asylum-seekers to seek protection in the first safe country they reach”.

After Mr Jenrick’s interview, the prime minister’s official spokesperson reportedly told journalists: “The first safe country principle is recognised internationally as a feature of the common European asylum system”. It sounds like this is a reference to the Dublin regulation – an EU law that sets out how countries should handle asylum seekers. But the UK is no longer part of this treaty thanks to its departure from the trade bloc.

Jennrick and MBK - (wrong) on the same page.



I wonder if MBK can see the word SAFE. Dishonest my arse.

 

[motorbiking]

Oh dear. Nosenout enters his post and repeat loop. Quoting an article written in 2019 that is no longer correct.

If only we had a clear legal position…
Oh wait we do.

Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002

An Act to make provision about nationality, immigration and asylum; to create offences in connection with international traffic in prostitution; to make provision about international projects connected with migration; and for connected purposes.

www.legislation.gov.uk

 

[motorbiking]

Inadmissibility: safe third country cases (accessible)

www.gov.uk

Perhaps Nosenout can read condition 4 and 5 in the above. This is the guidance given to those who make decisions about asylum claims.

Let’s save him the time.

(4) Condition 4 is that—

(a) the claimant was previously present in, and eligible to make a relevant claim to, the safe third State,

(b) it would have been reasonable to expect them to make such a claim, and (c) they failed to do so.

(5) Condition 5 is that, in the claimant’s particular circumstances, it would have been reasonable to expect them to have made a relevant claim to the safe third State (instead of making a claim in the United Kingdom).

Good luck claiming asylum where your application is deemed inadmissible with no right to appeal.

 

[noseall]

Oh dear. Nosenout enters his post and repeat loop. Quoting an article written in 2019 that is no longer correct.

If only we had a clear legal position…
Oh wait we do.

Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002

An Act to make provision about nationality, immigration and asylum; to create offences in connection with international traffic in prostitution; to make provision about international projects connected with migration; and for connected purposes.

www.legislation.gov.uk

The Act is clearly referring to those that have already claimed asylum. It does not refer to those seeking asylum.

READ YOUR OWN LINKS FFS.

 

[noseall]

Inadmissibility: safe third country cases (accessible)

www.gov.uk

Perhaps Nosenout can read condition 4 and 5 in the above. This is the guidance given to those who make decisions about asylum claims.

Let’s save him the time.

(4) Condition 4 is that—

(a) the claimant was previously present in, and eligible to make a relevant claim to, the safe third State,

(b) it would have been reasonable to expect them to make such a claim, and (c) they failed to do so.

(5) Condition 5 is that, in the claimant’s particular circumstances, it would have been reasonable to expect them to have made a relevant claim to the safe third State (instead of making a claim in the United Kingdom).

Good luck claiming asylum where you application is deemed inadmissible with no right to appeal.

Waffle.

It does not change a thing regards this...

No requirement​

---

The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) is clear: “there is no requirement under international law for asylum-seekers to seek protection in the first safe country they reach”.

The UN Refugee Convention does not make this requirement of refugees, and UK case law supports this interpretation. Refugees can legitimately make a claim for asylum in the UK after passing through other “safe” countries.

Read more.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Mr Jenrick wasn’t explicit about what he meant by “refugee convention”, but if he was referring to the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, his claim was wrong.

The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) is clear: “there is no requirement under international law for asylum-seekers to seek protection in the first safe country they reach”.

After Mr Jenrick’s interview, the prime minister’s official spokesperson reportedly told journalists: “The first safe country principle is recognised internationally as a feature of the common European asylum system”. It sounds like this is a reference to the Dublin regulation – an EU law that sets out how countries should handle asylum seekers. But the UK is no longer part of this treaty thanks to its departure from the trade bloc.

 

[motorbiking]

The Act is clearly referring to those that have already claimed asylum. It does not refer to those seeking asylum.

READ YOUR OWN LINKS FFS.

You’ve misunderstood… again. It makes no such statement. “Having a connection” does not mean has made a claim.

