asylum claim clearly unfounded: Asylum Claim 'Clearly

A Home Office decision to certify an asylum claim as clearly unfounded under Section 94 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 means the caseworker has determined the claim has no realistic prospect of success before an independent tribunal judge. This certification eliminates the applicant's statutory right to lodge an in-country appeal against the refusal, requiring any appeal to be brought from outside the UK unless the certification is successfully challenged through judicial review. Individuals facing a clearly unfounded certificate must act immediately, as the Home Office may initiate removal action shortly after the refusal is served.

The Legal Framework of Clearly Unfounded Certifications

Section 94 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 grants the Secretary of State the power to certify an asylum claim, a human rights claim, or both, as clearly unfounded. The purpose of this provision is to filter out claims that the Home Office considers entirely unmeritorious, preventing applicants from remaining in the UK during lengthy First-tier Tribunal appeals.

When a claim is certified under Section 94, the normal right of appeal under Section 82 of the 2002 Act is modified. Instead of exercising an suspensive, in-country right of appeal that prevents removal until the First-tier Tribunal reaches a determination, the applicant can only exercise an out-of-country right of appeal. Because an out-of-country appeal requires the applicant to depart the UK before lodging their appeal, the practical effect of the certificate is to expose the individual to immediate administrative removal or deportation.

The High Judicial Standard for Certification

The legal test for whether a claim is clearly unfounded is exceptionally high. In the landmark House of Lords authority ZT (Kosovo) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2009] UKHL 44, confirming principles established in R (Yogathas) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2002] UKHL 36, the court established that a claim is clearly unfounded only if it is so bad that it cannot succeed.

A caseworker cannot certify a claim simply because they believe it is likely to fail, or because they disbelieve the applicant. The caseworker must ask themselves whether, on any legitimate view of the facts and country information, an independent immigration judge could allow the appeal. If an appeal has any realistic prospect of success, even if the caseworker personally thinks that prospect is slim, the claim cannot lawfully be certified as clearly unfounded.

Discretionary Versus Designated Safe Country Certification

Section 94 operates through two distinct mechanisms: discretionary case-by-case certification under Section 94(1), and designated safe country certification under Section 94(3), Section 94(4), and Section 94(5).

Under Section 94(1), the Secretary of State may certify any asylum or human rights claim from any nationality if the specific facts of that individual case demonstrate that the claim is manifestly unviable. This discretionary power applies universally, regardless of the applicant's country of origin.

Under Section 94(3) and Section 94(4), the Secretary of State maintains a statutory list of designated states or territories where there is generally no serious risk of persecution and where the state generally respects human rights. When a national or citizen of a designated country makes an asylum or human rights claim, Section 94(3) requires the Home Office to certify the claim as clearly unfounded unless the caseworker is satisfied that the claim is not clearly unfounded. This creates a statutory presumption of certification for designated nationalities, shifting the practical burden onto the applicant to prove that their case is exceptional.

How the Home Office Assesses Clearly Unfounded Claims

Caseworkers must follow published Home Office guidance when determining whether a protection or human rights claim should be certified. The assessment is conducted under a strict two-stage process: first, deciding whether the claim meets the substantive requirements for Refugee Status, Humanitarian Protection, or Human Rights leave; second, if refused, deciding whether the claim meets the high threshold for certification.

The Standard of Proof and the Reasonable Likelihood Test

For the substantive asylum claim, the standard of proof is a reasonable degree of likelihood (also referred to as a real risk or serious possibility). This is lower than the civil balance of probabilities standard. However, when evaluating certification under Section 94, the caseworker must assess whether an appeal would be bound to fail before an immigration judge applying that same reasonable likelihood standard.

If the claimant provides credible evidence or objective country documentation that raises an arguable point of law or fact, the claim is not clearly unfounded. Caseworkers are instructed that where a claim requires a finely balanced assessment of credibility or depends on resolving a genuine dispute of complex country conditions, certification is unlawful.

Sufficiency of State Protection

A primary basis upon which the Home Office certifies claims as clearly unfounded is the existence of a sufficiency of state protection in the country of origin. Following the House of Lords judgment in Horvath v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2000] UKHL 37, the standard of protection required of a state is not the complete elimination of all risk or criminal activity, but the provision of a functioning legal system capable of detecting, prosecuting, and punishing offenders, which the applicant can access without systemic impediment.

