“First safe country”

[noseall]

​

Transitional arrangements relevant to the date of claim​

Under transitional arrangements, for the purpose of determining which inadmissibility decision framework applies, individuals who sought to register an asylum claim before 28 June 2022 but were provided with an appointment to attend a designated place to register their asylum application on or after 28 June 2022 will be considered to have ‘made an asylum claim’ before that date, but only if they attend their scheduled appointment (or, in the event that it is cancelled or rescheduled by the Home Office, the rescheduled appointment).

However, if the individual did not attend their appointment, but on or after 28 June 2022 wishes to register a claim, they will not be considered to have ‘made an asylum claim’ before that date, unless (a) there were circumstances beyond their control that made it impossible for them to attend the appointment scheduled for them, (b) they contacted the Home Office as soon as reasonably practicable to warn or explain of the said circumstances and apply for a new appointment and (c) they provided the Home Office, as soon as reasonably practicable, evidence to demonstrate their inability to attend the scheduled appointment.

Refusal:

Found safety? No.

Made a claim in another country? Yes possibly (with caveats).

Give it up MBK.

 

[Mottie]

Has Nosey resorted to his default repeat repeat mode again? Sure sign he's lost the argument.

 

[noseall]

Has Nosey resorted to his default repeat repeat mode again? Sure sign he's lost the argument.

No. MBK has resorted to denial mode.

An asylum seeker does not need to claim asylum in the first safe country the enter or even if they have 'found safety'.

UK guidelines are clear, as in bold above. In broad terms they basically have had to have made an asylum claim or had reasonable opportunity to do so.

 

[Odds]

 

[motorbiking]

Has Nosey resorted to his default repeat repeat mode again? Sure sign he's lost the argument.

Having finally accepted the information I presented to him, he is now pretending it means something else and he knew it all along.

 

[motorbiking]

No. MBK has resorted to denial mode.

An asylum seeker does not need to claim asylum in the first safe country the enter or even if they have 'found safety'.

UK guidelines are clear, as in bold above. In broad terms they basically have had to have made an asylum claim or had reasonable opportunity to do so.

There is no requirement for them to have “basically made an asylum claim”. That is nonsense you invented.

Once again for the hard of thinking…

(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).

 

[noseall]

Having finally accepted the information I presented to him, he is now pretending it means something else and he knew it all along.

Nonsense. I merely stated correctly you were deflecting and waffling.
I queried this,

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

A person that has first found a safe country or 'safety,' need not claim asylum in that country. They can proceed through to other safe countries to get to the UK.
All your other waffle is irelevant.

 

[noseall]

There is no requirement for them to have “basically made an asylum claim”. That is nonsense you invented.

Once again for the hard of thinking…

(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).

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
More irrelevant waffle.

 

[motorbiking]

Nonsense. I merely stated correctly you were deflecting and waffling.
I queried this,

A person that has first found a safe country or 'safety,' need not claim asylum in that country. They can proceed through to other safe countries to get to the UK.
All your other waffle is irelevant.

And such a claim can be disallowed due to having links to the safe 3rd country.

See condition 4 and 5.

 

[noseall]

And such a claim can be disallowed due to having links to the safe 3rd country.

See condition 4 and 5.

Waffle. It changes nothing.
I showed you what I queried and showed you what is correct.
Get over it.

 

[motorbiking]

Waffle. It changes nothing.
I showed you what I queried and showed you what is correct.
Get over it.

You made up your own version of the facts as usual.

 

[noseall]

You made up your own version of the facts as usual.

Nonsense.

 

[motorbiking]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
More irrelevant waffle.

The rules followed by those hearing and granting claims are irrelevant waffle. boyo you look stupid again.