|
Decision summary |
Section 4 Appeal- Regulation 3(2)(e) of the 2005 Regulations- appellant argued that destitution caused by withdrawal of Section 95 support or the refusal to grant Section 4 support to a failed asylum seeker is an administrative decision by the respondent which can violate ECHR Article 3 pursuant to R u Adam, Limbuela and Tesema (2005) UKHL 66.
Held@ (1) Limbuela applies to asylum seekers who have no remedy for their destitution. It does not apply to failed asylum seekers who can resolve their destitution by leaving the country. (2)ECHR Article 3 doe not impose a duty to support failed asylum seekers where no impediment exists re: their departure pursuant to AW (Croydon) & A,D & Y (Hackney) & SSHD (2005) E WHC 2950. (3) support cannot be granted under Regulation 3(2) for the same reason as Regulation 3(1): the applicant must prove destitution and one of the five criteria under Regualation 3(2). |