Caseworkers assess whether the applicant has attempted to seek protection from local police, judicial authorities, or state oversight bodies. If the applicant failed to seek state protection, the caseworker will evaluate whether seeking such protection would have been futile or dangerous. Where the Home Office Country Policy and Information Notes (CPIN) show that the state operates an accessible, functioning police force and judiciary, and the applicant cannot show why that protection is unavailable to them personally, the Home Office will rely on this finding to certify the claim.

The Internal Relocation Alternative

Even where an applicant faces a localized threat from non-state actors or rogue officials, the Home Office frequently certifies the claim on the basis that the applicant can safely relocate within their home country. Under the principles set out in Januzi v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2006] UKHL 5 and AH (Sudan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2007] UKHL 49, caseworkers apply a two-limb test:

1. Is there a part of the country of origin where the applicant would have no well-founded fear of persecution or real risk of serious harm?
2. In that proposed relocation area, can the applicant reasonably be expected to stay without encountering conditions that would be unduly harsh?

If the threat is confined to a specific village, city, or province, and the country of origin is geographically vast or has large urban centres where the persecutors have no reach or influence, the Home Office will often conclude that internal relocation is readily available. If the applicant fails to provide evidence demonstrating why they could not survive economically, socially, or physically in the safe area, the caseworker will use this failure as grounds for a Section 94 certificate.

Credibility Assessment and Section 8 Behaviour

Credibility plays a central role in asylum decision-making. Caseworkers apply Section 8 of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004 to evaluate behaviours that may damage an applicant's credibility. These statutory factors include:

• Delay in making the asylum claim without reasonable explanation.
• Failure to make an asylum or protection claim in a safe country through which the applicant travelled.
• Production of fraudulent documents, passports, or tickets unless a valid reason is provided.
• Destruction of identity documents, tickets, or travel itineraries without reasonable cause.
• Concealment of information during screening or substantive interviews.

While damage to credibility under Section 8 of the 2004 Act allows a caseworker to refuse an asylum claim, Home Office policy confirms that adverse credibility findings alone do not automatically justify a Section 94 certification. If a claimant's core narrative remains potentially credible, or if their subjective account is supported by objective country reports regarding generalized targeting of their demographic, the claim cannot be certified simply because the caseworker disbelieved certain elements of the timeline.

[Asylum Application Lodged]
            │
            ▼
[Screening & Substantive Interviews]
            │
            ▼
[Home Office Merits Assessment]
            │
      ┌─────┴─────┐
      ▼           ▼
  [Granted]   [Refused]
                  │
                  ▼
      [Section 94 Certification Test]
                  │
      ┌───────────┴───────────┐
      ▼                       ▼
[Claim is Arguable]     [Claim is Bound to Fail]
      │                       │
      ▼                       ▼
[Standard Refusal]      [Section 94 Certified Refusal]
      │                       │
      ▼                       ▼
[In-Country Right]      [Out-of-Country Right Only]
[of Appeal: 14 Days]          │
                              ▼
                        [Remedies Available:]
                        1. Judicial Review (Upper Tribunal)
                        2. Pre-Action Protocol (PAP)
                        3. Urgent Injunction if removal set

The Step-by-Step Section 94 Decision Process

Understanding each operational stage of the Home Office decision-making framework allows claimants and practitioners to identify errors in public law and challenge flawed certificates.

Step 1: Screening and Substantive Interview

The process begins when an individual registers an asylum claim at the Asylum Intake Unit (AIU) in Croydon, at a port of entry, or following enforcement contact. The initial screening interview collects basic biographic details, travel history, and brief reasons for claiming asylum.

The substantive asylum interview follows, where a caseworker questions the applicant in detail regarding their background, specific events leading to flight, fear of return, state protection attempts, and the feasibility of internal relocation. All questions and answers are recorded in a verbatim transcript. Inconsistencies between the screening interview and the substantive interview are frequently relied upon by caseworkers when building a case for certification.

