Nguyen (Appellant) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Respondent)

Case summary

Case ID

UKSC/2025/0063

Parties

Appellant(s)

Thanh Hoai Thu Nguyen

Respondent(s)

Secretary of State for the Home Department

Issue

(1) Did the Court of Appeal take the wrong approach to the assessment of whether the Respondent was entitled to cease the Appellant’s refugee status? (2) Did the Court of Appeal take the wrong approach to the assessment of whether returning the Appellant to Vietnam would violate her rights under Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights?

Facts

The Appellant is a Vietnamese national. In 2010, the Appellant claimed asylum in the UK. She was granted refugee status, on the basis that there was a reasonable degree of likelihood that she may face persecution in Vietnam as a victim of trafficking. As a result of her refugee status, the Appellant benefitted from the protection of Article 33(1) Refugee Convention 1951, which prevents a State from expelling or returning a refugee to somewhere where their life or freedom would be threatened on account of their race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion. In April 2015, the Appellant was convicted (following a late guilty plea) of a kidnapping offence. She was sentenced to a period of 11 years 6 months’ imprisonment in relation to that offence. As a result of the conviction, the Respondent considered deporting the Appellant. In July 2016, the Respondent informed the Appellant that a decision had been made to deport her. In addition, the Respondent informed the Appellant that she was considered to be a danger to the community due to the serious crime she had committed. The consequence of this was that (by virtue of s72 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002), the Appellant no longer benefited from the protection of Article 33(1) Refugee Convention 1951. The Appellant made written submissions to the Respondent in respect of the decision to deport her. The Appellant said that deporting her to Vietnam would lead to a violation of her rights under Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which provides that no one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. The Appellant (who has HIV) said that this was because if deported she would be at risk from the people who had trafficked her, from her ex-husband, and from a deterioration in health due to the inadequacy of medical treatment in Vietnam for those suffering from HIV. In January 2019, the Respondent made an order to deport the Appellant. The Respondent also revoked the Appellant’s status as a refugee, and rejected the Appellant’s claim that deportation would lead to a violation of her Article 3 rights. The Appellant appealed against the decision to revoke her refugee status and to refuse her Article 3 claim. That appeal was heard by the First-Tier Tribunal in March 2021. The First-Tier Tribunal dismissed the appeal. It found that (1) the situation in Vietnam had materially changed, so that the Appellant no longer had a basis upon which to be granted refugee status, and (2) the Appellant had not proved that her Article 3 rights would be violated by deportation to Vietnam. The Appellant was given permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal. The Upper Tribunal dismissed her appeal. The Appellant was given permission to apply to the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal dismissed the Appellant’s appeal against the decision to revoke her refugee status. However, the Court of Appeal allowed her appeal against the dismissal of her claim that deportation would lead to a violation of her Article 3 rights. The Court of Appeal ordered that the Appellant’s Article 3 claim should be reheard by the First-Tier Tribunal. The Appellant now appeals to the Supreme Court. She argues that the courts below were incorrect to reject her appeal against the decision to revoke her refugee status. She also argues that the Court of Appeal was incorrect in its approach to the law on her Article 3 claim, albeit that she agrees the Court of Appeal was correct to allow her appeal against the dismissal of that claim.

Date of issue

17 April 2025

Case origin

PTA

Back to top