‘Aden’ was a client of Barings Law who had arrived in the UK and made an application for asylum. Despite having a child with his unmarried partner – both of whom had been granted asylum – his own asylum application had been refused and he was facing imminent removal from the country.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (SSHD) felt Aden’s claim was “clearly unfounded” and concluded that he didn’t meet the required standards for protection, despite his involvement in a ‘blood feud’ that meant he feared for his life.
They considered that the evidence provided was insufficient, unreliable, or inconsistent, and therefore undermined the credibility of his claims of fear of persecution. The SSHD determined that Aden had failed to demonstrate a real risk of persecution in his home country. They also said there was sufficient protection available, meaning they could relocate internally to avoid danger.
As a result, Aden was denied an in-country right of appeal, meaning he couldn’t remain in the UK while appealing the decision and was subject to immediate removal from the UK.
Legal challenge
Barings Law challenged the SSHD’s decision, outlining the following errors in their initial assessment:
• Their refusal to recognise the blood feud as a legitimate risk was fundamentally flawed.
• Their assessment that, in Aden’s home country, sufficient protection and internal relocation options were available was challenged, as the evidence was selectively applied and failed to consider the full context, including concerns about corruption.
• The certification of the claim as “clearly unfounded” was disputed, with the argument that it could not be definitively stated that the claim would fail on all grounds.
Our immigration law expert asked them to withdraw the decision to remove the client from the UK, reconsider both the asylum and human rights claims, and grant the client leave to remain. Contesting their “clearly unfounded” certification of the claim, we submitted an in-country right to appeal request. Additionally, we urged them to defer the scheduled removal as a matter of urgency.
We warned that if the Secretary of State refused to reconsider the decision or defer the removal, judicial review proceedings would be initiated to challenge the certification of the claim and our client’s removal and that they would then have to pay damages.
The legal interventions made ultimately resulted in Aden being granted leave to remain, based on his private life, namely that he had family members who had established their new life in this country.
Aden’s case highlights the significance of timely and strategic legal action in the context of UK Immigration Law, particularly under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
In the UK, those who arrive seeking asylum are granted protection based on their need for safety due to persecution in their home country. However, Aden’s case became more complex when he was singled out for removal. This raised the issue of whether his removal would breach his rights under Article 8 of the ECHR, which protects the right to respect for private and family life.
Key legal arguments
The key legal issue in Aden’s bid to claim asylum was the immediate threat of removal, despite his partner and child having been granted asylum. Removing our client would not only separate him from his family but could also potentially violate his rights. Any violation of, or interference with, that right must be justified and proportionate.
The challenge for Barings Law was to demonstrate that removing Aden would have disproportionately negative consequences for the lives of him and his family, who were by this stage established UK residents.
Legal strategy
Our legal strategy involved two main critical actions – halting his removal and paying special consideration to his private life.
The first, and most immediate, action was to prevent the client’s removal from the UK, which involved stopping a scheduled flight. These submissions focused on the argument that his removal would be a breach of his right to private and family life under ECHR. The submissions would have detailed how the client’s removal would adversely affect his family, who had already been granted asylum and had started to build new lives for themselves in the UK.
Our private life consideration argument centred around the life that Aden had established in this country, in particular the relationships with his partner and child. It was crucial to demonstrate that his removal would disrupt his family life and that the UK’s obligations under the ECHR should prevent that removal.
Outcome
Our further submissions were successful and Aden was granted leave to remain in the UK, based on the private life he had established, as recognised under Article 8 of ECHR. This outcome prevented the separation of our client and his family and allows them to continue their lives together in the UK.
The decision reflects a recognition of the importance of family unity and the rights that the ECHR protects, reinforcing the principle that such rights cannot be disregarded in immigration cases.
This case highlights several important aspects of Immigration Law:
a) The importance of Timely Legal Intervention – The successful halting of Aden’s removal was crucial and demonstrates the importance of swift and effective legal action in immigration cases.
b) Human Rights considerations – The case underscores the significance of Article 8 ECHR in protecting family life in immigration contexts. The decision to grant leave to remain, based on private life, reflects the UK’s obligations under International Human Rights Law.
