Certification of protection and

human rights claims under section

94 of the Nationality, Immigration
and Asylum Act 2002 (clearly
unfounded claims)
Version 4.0

Page 1 of 33 Published for Home Office staff on 12 February 2019

Contents
Contents ..................................................................................................................... 2
About this guidance .................................................................................................... 4
Contacts ................................................................................................................. 4
Publication .............................................................................................................. 4
Changes from last version of this guidance ............................................................ 4
Background ................................................................................................................ 5
Policy intention behind certification ......................................................................... 5
What is a Protection Claim? ................................................................................... 5
What is a human rights claim? ................................................................................ 5
Should the claim be certified? ............................................................................. 5
Designated states ...................................................................................................... 7
Meaning of ‘entitled to reside’ ................................................................................. 8
Doubts about nationality or entitlement to reside .................................................... 8
Case by case certification .......................................................................................... 9
Further submissions ................................................................................................. 10
Meaning of ‘clearly unfounded’ ................................................................................. 11
Certifying cases involving children ........................................................................... 12
Credibility ................................................................................................................. 13
Examples of when a protection claim can be certified .............................................. 15
No fear of mistreatment ........................................................................................ 15
No objective basis for feared mistreatment ........................................................... 15
Feared mistreatment does not amount to persecution.......................................... 15
Sufficiency of protection ........................................................................................ 15
Internal relocation ................................................................................................. 15
Examples of when a human rights claim can be certified ......................................... 17
Article 8 claims...................................................................................................... 17
Other human rights claim likely to be clearly unfounded....................................... 19
When not to certify a clearly unfounded claim: exceptions ....................................... 20
Miscellaneous issues ............................................................................................... 21
Non compliance .................................................................................................... 21
Dependants .......................................................................................................... 21
Families of mixed nationality ................................................................................. 21
Certification process ................................................................................................. 22

Page 2 of 33 Published for Home Office staff on 12 February 2019

 Certification paragraphs........................................................................................ 22
Protection cases ................................................................................................... 22
Human rights cases .............................................................................................. 22
Approval of decisions on protection claims: designated states ................................ 24
Approval of decisions on human rights claims: designated states ........................ 24
Further submissions post section 94 certification ................................................. 25
Explaining the certification decision ......................................................................... 26
Certification: recording the decision ......................................................................... 27
Initial caseworker action: protection claim ............................................................ 27
Initial caseworker action: human rights only cases ............................................... 27
Initial SPoE action................................................................................................. 27
Caseworker action on receipt of file from SPoE ................................................... 28
Appeal stage ............................................................................................................ 29
Successful out-of-country appeals ........................................................................... 30
Current list of designated states ............................................................................... 31
SPoE process .......................................................................................................... 32
Designated state cases ........................................................................................ 32
Non designated state cases ................................................................................. 32
SPoE accreditation ............................................................................................... 32
Required standard ................................................................................................ 32
Mentor responsibilities .......................................................................................... 33
Recording cases correctly during mentoring ......................................................... 33

Page 3 of 33 Published for Home Office staff on 12 February 2019

About this guidance
This guidance tells you about certification of protection and human rights claims as
clearly unfounded.

This guidance is valid for claims decided on or after 6 April 2015.

Contacts
If you have any questions about the guidance and your line manager or senior
caseworker cannot help you or you think that the guidance has factual errors then
email the Appeals Policy team.

If you notice any formatting errors in this guidance (broken links, spelling mistakes
and so on) or have any comments about the layout or navigability of the guidance
then you can email the Guidance Rules and Forms team.

Publication
Below is information on when this version of the guidance was published:

• version 4.0
• published for Home Office staff on 12 February 2019

Changes from last version of this guidance

The guidance has been changed to emphasise that:

• caseworkers must be particularly careful when considering whether to certify a

claim on credibility grounds
• an allegation of deception is an issue of credibility
• where the claim is certified, a protection appeal should be treated as if the
appellant is not outside the UK, but that does not mean the appeal should be
treated as if the appellant has never left the UK

Related content
Contents

Page 4 of 33 Published for Home Office staff on 12 February 2019

Background
This section explains the meaning of certification and sets out the policy background.

