R (on the application of AAA (Syria) and others) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

R (on the application of AAA (Syria) and others) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

There are substantial grounds for believing that removal of asylum seekers to Rwanda would expose them to a real risk of ill-treatment by reason of refoulement, due to serious and systemic defects in Rwanda’s asylum procedures, a history of non-compliance with non-refoulement obligations, and failure to abide by...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Respondent/cross Appellant: AAA (Syria); Respondent/cross Appellant: HTN (Vietnam); Respondent: RM (Iran); Respondent/cross Appellant: AS (Iran); Respondent: SAA (Sudan); Appellant: ASM (Iraq); Appellant/cross Respondent/respondent: Secretary of State for the Home Department; Intervener: United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (Intervener)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 November 2023
Procedural Posture
Appeal and Cross Appeal (judgment) / Supreme Court Final Judgment
Outcome
Appeal by Secretary of State dismissed; cross-appeal by ASM dismissed.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Asylum Procedures, Safe Third Country, Human Rights Act 1998, Refugee Convention, ECHR Article 3, Retained EU Law, Immigration Rules, Diplomatic Assurances
Public Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law International Law Non Refoulement Asylum Procedures Safe Third Country Human Rights Act 1998 +5 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 23 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

AAA (Syria)

Respondent/cross Appellant

HTN (Vietnam)

Respondent/cross Appellant

RM (Iran)

Respondent

AS (Iran)

Respondent/cross Appellant

SAA (Sudan)

Respondent

ASM (Iraq)

Appellant

Secretary of State for the Home Department

Appellant/cross Respondent/respondent

United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (Intervener)

Intervener

Procedural Posture

Appeal and Cross Appeal (judgment) / Supreme Court Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the UK government's policy of removing asylum seekers to Rwanda is lawful under domestic and international law, specifically regarding the risk of refoulement.
  2. 2 Whether the policy is compatible with retained EU law, particularly the Procedures Directive.
  3. 3 Whether the Divisional Court and Court of Appeal applied the correct legal test regarding risk of refoulement.

Ratio Decidendi

There are substantial grounds for believing that removal of asylum seekers to Rwanda would expose them to a real risk of ill-treatment by reason of refoulement, due to serious and systemic defects in Rwanda’s asylum procedures, a history of non-compliance with non-refoulement obligations, and failure to abide by previous assurances. The Secretary of State’s policy is therefore unlawful. Additionally, the relevant provisions of the Procedures Directive do not apply as retained EU law in the UK following the 2020 Act.

Court Disposition

Appeal by Secretary of State dismissed; cross-appeal by ASM dismissed.

Orders

  • The Secretary of State’s policy of removing asylum seekers to Rwanda is unlawful.
  • No removal of claimants to Rwanda under the current policy.