The UK is by far known to take care of asylum seekers. As compared to other countries in Europe, UK has much more flexible rules to accommodate asylum seekers and to protect them. However, in its own sphere, the laws are complex and keep changing frequently…
As with all statutes, the process of refinement and adjustment is continuous the most recent of which is the Immigration and Asylum (Treatment of Claimants) Act 2004.
Claiming as a victim of persecution as a result of fighting for the rights of a tribe belonging to northern Uganda, Frank (rather an odd name for an Ugandan) is now battling for asylum in the United Kingdom. His case, however, is complicated with the fact that he has HIV, entered the United Kingdom thru Belgium and that he has relatives (a sister and a brother) already residing in the UK. According to the 1951 United Nations Convention on Refugees to which the UK is a signatory, an asylum-seeker is someone of any age who has fled his or her home country to find a safe place elsewhere. Anyone with the claim of persecution is entitled to seek an asylum but the contention is that the applicant must be able to demonstrate a well-founded fear of persecution in their country of origin for reasons of political opinion, religion, ethnicity, race/ nationality, or membership of a particular social group and that he is unable to obtain any protection or assistance from their own national authorities.
Since April 2003, a person who does not qualify for refugee status may instead be appeal under Humanitarian Protection grounds. This criterion is a leave to remain granted to a person who would, if removed, face in the country of return a serious risk to life or person arising from a death penalty, unlawful killing, or torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. This is to comply with Article 2 or the right to life and Article 3 or the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights, especially Article 2, the right to life and Article 3, the prohibition on torture and inhuman or degrading treatment and is codified in the 1998 Human Rights Act. The burden of evidence still lies in the asylum seeker unless there is obvious and publicized threat to the person.
After the 30th of August 2005 amendment to the Immigration and Asylum act, the permission for people to stay due to Humanitarian Protection grounds have been extended for 5 years instead of the previous 3 years leave. However, during this period the leave is subject to review and if ever it was found that the asylum seeker purposely deceived the Home Office (the agency dedicated to these issues) and that the persecution did not exist, the leave is revoked. Leaves may also be subject to review because the genuine persecution no longer exists.
If Frank does not succeed in pursuing asylum due to persecution, he may resort to family reunion reasons especially that he already has siblings in the United Kingdom. However, the statures existing in the UK provides no automatic right to family reunion until a person has refugee status. Only under compelling compassionate circumstances other than refugee status will applications be considered such as the imminent death of a lone parent working in the UK. Only the immediate family ( spouse and dependent children under the age of 18) can apply for entry clearance to join their spouse/parent in the UK once the refugee status has been granted. Certain documents will be needed such as Birth and Marriage certificates. If this unavailable or is deemed questionable, a DNA test could be conducted with the discretion of the ...
Cite this document
(“Immigration and Asylum Law Master Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words”, n.d.)
Retrieved from https://studentshare.net/law/283155-immigration-and-asylum-law-master-essay
(Immigration and Asylum Law Master Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 Words)
“Immigration and Asylum Law Master Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 Words”, n.d. https://studentshare.net/law/283155-immigration-and-asylum-law-master-essay.
The paper tells that the law of immigration and asylum dates back to the late 1950s when the international community resolved to ratify a common protocol through which to perceive and protect foreign citizens. The rationale of such understanding emanated from the Rome Treaty of 1957 which established the European Economic Community.
2 The extent to which the free movement of EU workers is permitted despite the government’s policies to reduce immigration is further complicated by EC Directive 2004/38 which replaces Regulation 1612/68. EC Directive 2004/38 permits EU workers who immigrate to other member states to have family members and dependents move with them to the host member state.3 The European courts have consistently ruled that the effect of the EU’s free movement of workers policy and laws, member states are required to remove all obstacles to facilitating the objective of permitting the free movement of workers.4 In this regard, the ruling in Singh is instructive.
Several decades on, very little research has been done whether cross border restrictions remain as important as the fundamental factors that started them. Speaking with some few legal brains on the debate, most are those who contend that even though the factors and reasons may not be the same as those that started the laws, the laws remain important even today; but for different reasons.
Article 3 states that both mental and physical ill-treatment are prohibited (Harris et al., 1995). Both private and public treatment are considered under this Article as well (Ireland v. United Kingdom, Judgment of 18 January 1978). In Greek Case (1969) 12 YB 1, the court asserted that the three prohibitions of Article 3 are related to one another - torture is inhuman and degrading, degrading behavior is torture, and so forth.
According to Article 1A(2) of the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (Refugee Convention), a refugee is one who: ". owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable, or owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it."
A child born to Wulfrunian parents is an Wulfrunian citizen. If the parents are married at the time of birth, Wulfrunian citizenship of either the mother or the father is sufficient. If the parents are not married, however, a father cannot pass on Wulfrunian citizenship, whereas a mother can.
With the advent of the 20th century and the independence of a number of European colonies the subject of human movement over territorial boundaries began to receive more interest from governments worldwide.
The occurrence of the two great wars led to an upsurge in transnational movement of people and forced the, still fresh, United Nations to address the matter on a global forum with the objective of providing welfare to the economically and socially suppressed immigrants.
Even if they do not like them, however, all member states have to obey EU laws. For member states of the EU, it is no longer the case that only national government can make laws within their territories.
According to the public opinion poll, 56 percent of people mentioned it as an issue of concern.
A consequence is that a person at odds with an autocratic government cannot find asylum anywhere. Condemnation against dissidents is harsh. The body is liberated but the mind imprisoned. The crushing power of the majority is its capacity to shun. It tends to inflict compliance, and the citizen abdicates liability for exercising political inquiry adopting majority opinion as his own.