“First safe country”

[motorbiking]

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.

The article focuses on the interpretation of his comments as a claim that they are not genuine refugees if they transit through a safe country. It states: it is not for him to decide but the state. This is true. However, the state has decided that having links to a safe 3rd country is grounds for inadmissibility, further it does not require you to have claimed protection in that 3rd country. Ground 4 and 5 are clear.

If you look at the original act as made in 2002 you will see s.80 has the removal to a safe 3rd country concept. It is not new. States have been returning claimants to safe 3rd countries for decades.

There is no requirement for a person to claim asylum in B to be refused a claim in C on the basis of “having links to B if B is a safe 3rd country.” And of course the convention leaves “admissibility” to the state. It’s always been that way.

So a person flees A to B finds safety and decides to then move on to C and claim asylum. The state has no obligation to accept them.

 

[noseall]

The article focuses on the interpretation of his comments as a claim that they are not genuine refugees if they transit through a safe country. It states: it is not for him to decide but the state. This is true. However, the state has decided that having links to a safe 3rd country is grounds for inadmissibility, further it does not require you to have claimed protection in that 3rd country. Ground 4 and 5 are clear.

If you look at the original act as made in 2002 you will see s.80 has the removal to a safe 3rd country concept. It is not new. States have been returning claimants to safe 3rd countries for decades.

There is no requirement for a person to claim asylum in B to be refused a claim in C on the basis of “having links to B if B is a safe 3rd country.” And of course the convention leaves “admissibility” to the state. It’s always been that way.

So a person flees A to B finds safety and decides to then move on to C and claim asylum. The state has no obligation to accept them.

Utter (unconnected) waffle.
It changes nothing and this still applies....

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]

Round and round we go. Nosenout arguing about something nobody is challenging.

 

[noseall]

Round and round we go. Nosenout arguing about something nobody is challenging.

That dementia is really advanced now......

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

Safety you say...

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]

That dementia is really advanced now......



Safety you say...

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.

A different scenario. Which is also now out of date.

 

[noseall]

A different scenario.

Different? You wrote it. The Oxford explanation sufficed. Then you argued it. I since posted up other links which support the Oxford explanation and you argued that too. And now you are sayings it's different? How?

You said this, which is 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.

An asylum seeker does not have to claim asylum the first safe country they encounter.

All you have done is point cases where a country (UK) has clamped down on migrants abusing the asylum process, i.e. erratic movement among safe countries. In broad terms, asylum claims may be declared inadmissible and not substantively considered in the UK, if the claimant was previously present in or had another connection to a safe third country, where they claimed asylum, or could reasonably be expected to have done so (or, for claims made before 28 June 2022, where exceptional circumstances didn’t prevent such a claim), provided there is a reasonable prospect of removing them in a reasonable time to a safe third country.
.
Those cases change little in terms of this....

Asylum seekers are not obliged to make their asylum claim in the first safe country they arrive in after leaving their country of origin.

 

[Notch7]

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.

Those are the bulls hit rancid bolox changes made by the Toxic Tories in 2022

Motorgrifting won’t admit that the Tory Nationality and Borders bill ensured that every person arriving in the U.K. by small boat would stay in the U.K. forever.

The new law meant they couldn’t apply for asylum yet they couldn’t be deported……how dumb is that

 

[Notch7]

If only we had a clear legal position

That depended on the Rwanda scheme being operational, which it was never ever going to be.

 

[motorbiking]

Different? You wrote it. The Oxford explanation sufficed. Then you argued it. I since posted up other links which support the Oxford explanation and you argued that too. And now you are sayings it's different? How?

You said this, which is wrong....

An asylum seeker does not have to claim asylum the first safe country they encounter.

All you have done is point cases where a country (UK) has clamped down on migrants abusing the asylum process, i.e. erratic movement among safe countries. In broad terms, asylum claims may be declared inadmissible and not substantively considered in the UK, if the claimant was previously present in or had another connection to a safe third country, where they claimed asylum, or could reasonably be expected to have done so (or, for claims made before 28 June 2022, where exceptional circumstances didn’t prevent such a claim), provided there is a reasonable prospect of removing them in a reasonable time to a safe third country.
.
Those cases change little in terms of this....

Asylum seekers are not obliged to make their asylum claim in the first safe country they arrive in after leaving their country of origin.

My statement remains correct. Sorry you think this is classed as transiting through a safe country. It isn’t.

 

[motorbiking]

That depended on the Rwanda scheme being operational, which it was never ever going to be.

Not true

Those are the bulls hit rancid bolox changes made by the Toxic Tories in 2022

Motorgrifting won’t admit that the Tory Nationality and Borders bill ensured that every person arriving in the U.K. by small boat would stay in the U.K. forever.

The new law meant they couldn’t apply for asylum yet they couldn’t be deported……how dumb is that

NotchyFacts.

 

[noseall]

My statement remains correct.

No one on the forum doubts you seriously believe that.

Meanwhile, asylum seekers will give your boat a hearty wave having passed through several safe countries to seek asylum in the UK.

 

[MNW67]

Meanwhile, asylum seekers will give your boat a hearty wave having passed through several safe countries to seek asylum in the UK.

That certainly seems to be what happens in practice at the moment.

 

[motorbiking]

Which is different to having found safety in another country and then decided to upgrade.

 

[motorbiking]

That certainly seems to be what happens in practice at the moment.

If only we had somewhere to send them. Perhaps somewhere warm, close to where they have come from.

If only we hadn’t scrapped such a scheme which is now being used by other countries.

 

[noseall]

Which is different to having found safety in another country and then decided to upgrade.

'Found safety' or claimed asylum or reasonably expected to do so and all the other caveats?

...asylum claims may be declared inadmissible and not substantively considered in the UK, if the claimant was previously present in or had another connection to a safe third country, where they claimed asylum, or could reasonably be expected to have done so (or, for claims made before 28 June 2022, where exceptional circumstances didn’t prevent such a claim), provided there is a reasonable prospect of removing them in a reasonable time to a safe third country.

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

You mean this surely...

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.



An asylum seeker does NOT have to seek asylum in the first safe country they encounter.
'Finding safety' alone is not a precursor for refusal to grant asylum in a third safe country. Read the bold letters above.


Keep going boyo if you want to continue making a dick of yourself.