First-world asylum seekers

[owlstretchingtime]

There was an American who managed to successfully apply for asylum in the UK as he had HIV and would not have got treatment in the USA.

THis law was overturned pretty smartish.

We used to get a fair few Canadians and Aussies claiming asylum on spurious grounds as a way of extending their visas. Again this loophole is now closed.

[Northern_Piper]

ruadh, you’re right about the nature of the INLA. My mistake. However, I would respectfully disagree with the remainder of your comments, at least as they relate to the Supreme Court decision. The Court found as follows:

1. Ward was a citizen of both the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom. See p. 751:

During the oral hearing, Ward’s counsel effectively admitted the Board’s error in this regard and conceded Ward’s dual nationality.

2. Before qualifying for refugee status in Canada, Ward had to show that his home nation would not protect him from the revenge of the INLA if he were returned. See p. 710:

The respondent Attorney General [of Canada], while arguing that state complicity is a prerequisite to persecution, conceded that a state’s inability to protect its citizens from persecution is sufficient state complicity to satisfy the Convention definition.

3. Since Ward was a dual national, he had to show that he was unable to gain effective protection from the INLA in both his nations, Ireland and the U.K. See pp. 751:

In considering the claim of a refugee who enjoys nationality in more than one country, the Board must investigate whether the claimant is unable or unwilling to avail him- or herself of the protection of each and every country of nationality.

4. The Republic of Ireland had effectively admitted that it could not protect him if he were returned there, so the issue was whether the U.K. could protect him. See p. 710:

She [the Attorney General] also conceded that the Government of Ireland was unable to protect the appellant. As such, the respondent confined her argument to the fact that the appellant did not establish before the tribunal that the United Kingdom was similarly unable to protect him.

5. Although Ward was also a British subject, it was not clear if he had a right to return to the U.K., given his prior involvement with the INLA. See p. 754:

The current version of this Act (Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989, 1989 (U.K.), c. 4), which replaced the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984, seems to enable the British Government to prohibit a national from being in, or entering, Great Britain, if the national has been “concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism” connected with the affairs of Northern Ireland; see ss. 4 and 5 of the Act.

6. If one’s country refuses to permit the individual to return, that can qualify as a failure to protect for the purposes of evaluating a refugee claim. See pp. 754-755:

Denial of admittance to the home territory is offered by the [United Nations High Commission on Refugees] in its Handbook, at paragraph 99, as a possible example of what might amount to a refusal of protection.

7. Given the uncertainty whether Britain could or would protect Ward by refusing to allow him to re-enter the U.K., the Supreme Court remitted the matter to the Refugee Board for a determination. See p. 755:

The applicability of the presumption and its rebuttal are matters that depend upon the particular circumstances of this case and which must be determined by the Board.
…
For these reasons, I would allow the appeal, set aside the order of the Federal Court of Appeal and remit the case back to the Immigration and Refugee Board for an evaluation consistent with these reasons of the appellant’s claim with reference to his second state of citizenship, Great Britain.