Step 2: Country of Origin Information Benchmarking

The caseworker benchmarks the applicant's account against the Country Policy and Information Notes (CPIN) and relevant Country Guidance (CG) determinations issued by the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber). If the applicant's account contradicts binding Country Guidance case law or reliable objective information regarding state capacity, the caseworker will draft refusal findings noting that the assertion is demonstrably baseless.

Step 3: Dual-Stage Decision Drafting

The caseworker drafts a formal decision letter that must clearly divide the merits refusal from the certification decision:

• Stage 3A (Substantive Refusal): The caseworker details why the applicant does not qualify for Refugee Status under the 1951 Geneva Convention, Humanitarian Protection under paragraph 339C of the Immigration Rules, or leave under Articles 2, 3, or 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
• Stage 3B (Section 94 Assessment): The caseworker turns to the separate question of certification. They must explicitly apply the ZT (Kosovo) standard, addressing why there is no realistic prospect that an immigration judge could decide the appeal differently.

If the decision letter fails to demonstrate that the caseworker applied the correct legal standard, or if the caseworker conflates the substantive refusal with the certification test, the decision contains an error of law.

Step 4: Quality Review and Authorisation

Home Office operating standards require that any proposed Section 94 certification undergoes secondary scrutiny by a Senior Caseworker (SCW) or Higher Executive Officer (HEO). The authorising officer must verify that the evidence genuinely supports a finding of clearly unfounded, and that the caseworker has adequately addressed any medical reports, vulnerability markers, or expert country reports submitted by the applicant.

Step 5: Service of the Decision and Notice of Removal Directions

Once authorized, the refusal letter and Section 94 certificate are served on the applicant and their legal representative by recorded delivery, hand delivery, or electronic service. The service of this decision ends the applicant's temporary admission or immigration bail conditions relating to an active pending claim, placing them in the position of an immigration overstayer liable to immediate enforcement and detention. Notice of intention to remove may be served concurrently or shortly thereafter.

Challenging a Clearly Unfounded Certification

Because a Section 94 certificate extinguishes the statutory right to an in-country appeal before the First-tier Tribunal, the primary legal remedy to contest the certificate is an application for Judicial Review in the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) or the Administrative Court (High Court).

The Reality of Out-of-Country Appeals

The statutory remedy provided under the 2002 Act for certified claims is an out-of-country appeal. To pursue this, the applicant must first depart the UK, return to their home country or travel to a third country, and submit an appeal notice within 28 calendar days of departure.

In practical terms, an out-of-country appeal is often ineffective for asylum seekers. Returning to the country of feared persecution exposes the individual to the exact risk of harm that prompted their flight, and undermines their claim before the tribunal by suggesting they are safe in that country. Furthermore, obtaining legal representation, gathering witness statements, and securing stable video links from abroad presents significant structural barriers. Consequently, judicial review within the UK is the critical mechanism for preventing unlawful removal and securing an in-country appeal.

The Pre-Action Protocol for Judicial Review

Before filing an application for judicial review, the applicant's legal representative must normally send a formal Pre-Action Protocol (PAP) letter to the Home Office Litigation Operations team. The PAP letter must:

• Identify the specific errors of law in the decision, such as failure to apply the ZT (Kosovo) test, misdirection regarding Country Guidance case law, or irrational dismissal of expert evidence.
• Set out why the claim is reasonably arguable before a First-tier Tribunal judge.
• Request that the Home Office withdraw the Section 94 certificate and issue a fresh refusal letter containing an in-country right of appeal.
• Give the Home Office a reasonable timeframe to respond, usually 14 calendar days, unless urgent removal directions have been set.

If the Home Office maintains the certificate or fails to respond within the designated timeframe, the claimant can file a claim for judicial review.

Judicial Review Applications and Urgent Interim Relief

A judicial review claim must be filed promptly, and in any event no later than three months from the date of the decision being challenged. The application is made to the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) using Form T480, accompanied by a statement of facts, legal grounds, the refusal letter, interview transcripts, and supporting evidence.