Section 94(1) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 states that the
Secretary of State may certify a protection or human rights claim as clearly
unfounded.

In all cases where a protection and/ or human rights claim is refused caseworkers
must consider whether certification is appropriate and cases that are clearly
unfounded should be certified unless an exception applies.

The effect of certification under section 94 is to restrict the right of appeal against
refusal so that the claimant can only appeal once they have left the UK (referred to
as a non-suspensive appeal).

Policy intention behind certification

The underlying policy intention when certifying protection and/ or human rights
claims is to protect the integrity of the immigration system and deter unfounded
claims by:

• preventing appeals delaying removal, where protection and human rights

claims are clearly unfounded
• supporting the reduction in asylum support costs by enabling the claimant to be
removed once a decision is made and certified rather than continue to be
supported during an in-country appeal

What is a Protection Claim?

A protection claim is a claim that removal of a person would breach the UK’s
obligations under the Refugee Convention or in respect of a person eligible for a
grant of humanitarian protection (section 82(2)(a) of the 2002 act). Further guidance
is available in the Rights of appeal guidance.

What is a human rights claim?

A human rights claim is a claim that to remove a person from or require them to
leave the UK or to refuse them entry into the UK would be unlawful under section 6
of the Human Rights Act 1998. Further guidance is available in the Rights of appeal
guidance.

Should the claim be certified?

In all cases where a protection and/ or human rights claim is refused caseworkers
must consider whether certification is appropriate and cases that are clearly
unfounded should be certified unless an exception applies.
Page 5 of 33 Published for Home Office staff on 12 February 2019
The legal test as to what amounts to a clearly unfounded claim is the same for
claims certified on a case by case basis as for those from designated states.

Each claim must be considered on its individual merits and should only be certified if
the caseworker is satisfied that the claim is clearly unfounded.

Related content
Contents

Page 6 of 33 Published for Home Office staff on 12 February 2019

Designated states
This section explains certification of claims where the claimant comes from a
designated state.

Section 94(4) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, contains a list of
designated states.

Section 94(3) provides that when refusing a protection and/ or human rights claim
from a person entitled to reside in one of the listed states, the Secretary of State
must certify the claim unless satisfied that the claim is not clearly unfounded.

A state is included on the list (‘designated’) if there is in general in that state or part
of it no serious risk of persecution of persons entitled to reside in that state or part of
it. Where a person is entitled to reside in a designated state or part of it removal
there will not in general contravene the UK’s obligations under the European
Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

A state can be included on the list at 94(4) by section 94(5) which allows the
Secretary of State for the Home Department (SSHD) to designate:

• all of a state
• a geographical part of a state
• a state in respect of a description of a person
• a geographical part of a state in respect of a description of a person

Where partial designation exists, only those cases that meet the designation criteria
can be certified under section 94(3). However caseworkers must consider
certification under section 94(1) on a case-by-case basis where section 94(3) is not
applicable.

Even though some human rights claims are not based on the conditions in the
claimant’s country of origin (for example Article 8 family and private life), the
requirement to certify the claim unless satisfied that it is not clearly unfounded
remains and the caseworker must apply section 94(3) in the same way as for a
protection claim. Where a human rights claim is refused but is not clearly unfounded
consideration must also be given as to whether it should be certified under section
94B.

A protection and/ or human rights claim made by someone from a designated state
must still be considered on its individual merits and if the caseworker considers on
the facts of the claim that it is not clearly unfounded, it should not be certified under
section 94.

Certification of claims from designated states applies to all claims made on or after
the date the state was designated. Any claims made before the date of designation
should not be certified under section 94(3) but may be certified on a case by case
basis under 94(1).

