“If it was a safe country, victims of trafficking and blood feuds would get support instead of crossing the channel or coming in lorries and taking all those risks.” 

 

“I feel scared, not just upset, because maybe they will deport me and people are killed there all the time.” 

– Young asylum seekers

As the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill passes through Parliament, MiCLU have been working together with other leading human rights and refugee organizations to advocate for an amendment to the bill that would allow the repeal of section 59 of the Illegal Migration Act 2023 (the IMA).

The IMA, had it been fully implemented, would have famously seen refugees being prevented from applying for asylum in the UK and instead flown off to Rwanda, or (more likely) placed in indefinite immigration detention.

While the current bill will repeal many highly controversial provisions of the IMA, it leaves section 59 on the statute book. Yet this provision, when implemented by the government, will have devastating consequences for people seeking asylum and human rights protection in the UK.

This is because section 59 expands the government’s power to declare claims ‘inadmissible,’ preventing individuals from even having their cases heard. It extends the list of so-called ‘safe states’ beyond EEA countries to include Albania, India, and Georgia – despite clear evidence that these countries are not safe for many vulnerable groups. By making both asylum and human rights claims automatically inadmissible, section 59 denies people their right to seek protection, in direct violation of the UK’s commitments under the Refugee Convention.

We know from our work that the government’s ‘safe states’ policy is deeply flawed. It fails to recognize the real dangers faced by marginalized communities, including LGBTQ+ individuals, survivors of gender-based violence, and victims of human trafficking. The UNHCR has decried its use: “In so far as application of the concept would a priori preclude a whole group of asylum seekers from refugee status, in UNHCR’s view this would be inconsistent with the spirit and possibly the letter of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees.”[i]

The Home Office itself has granted asylum or human rights protection to hundreds of people from these countries in recent years. Yet under section 59, those individuals will have no way to challenge a decision to wrongfully deport them. This is clearly unlawful.

Further, for EU and EEA nationals, section 59 extends the inadmissibility rules beyond asylum claims to human rights claims, including those based on private and family life. This means that even where an individual has strong grounds to remain in the UK – for example based on family or long residence – their claim will be automatically dismissed without substantive consideration. This is a clear violation of their rights under the ECHR and creates an unjust double standard, based solely on nationality.

Section 59 also directly undermines the UK’s legal obligations under the ECHR and ECAT. These international agreements require the UK to protect victims of trafficking and ensure they are not returned to situations where they face re-exploitation or harm. By making human rights claims from certain nationalities automatically inadmissible, section 59 removes the ability for certain trafficking survivors to seek safety and support, putting them at serious risk of further abuse.

We are especially concerned about the impact of section 59 on Albanian victims of trafficking and those vulnerable to trafficking. Albania has long been an acknowledged major source country for people trafficked into the UK, with many forced into labour, sexual exploitation, and debt bondage. Despite this, the Home Office insists that Albania is ‘safe’ – a claim that UK asylum tribunals have repeatedly rejected.

We have seen firsthand how trafficked children and young people face serious danger if returned, including re-exploitation due to weak state protection and corrupt law enforcement.

Yet under section 59, these same individuals would be automatically denied the chance to have their cases assessed.

By repealing section 59, the government can prevent serious harm, uphold the rule of law, and ensure that the asylum system remains fair and functional.

For more information, please read the written evidence we provided to the bill committee together with Asylos, Helen Bamber Foundation, Asylum Aid, ILPA, the Public Law Project, Rainbow Migration, Women for Refugee Women and Shpresa Programme: https://bills.parliament.uk/publications/59392/documents/6103

Source: Immigration System Statistics – Asylum and Resettlement – Applications, Initial decisions, and Resettlement  – Year ending September 2024 (all applicants)

 

[i] UNHCR, Background Note on the Safe Country Concept and Refugee Status EC/SCP/68, 1991 https://www.unhcr.org/publications/background-note-safe-country-concept-and-refugee-status