If the Home Office sets removal directions while the judicial review is being prepared or considered, the applicant must apply urgently for Interim Relief (an injunction to restrain removal). This is made via an emergency application to an on-duty Upper Tribunal or High Court judge. The court will grant an injunction if it is satisfied that there is an arguable case that the Section 94 certification was unlawful and that the balance of convenience favours preserving the status quo until the challenge is heard.

Outcomes of a Successful Judicial Review Challenge

If the Upper Tribunal grants permission for judicial review, the Home Office frequently reconsiders the certification rather than defending it at a substantive hearing. If the certificate is quashed by a court order or withdrawn by consent:

1. The Home Office may issue a revised decision maintaining the asylum refusal but granting an in-country right of appeal under Section 82 of the 2002 Act.
2. The Home Office may withdraw the entire refusal decision and invite the applicant for a further interview or grant leave to remain directly.
3. If an in-country right of appeal is issued, the applicant has 14 calendar days from the date of the new decision to lodge an appeal with the First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber).

Evidentiary Requirements and Caseworker Scrutiny

To prevent an asylum or human rights claim from being certified, or to secure the quashing of an existing certificate, applicants must submit detailed, objective, and individualized evidence. Caseworkers evaluate both subjective statements and objective documentation against strict evidential benchmarks.

┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│               EVIDENTIARY PYRAMID FOR ASYLUM CLAIMS         │
├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│  LEVEL 1: EXPERT & MEDICO-LEGAL EVIDENCE                    │
│  - Istanbul Protocol compliant medical reports              │
│  - Rule 35 detention reports showing torture marks          │
│  - Independent country expert reports on specific threats   │
├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│  LEVEL 2: OBJECTIVE CORROBORATION FROM ORIGIN COUNTRY       │
│  - Police reports, First Information Reports (FIRs), court  │
│  - Verification from local human rights NGOs & legal counsel│
│  - Direct threatening correspondence, digital evidence      │
├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│  LEVEL 3: APPLICANT TESTIMONY & WITNESS STATEMENTS          │
│  - Comprehensive, chronologically consistent statement      │
│  - Detailed screening and substantive interview transcripts │
│  - Third-party statements from community leaders in the UK  │
├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│  LEVEL 4: PUBLIC COUNTRY INFORMATION & CASE LAW             │
│  - Upper Tribunal Country Guidance (CG) determinations      │
│  - Home Office Country Policy and Information Notes (CPIN)  │
│  - US State Dept, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

Medico-Legal Reports and the Istanbul Protocol

When an applicant claims to have suffered torture, physical abuse, or severe trauma, submitting a Medico-Legal Report (MLR) prepared by an independent clinician is critical. Under established case law (KV (Sri Lanka) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2019] UKSC 10), caseworkers must give significant weight to medical evidence documented in accordance with the Istanbul Protocol (Manual on the Effective Investigation and Documentation of Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment).

If an expert clinician concludes that the applicant's physical scarring or psychiatric condition (such as Complex Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder) is highly consistent or typical of the torture described, a caseworker cannot lawfully certify the claim as clearly unfounded without exceptional, cogent rebuttal evidence. Certifying a claim in the face of an unchallenged Istanbul Protocol report is a frequent trigger for judicial review intervention.

Country Expert Reports

Where the Home Office relies on general statements in its CPIN to assert that state protection is effective or that internal relocation is safe, an applicant can counter these claims with an independent Country Expert Report. A qualified expert, such as an academic or specialist researcher with deep subject-matter knowledge of the region, can analyze the specific risk profile of the claimant.

To withstand caseworker scrutiny and tribunal review, the expert report must:

• Comply with the Senior President of Tribunals Practice Direction on Expert Evidence.
• Declare independence from the parties and acknowledge duties owed directly to the tribunal.
• Reference recent, verifiable field research, localized political events, and security developments.
• Explain precisely why state protection is unavailable to this particular individual, even if general laws exist on paper.
• Explain why internal relocation is unsafe or unduly harsh, addressing employment, tribal or clan networks, language barriers, and tracking capabilities of the persecutor.

Objective Country Documentation and Independent Reports

Caseworkers cross-reference all assertions against reliable international sources, including:

• United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) guidelines and eligibility papers.
• United States Department of State Country Reports on Human Rights Practices.
• Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and Freedom House annual assessments.
• Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office (FCDO) travel and human rights publications.

