Irena Sabic KC and Alex Grigg of the Garden Court Immigration Law Team acted for MAH in the High Court, instructed by Bahar Ata, Katie Nelson and Ana Isabel Hart of Duncan Lewis Solicitors.
Alex Grigg previously represented MAH pro bono in the Asylum Support Tribunal, instructed by Mark Rogers and Richard Copson of the Asylum Appeals Project (ASAP).
The below content has been reproduced from a Duncan Lewis Press Release.
The High Court handed down a judgment which confirms that the AST can examine the validity of the asylum withdrawal itself – ensuring that claimants were not wrongly removed from the asylum system.
On 21 March 2025, the court delivered its judgment in R (SSHD) v FTT (MAH & Ors) [2025] EWHC 694 (Admin), addressing the Secretary of State’s (SSHD) challenge to the jurisdiction of the First-tier Tribunal (Asylum Support). The case focused on whether the tribunal could hear appeals against the termination, or refusal of Section 95 asylum support for, individuals whose asylum claims had been implicitly withdrawn by the Home Office.
The court dismissed the Secretary of State’s Judicial Review claim, ruling that the Asylum Support Tribunal (AST) does have jurisdiction to hear such appeals.
Background: Asylum Claim Withdrawals & Evictions
The context to this Judicial Review claim is the dramatic increase in decisions, which implicitly withdrew asylum claims. Statistics released in November 2024 showed that over 20,000 asylum claims had been withdrawn in 2023, compared to just over 3,000 in 2022.
Individuals had their claims withdrawn without their knowledge due to systemic Home Office system errors, which saw interview invitation and asylum claim letters sent to incorrect addresses.
Following a decision to withdraw an asylum claim, the SSHD can terminate the individual’s asylum support and move to evict them from accommodation on account of them no longer being an ‘asylum seeker’ under s94 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (IAA 1999).
The eviction notices in these cases purported that there was no right of appeal against the decision to terminate or refuse support under s103 IAA 1999 to the AST.
This, together with the SSHD’s particular position toward withdrawn asylum seekers, made many individuals vulnerable to destitution without recourse to challenge because of the SSHD’s policy position that withdrawn asylum seekers are not entitled to support under s4 of IAA 1999, and due to the limitations of Schedule 10 accommodation, creating a ‘gap’ in support.
The effect was two birds one stone for the SSHD: pursuing a political aim of “clearing the backlog” (statistically) by no longer treating these individuals as ‘asylum seekers’, whilst also evicting people from asylum support accommodation, against the backdrop of criticism the use of hotels to accommodate asylum seekers.
Despite this, four individuals who were facing eviction, including MAH, attempted to appeal their support decisions to the AST. Their appeals were ultimately heard together by the AST’s Principal Judge as a lead case to address the jurisdiction issue, and whether the AST could consider the correctness of the underlying decision to withdraw the asylum claim, which led to the eviction decisions.
In a determination dated 14 June 2024, the AST decided that it did have jurisdiction, and that it could ‘look behind’ that decision to see how and in what circumstances the decision to discontinue asylum support was reached. The Principal Judge found that MAH’s asylum claim was erroneously withdrawn and should be reviewed by the SSHD.
The SSHD sought a Judicial Review of the AST decision. The High Court dismissed this review, concluding that the AST had jurisdiction under Section 103 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. Furthermore, the AST was entitled to determine whether the underlying asylum claim had been validly treated as withdrawn when assessing individuals’ eligibility for Section 95 Asylum Support.
This is a welcome judgment, which upholds an avenue for individuals on the brink of destitution to challenge the withdrawal of their asylum claims whilst being protected from homelessness.
Important evidence was provided by the Asylum Support Appeals Project (ASAP) who routinely provide pro bono advice and representation at the Asylum Support Tribunal, and who represented MAH in the original AST hearing, as well as by Care4Calais, who assisted dozens of individuals who were facing imminent destitution following the withdrawal of their asylum claim.
Read the full judgment here (BAILII) : R (SSHD) v FTT (MAH & Ors) [2025] EWHC 694 (Admin)
See further reporting on these issues here:
- ‘Newborn Baby Made Homeless by Home Office in Frenzy to Clear Asylum Backlog’, The Guardian
- ‘We’ve No Idea Where You Are but You’re Evicted, Home Office Tells Migrants’ (20 January 2024), iNews
- Free Movement Article on the Principal Judge’s decision: ‘Asylum Support Tribunal Says it Can Consider Lawfulness of Home Office Withdrawal of Asylum Claims’ (2 July 2024)