 

[motorbiking]

Waffle.

It does not change a thing regards this...

No requirement​

---

The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) is clear: “there is no requirement under international law for asylum-seekers to seek protection in the first safe country they reach”.

The UN Refugee Convention does not make this requirement of refugees, and UK case law supports this interpretation. Refugees can legitimately make a claim for asylum in the UK after passing through other “safe” countries.

Read more.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Mr Jenrick wasn’t explicit about what he meant by “refugee convention”, but if he was referring to the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, his claim was wrong.

The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) is clear: “there is no requirement under international law for asylum-seekers to seek protection in the first safe country they reach”.

After Mr Jenrick’s interview, the prime minister’s official spokesperson reportedly told journalists: “The first safe country principle is recognised internationally as a feature of the common European asylum system”. It sounds like this is a reference to the Dublin regulation – an EU law that sets out how countries should handle asylum seekers. But the UK is no longer part of this treaty thanks to its departure from the trade bloc.

Dishonestly repeats information he knows is not correct and dismisses the guidance for immigration officials that is valid today.

What a dummy.

 

[noseall]

Dishonestly repeats information he knows is not correct and dismisses the guidance for immigration officials that is valid today.

What a dummy.

Nonsense.
Quoting individuals that have been denied for specific reasons, does not change this....

No requirement​

---

The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) is clear: “there is no requirement under international law for asylum-seekers to seek protection in the first safe country they reach”.

The UN Refugee Convention does not make this requirement of refugees, and UK case law supports this interpretation. Refugees can legitimately make a claim for asylum in the UK after passing through other “safe” countries.

Read more.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Mr Jenrick wasn’t explicit about what he meant by “refugee convention”, but if he was referring to the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, his claim was wrong.

The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) is clear: “there is no requirement under international law for asylum-seekers to seek protection in the first safe country they reach”.

After Mr Jenrick’s interview, the prime minister’s official spokesperson reportedly told journalists: “The first safe country principle is recognised internationally as a feature of the common European asylum system”. It sounds like this is a reference to the Dublin regulation – an EU law that sets out how countries should handle asylum seekers. But the UK is no longer part of this treaty thanks to its departure from the trade bloc.

Jog on, waffler liar deflector.

 

[motorbiking]

Having your claim ruled inadmissible on grounds 4 or 5?

I’d like to claim this weeks lottery. Unfortunately, I don’t have a winning ticket. So my claim is inadmissible.

 

[MNW67]

Oh dear. Nosenout enters his post and repeat loop. Quoting an article written in 2019 that is no longer correct.

If only we had a clear legal position…
Oh wait we do.

But the UK can't change international law.

That article might be from 2019. International law hasn't changed since then. So, logically the article is still as relevant now as it was back in 2019.

 

[noseall]

Having your claim ruled inadmissible on grounds 4 or 5?

I’d like to claim this weeks lottery. Unfortunately, I don’t have a winning ticket. So my claim is inadmissible.

Individual cases - yes.

"Can, may, if" does not change anything.

This still stands whether you like it or not...

No requirement​

---

The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) is clear: “there is no requirement under international law for asylum-seekers to seek protection in the first safe country they reach”.

The UN Refugee Convention does not make this requirement of refugees, and UK case law supports this interpretation. Refugees can legitimately make a claim for asylum in the UK after passing through other “safe” countries.

Read more.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Mr Jenrick wasn’t explicit about what he meant by “refugee convention”, but if he was referring to the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, his claim was wrong.

The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) is clear: “there is no requirement under international law for asylum-seekers to seek protection in the first safe country they reach”.

After Mr Jenrick’s interview, the prime minister’s official spokesperson reportedly told journalists: “The first safe country principle is recognised internationally as a feature of the common European asylum system”. It sounds like this is a reference to the Dublin regulation – an EU law that sets out how countries should handle asylum seekers. But the UK is no longer part of this treaty thanks to its departure from the trade bloc.