If the applicant can establish that their demographic, ethnicity, political affiliation, or religious profile falls within an established group at risk identified by UNHCR, the claim is arguable and cannot be certified under Section 94.

Common Mistakes and Refusal Triggers Leading to Certification

Many Section 94 certificates arise from preventable errors during the preparation and presentation of the asylum application. Understanding these triggers is vital for claimants and their legal representatives.

Reliance on Generalized Harm Without an Individualized Profile

A frequent error is submitting a claim based entirely on widespread poverty, poor economic infrastructure, generalized criminal activity, or low-level civil unrest in the country of origin. The 1951 Refugee Convention requires a well-founded fear of persecution based on one of five Convention grounds: Race, Religion, Nationality, Membership of a Particular Social Group (PSG), or Political Opinion.

If an applicant claims asylum solely because their home area experiences high crime rates, or because they are involved in a purely private dispute over money or land with no state involvement or failure of state protection, the Home Office will treat the matter as a civil dispute and certify the claim as clearly unfounded.

Failing to Address Internal Relocation During Substantive Interviews

During the substantive asylum interview, caseworkers routinely ask questions such as: "Why could you not move to another city or region in your country?" Claimants often answer vaguely, stating that they have no family there, that housing is expensive, or that they prefer to remain in their home district.

These answers provide the Home Office with grounds for certification. To prevent certification, the claimant must provide specific, substantive reasons why internal relocation is impossible. This includes explaining how the persecutors have nationwide reach, how the state's registration systems would alert the persecutors to the new address, or why the individual's specific health, psychological condition, or social identity would make living in the relocation area unduly harsh.

Delayed Claims and Section 8 Credibility Default

When an individual resides in the UK for months or years on another visa (such as a visitor, student, or skilled worker visa) before claiming asylum, and can show no material change of circumstances in their home country, the Home Office will apply Section 8 of the 2004 Act aggressively. If the applicant cannot provide a credible, verifiable explanation for why they delayed claiming protection once they were in safety, the caseworker may conclude the claim is an opportunistic attempt to prevent removal, heightening the likelihood of certification.

Ignoring Established Country Guidance Case Law

The Upper Tribunal issues Country Guidance (CG) cases that serve as legal precedents on safety, state protection, and internal relocation for specific countries and social groups. If a legal representative submits an asylum claim that directly contradicts a binding CG case without presenting new, durable, or transformative evidence showing that the country conditions have fundamentally deteriorated since that judgment was delivered, the Home Office will treat the claim as bound to fail.

Complex Scenarios and Edge Cases

Section 94 certifications involve complex procedural intersections across family dependants, medical conditions, human rights claims, and previous immigration histories.

Dependants and Split Decisions

When a principal asylum applicant includes dependants (a spouse, civil partner, or minor children) on their application, the Section 94 assessment must be applied to every individual included in the claim. If the principal applicant's claim is certified as clearly unfounded, that certification applies to the dependants unless an individual dependant has raised separate, independent protection grounds that are arguable.

If a dependant child has spent substantial continuous years in the UK (such as seven years or more under paragraph 276ADE(1)(iv) or Section 117B(6) of the 2002 Act), certifying the family's claim as clearly unfounded under Article 8 ECHR is unlawful unless there are strong public interest reasons demonstrating why it is reasonable to expect the child to leave the UK. Caseworkers who issue blanket Section 94 certificates to families with qualifying British or long-resident children commit clear public law errors.

Article 3 ECHR Medical Claims

Applicants facing serious, life-threatening physical or mental health conditions often raise Article 3 ECHR human rights claims resisting removal on medical grounds. The legal threshold for establishing an Article 3 medical violation is exceptionally high, as defined by the European Court of Human Rights in Paposhvili v Belgium [2017] Imm AR 667 and affirmed by the UK Supreme Court in AM (Zimbabwe) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2020] UKSC 17.

To meet the AM (Zimbabwe) standard, the applicant must present clear evidence that their return to their country of origin would result in:

• A real risk of a serious, rapid, and irreversible decline in their state of health resulting in intense suffering; or
• A significant reduction in life expectancy due to the absence of appropriate treatment or lack of access to available treatment.

