Secretary of State for Home Department (Respondent) v D8 (Appellant)

Case summary

Case ID

UKSC/2025/0049

Parties

Appellant(s)

D8

Respondent(s)

The Secretary of State for the Home Department

Issue

(1) In deciding whether to revoke a person’s refugee status, does the Secretary of State for the Home Department (“the SSHD”) need to balance the risk to national security against the cost and practicality of measures to ameliorate that risk, and show that revocation is a last resort? (2) Is the determination of whether a person poses a risk to national security solely for the SSHD or must the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (“SIAC”) make its own determination?

Facts

D8 is an Iranian national of Kurdish ethnicity. In 2016, he left Iran and travelled to the UK where he claimed asylum. His application was refused but he successfully appealed to the First-tier Tribunal which decided that he would be at real risk of persecution if returned to Iran. In April 2017, the SSHD granted D8 five years’ leave to remain as a refugee. In February 2020, D8 travelled to the Kurdish region of Iraq. SIAC found that D8 was in Iran between (at the latest) 5 March 2020 and late April or early May 2020. On 2 April 2020, the SSHD directed that D8 be excluded from the UK on the basis of national security. D8 was sent a letter notifying him of the SSHD’s intention to revoke his refugee status and his leave to remain was cancelled. D8’s refugee status was revoked on 15 October 2020 (the first decision challenged in these proceedings). In March 2021, D8 returned illegally to the UK and was detained. He claimed asylum. This claim was refused on 8 July 2021 on national security grounds (the second challenged decision). The SSHD decided that D8 should be returned to Iran, as D8 had returned voluntarily and openly to Iran without adverse consequences. However, at the hearing before SIAC, the SSHD conceded that if she failed to prove that D8 had returned openly to Iran, it would not be safe to return him there. SIAC found that the SSHD had so failed and this finding has not been challenged by the SSHD. SIAC found that, if returned, D8 would face a real risk of torture (contrary to Article 3 of the ECHR) and a risk of a violation of his right to life (Article 2 of the ECHR). There is therefore no question of him being returned, and some form of leave to remain will have to be granted to D8. D8 appealed the decisions of the SSHD to revoke his refugee status and refuse asylum. SIAC allowed the appeals, but the Court of Appeal allowed the SSHD’s appeal. D8 now appeals to the Supreme Court.

Date of issue

24 March 2025

Case origin

PTA

Appeal

Justices

Lord Lloyd-Jones

Lord Sales

Lord Stephens

Permission to Appeal

Permission to Appeal decision date

5 June 2025

Permission to Appeal decision

Refused

Back to top