Page 7 of 33 Published for Home Office staff on 12 February 2019

Meaning of ‘entitled to reside’
The term ‘entitled to reside’ includes:

• citizens
• dual nationals
• non-citizens who are normally resident in the state with a legal basis for
residing there

Doubts about nationality or entitlement to reside

Where the claimant asserts that they are not entitled to reside in a designated state,
the caseworker must consider whether there is evidence that they are entitled to
reside there. See guidance on doubtful or disputed nationality.

Related content
Contents

Page 8 of 33 Published for Home Office staff on 12 February 2019

Case by case certification
This section explains certification of claims on a case-by-case basis.

Section 94(1) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 allows the
Secretary of State to certify a protection and/ or human rights claim as clearly
unfounded on a case by case basis.

A case can be certified under section 94(1) where the claimant is not entitled to
reside in one of the designated states. It can also be used where the claimant is
entitled to reside in a designated state but falls within a category not covered by the
designation, as long as the claim is clearly unfounded on its facts.

Example: State A is designated for men only. The claimant is a woman entitled to
reside in state A. Her claim is clearly unfounded. It should not be certified under
section 94(3), but it should be certified under section 94(1).

Related content
Contents

Page 9 of 33 Published for Home Office staff on 12 February 2019

Further submissions
This section explains the interaction between further submissions under paragraph
353 of the Immigration Rules and certification.

Further submissions after a previous refusal of a protection or human rights claim

should not be certified under section 94. Where further submissions are rejected and
there is no fresh claim under paragraph 353 there is no claim to certify.

If further submissions are accepted as a fresh claim this means the claim has a
realistic prospect of success at appeal so it cannot be clearly unfounded.

For guidance on applying paragraph 353 see the Further Submissions guidance.

Related content
Contents

Page 10 of 33 Published for Home Office staff on 12 February 2019

Meaning of ‘clearly unfounded’
This section explains how to decide whether a claim is ’clearly unfounded’.

To be clearly unfounded a caseworker must be satisfied that the claim cannot, on

any legitimate view, succeed.

The cases of Thangarasa and Yogathas [2002] UKHL 36 and ZL and VL v SSHD
[2003] EWCA Civ 25 give the following guidance:

• a manifestly unfounded claim is a claim which is so clearly without substance

that it is bound to fail
• it is possible for a claim to be manifestly unfounded even if it takes more than a
cursory look at the evidence to come to a view that there is nothing of
substance in it

Caseworkers must consider:

• the factual substance and detail of the claim

• how it stands with the known background data
• in the round whether it is capable of belief
• whether some part is capable of belief
• whether, if eventually believed in whole or part, it is capable of meeting the
requirements of the Refugee Convention

Although these cases pre-date the introduction of humanitarian protection, the

principles outlined in respect of considering clearly unfounded cases also apply to
humanitarian protection and human rights claims.

Related content
Contents

Page 11 of 33 Published for Home Office staff on 12 February 2019

Certifying cases involving children
This section explains how to comply with the duty to safeguard and promote the best
interests of children when considering certification.

Section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009 requires the Home
Office to carry out its immigration, asylum and nationality functions in a way that has
regard to the need to safeguard and promote the welfare (or ‘best interests’) of
children in the UK. In applying this guidance to cases involving a child in the UK,
caseworkers must have due regard to this section 55 duty. This involves making
sure that a child’s best interests are a primary consideration in any decision affecting
them. For further information on the key principles to take into account, see: Section
55 Children's Duty Guidance.

The presence of a child within a family does not prevent consideration of whether
certification is appropriate. The best interests of a child are generally served by
making sure that they are returned with their family to their country of origin or
residence as soon as possible where a claim is unfounded. However, caseworkers
must make sure they carefully consider the claim of the family as a whole and also
as individuals. This includes the impact of certification on any children and whether
the child may have a separate claim to remain, for example risk of female genital
mutilation, in their own right. See the Dependants and former dependants’ asylum
instruction for further information.

Cases involving unaccompanied asylum seeking children (UASCs) who are not
being granted any form of leave, for example because there are adequate reception
arrangements in their country of origin, can also be considered for certification if the
claim is clearly unfounded.