Because the threshold is demanding, caseworkers frequently certify standalone Article 3 medical claims as clearly unfounded if the applicant provides only general letters from a GP or hospital without expert comparative medical evidence showing why treatment in the home country is completely inaccessible to them.

Article 8 Family and Private Life Claims

Where an asylum claim includes human rights arguments under Article 8 ECHR (the right to respect for private and family life), the caseworker will assess whether there are insurmountable obstacles to family life continuing outside the UK under Appendix FM, or very significant obstacles to integration under Appendix Private Life.

If an applicant has no qualifying partner or children in the UK, has been in the country for a short duration, and possesses ties to their country of origin, the Home Office will certify the Article 8 claim as clearly unfounded. For the Article 8 claim to avoid certification, the applicant must establish exceptional circumstances that would result in unjustifiably harsh consequences for themselves or their family members.

Fresh Claims and Further Submissions Under Paragraph 353

If an individual's initial asylum claim was refused and all appeals were exhausted, any new evidence must be submitted as Further Submissions under Paragraph 353 of the Immigration Rules. When reviewing further submissions, the caseworker must determine whether the new material amounts to a fresh claim.

Under Paragraph 353, submissions amount to a fresh claim only if:

1. The content has not already been considered; and
2. Taken together with the previously considered material, it creates a realistic prospect of success before an immigration judge.

If the caseworker decides the submissions do not create a realistic prospect of success, they will reject the submissions under Paragraph 353. This rejection does not generate a new right of appeal. If the caseworker accepts that the evidence is new but decides it is clearly unfounded, they can reject the claim and apply a Section 94 certificate. The legal challenge to a Paragraph 353 refusal is also pursued via judicial review, testing whether the Secretary of State properly asked herself whether an immigration judge could reach a different conclusion on the new evidence.

Safe Third Country Removals and Presumed Safety

Where the Home Office seeks to remove an applicant to a safe third country (a country through which they travelled and where they could have claimed protection, or a country with which they have an agreement), distinct certification provisions apply under Schedule 3 to the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004.

Under Schedule 3, designated states (including EU member states and certain other countries) are statutorily presumed to be places where an individual will not face persecution under the Refugee Convention or treatment contrary to Article 3 ECHR. If an applicant challenges removal to a Schedule 3 safe country on human rights grounds, the Home Office is required to certify that claim as clearly unfounded unless the applicant can demonstrate that the third country's own asylum or reception systems present a real risk of systemic failure or indirect refoulement.

Practical Next Steps for Certified Claimants

Receiving a Section 94 clearly unfounded certificate requires immediate, coordinated legal action to prevent administrative removal:

1. Secure the Full Decision and Casework Bundle: Obtain the complete Home Office refusal letter, the Section 94 certification notice, all interview transcripts, and any internal casework notes.
2. Instruct an IAA-Regulated Specialist: Retain an immigration solicitor or regulated adviser authorized at Level 3 (Advocacy and Judicial Review) to evaluate public law challenges.
3. Audit the Legal Grounds: Review the refusal letter against ZT (Kosovo) principles to determine whether the caseworker applied the correct test, misapplied Country Guidance case law, or ignored submitted expert evidence.
4. Issue a Pre-Action Protocol (PAP) Letter: Serve a formal Pre-Action Protocol letter on the Home Office Litigation Operations team demanding withdrawal of the certificate and reinstatement of an in-country right of appeal.
5. Prepare for Emergency Judicial Review: If the Home Office maintains the certificate or serves removal directions, file a Claim for Judicial Review and apply immediately for interim relief to stay removal before the Upper Tribunal.

Reviewed by Wesbridge Associates team on 31 August 2026. We check our published guidance against GOV.UK and current Home Office rules.

Frequently asked questions

Common questions on this topic, answered by our advisers.

What does 'clearly unfounded' mean for an asylum claim?

Can I appeal a 'clearly unfounded' asylum decision from within the UK?

How does 'credibility' affect an asylum claim?

What is 'internal relocation' in asylum law?

What is 'effective protection' in the context of asylum?

How quickly must I act if my asylum claim is certified as 'clearly unfounded'?