Can the Law Still Protect Access to Asylum? A Comparative Look at the Fight to Preserve Access to Asylum in the United States and the United Kingdom
Document Type
Article
Publication Date
4-2024
ISSN
2642-8601
Publisher
American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA)
Language
en-US
Abstract
The Refugee Convention and Protocol protect refugees and asylum seekers only once they are under a state’s legal jurisdiction. States of asylum have increasingly resorted to a range of measures to block access to asylum in order to avoid triggering jurisdiction over asylum claims. Among such measures are bars to asylum on the basis that asylum seekers could receive protection in another “safe country”—whether a “first country of asylum,” or a “safe third country” where they could be sent. The paper looks at recent litigation challenging the denial of refugee or asylum protection on “safe country” grounds in the United Kingdom and the United States. The paper assesses whether there are common elements on which courts on both sides of the Atlantic agree in analyzing whether a first or third country is “safe” that correlate to fundamental norms of asylum and refugee law.
Recommended Citation
Susan Akram,
Can the Law Still Protect Access to Asylum? A Comparative Look at the Fight to Preserve Access to Asylum in the United States and the United Kingdom
,
6
AILA Law Journal
129
(2024).
Available at:
https://scholarship.law.bu.edu/faculty_scholarship/4324
