Hunar Qadir Alyasi -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department (order)
Case number: AC-2025-LON-003773
Transferred from the Upper Tribunal
(Immigration & Asylum Chamber)
JR-2025-003747
In the High Court of Justice
King’s Bench Division
Administrative Court
In the matter of an application for judicial review
29 October 2025
Before:
The Hon. Mr Justice Bright
Between:
The King
on the application of
Hunar Qadir Alyasi
-v-
Secretary of State for the Home Department
Order
On an application by the Claimant for an order prohibiting removal from the UK to France
Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant [and the Defendant and Interested Party
And upon hearing counsel for the Claimant and counsel for the Defendant
ORDER by the Hon. Mr Justice Bright:
- The application for an order staying removal from the UK to France is refused.
- The Defendant must provide a copy of the Rule 35(3) report to the French authorities, so as to be available to those responsible for receiving the Claimant in France before he arrives.
- The Claimant must lodge any draft amended grounds for claiming judicial review by 16:00 on 7 November 2025.
- The Defendant must file an acknowledgment of service and summary grounds by 16:00 on 14 November 2025.
- The papers are to be put before a judge to consider the application for permission to claim judicial review as soon as is practicable from 17 November 2025.
- Costs reserved
REASONS
Serious issue to be tried
Ground 1: Defendant misdirected herself when exercising discretion to declare asylum claim inadmissible, at §§38-42
The decision challenged is the Defendant’s decision of 20 October 2025, refusing his asylum claim. The decision was largely founded on the conclusion that the Claimant has a connection with a safe third country (France), where he could reasonably be expected to have claimed asylum. The reasons for this conclusion are set out at §§12
-37. Neither the reasons nor the conclusion are challenged.
Against this background, the Defendant’s approach to the exercise of her discretion was reasonable. It was natural for the reasons to be expressed succinctly. It is not credible that the Defendant did not have in mind the comments regarding the Claimants’ claim to have been tortured in his home country (at §§5-9). However, this was not considered sufficient for the asylum claim not to be considered inadmissible, given the conclusion that the Defendant has a connection with a safe third country, where he could reasonably be expected to have claimed asylum.
Ground 2: No opportunity to obtain substantive legal advice
First, it is said that the Claimant has never received a copy of the negative NRM decision. The Defendant accepts that, in error, this was not sent to the Claimant until 18:30 today. When the Claimant and his legal representatives have been able to consider that decision, it is conceivable that he may wish to bring a judicial claim in relation to it, or to expand the scope of the present claim. As matters stand, however,
it is not part of the claim now before me.
Second, it is said that the Claimant has had insufficient time to obtain legal advice in relation to the decision of 20 October 2025. I disagree.
Balance of convenience
The proposed removal is intended to take place pursuant to the Agreement between the UK and France on the Prevention of Dangerous Journeys (“Agreement”). The Agreement serves an important public interest, identified in its title – i.e., to prevent dangerous journeys from France to the UK, often in small boats. The fact that the case engages this public interest is of great relevance when considering the balance of convenience.
Under the Agreement, all individuals transferred are to be treated at all times in accordance with international law, including the Convention. The Claimant will be returned to Paris, where there are reception facilities. It has not been shown that the Claimant will be at real risk of immediate harm if he is returned to France, or that the French authorities will be unable to provide suitable accommodation or any necessary medical care, or otherwise to satisfy the Claimants rights under Article 3. The Claimant will be able to continue to pursue his claim from France. I have granted expedition, with a view to a permission decision being made within a short period of time. That will enable the court to assess the merits of the claim with the benefit of proper representations from both sides. If it then turns out that there is a properly arguable claim for judicial review, and that the Claimant is at risk in France, it will be open to him to seek an order requiring his return to the United Kingdom. Given that there is no evidence of an immediate risk to the Claimant, allowing the removal to take its course, but with the potential for him to return if there is shown to be a risk if he remains there for longer, will provide a sufficient safeguard for the Claimant.
Conversely, there is a strong public interest in the Secretary of State being able to pursue her “1 in 1 out” policy unless or until it is shown to be unlawful or that, in an individual case, a return decision (or a necessary step towards making the return decision) is unlawful. If the court grants interim relief in cases where that has not been shown, then that would be harmful to the public interest. It would reduce the deterrent effect which is fundamental to the intended purpose of the policy so as to reduce large-scale unlawful and dangerous attempts to enter the United Kingdom. This militates strongly in favour of refusing interim relief.
In these circumstances, the balance of convenience strongly militates against the grant of interim relief.
It follows that, even if there had been a serious issue to be tried on either ground of claim, I would have refused interim relief.
Signed: Mr Justice Bright
Dated: 29 October 2025