Source · Select Committees · Human Rights (Joint Committee)

Recommendation 121

121 Acknowledged

In relation to India, Rainbow Migration shared two examples of clients who have been granted...

Conclusion
In relation to India, Rainbow Migration shared two examples of clients who have been granted asylum in the UK: a. “A trans woman from India came out to her parents at age fourteen. They reacted very negatively, locking her in the house and refusing to let her out. They forced her to undergo harmful conversion practices, which the UN rightly identity as “degrading” and “inhumane”. b. “A lesbian woman from India had an engagement arranged for her against her will. She told her fiancé about her sexuality and managed to get the engagement called off. However, her family later found out that the reason he had called off the wedding was because she was a lesbian, and she knew that her only option was to flee the country so that her family would not kill or seriously hurt her. After arriving in the UK and being granted asylum, she was informed by a family member in India that another family member said that if she were to return to 157 Helen Bamber and Asylum Aid,, para 27 158 Refugee Council,, para 25 159 Rainbow Migration, para 10, citing https://civil.ge/archives/624795 and Written questions and answers - Written questions, answers and statements - UK Parliament 44 India, they would ‘try to kill me, but even if they could not capture me or kill me, they would still throw acid on [my] face as a punishment for dishonouring the family.’”160
Government Response Summary
The government acknowledges the examples by explaining existing and prospective inadmissibility provisions, and how exceptional circumstances and fact-sensitive assessments allow for consideration of complex asylum claims, noting the continuous review of country safety.
Government Response Acknowledged
HM Government Acknowledged
As noted in the report, section 59 of the IMA 2023 has not yet been fully commenced. If commenced, it would broaden the application of the existing inadmissibility provisions at section 80A of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (NIAA), from the present focus—asylum claims made by EU nationals—to asylum and human rights claims made by nationals of the broader list of countries at section 80AA(1) of the NIAA. Section 80A NIAA already acknowledges that there may be exceptional instances where it is right to admit and substantively consider asylum claims made by EU nationals, notwithstanding the general safety of EU countries of origin. The section 80A(4) “exceptional circumstances” provision under which this may happen gives examples of when admitting claims may be appropriate. These examples are not exhaustive, and the open drafting allows decision-makers to make fact-sensitive assessments as to whether admission is appropriate. Guidance and policy support is available to assist decisionmakers in this work, and claims are considered on the particular facts of the case. This provision would continue to apply to the expanded scope of inadmissibility, in the event that section 59 is fully commenced. On the issue of the safety of the countries on the list, the Home Office regularly monitors and reviews the situation in countries of origin, working closely with the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. The corresponding country policy and information notes are published on the gov.uk website and are also kept under constant review and updated periodically. Should the Home Office assess that any changes in a country’s situation fundamentally affect the justification for its designation on the section 80AA list, the Home Office would seek to remove them from the list using the appropriate Parliamentary procedures. The Secretary of State has a regulation making power to add countries to the section 80AA list. However, the regulations are subject to the draft affirmative procedure, which means Parliament have opportunity to scrutinise any such change. Furthermore, the Secretary of State must be satisfied that the country meets the threshold of safety set out at section 80AA(3) NIAA1.1 As noted above, the situation and safety of countries is kept under continuous review. We would note that, were section 59 to be commenced, any introduction of a time-bound or time-specified review of country safety may be counter-productive. The existing continuous nature of monitoring allows flexibility to ensure the prioritisation of the most pressing country- specific issues, reacting to live situations and events. This may be hampered by specified time-bound review processes.