Related content
Contents

Page 12 of 33 Published for Home Office staff on 12 February 2019

Credibility
This section tells you the circumstances in which credibility can be taken into
account when considering whether to certify a claim.

Credibility should not be taken into account when considering whether to certify a
claim unless the claim is so incredible that it is incapable of belief.

In ZL and VL v SSHD [2003] EWCA Civ 25 the Court of Appeal stated:

If on at least one legitimate view of the facts or the law the claim may succeed, the
claim will not be clearly unfounded. If that point is reached, the decision-maker
cannot conclude otherwise. He or she will by definition be satisfied that the claim
is not clearly unfounded.

The Court went on to state:

Where an appellant’s case does turn on credibility, the fact that the interviewer
does not believe the appellant will not, of itself, justify a finding that a claim is
clearly unfounded. In many immigration cases findings on credibility have been
reversed on appeal. Only where the interviewing officer is satisfied that nobody
could believe the appellant’s story will it be appropriate to certify the claim as
clearly unfounded on the ground of lack of credibility alone.

This means that where certification is being considered, credibility is only relevant if
the caseworker is satisfied that no one could believe the individual’s account. For
example, if there is indisputable evidence which contradicts the claim or it is based
on facts already considered and found not to be credible, and no new evidence has
been produced to disturb that finding. Another way of putting this is that where the
caseworker thinks the claim could be believed they must take the claim at its highest,
accepting the account as being true for the purposes of deciding whether to certify.

It is of course still open to the caseworker to refuse the claim where they have
substantial reasons for doubting credibility. The thing to remember is that the
decision to refuse the claim and the decision to certify it are two different decisions to
which different tests apply. Refusing the claim on the ground that it is not believed
must not be confused with certifying the claim on the ground that nobody could
believe it.

An allegation of deception is a credibility point and should be treated accordingly.

Deception should not be taken into account when considering whether to certify a
claim unless the caseworker is satisfied that nobody could believe the claimant’s
account that they did not use deception.

For example, where an Article 8 claimant has provided a certificate of English

language competence in support of an application and there is evidence that the
certificate was falsely obtained, it will be appropriate to take the deception into
account when deciding to grant or refuse the claim. However, it will only be
appropriate to take the deception into account for the purposes of certification if
Page 13 of 33 Published for Home Office staff on 12 February 2019
nobody could believe that the certificate was obtained genuinely or that the applicant
did not know about the deception when submitting the certificate.

Related content
Contents

Page 14 of 33 Published for Home Office staff on 12 February 2019

Examples of when a protection claim
can be certified
This section provides examples of when a protection claim can be certified.

No fear of mistreatment
If a claimant raises nothing that could be considered as amounting to a fear of
mistreatment on return, for example, where a person states they are fleeing poverty
or unemployment.

No objective basis for feared mistreatment

If after taking account of the person’s circumstances and the objective evidence, it is
clear that there is no arguable basis that the feared mistreatment will arise on return.
Where relevant, reference must be made to the appropriate country information and
guidance reports in considering the claim. See: Country information and guidance.

Feared mistreatment does not amount to persecution

When it is clear from the objective evidence that the mistreatment feared, even if it
did occur, would not amount to persecution or serious harm. The existence of
previous mistreatment would not preclude certification if the treatment feared on
return would not amount to persecution or serious harm.

Sufficiency of protection
It is not necessary to show that the state will eliminate all risk to the claimant. It is
enough to show that it is willing and able to take effective steps to prevent
persecution or serious harm. For example, a state that operates an effective legal
system for detection, prosecution and punishment of persecutory acts is taking
adequate steps to prevent persecution even if it cannot solve every crime or prevent
every assault.

Where the claimed threat comes from rogue public officials (such as individual police
officers acting outside their authority), the threshold is higher but the claim would still
be clearly unfounded if there is clear evidence that the state is able and willing to
take action against those officials and provide protection against them. See:
Assessing credibility and refugee status for further details.

Internal relocation
If a claim is in relation to the claimant’s home area and internal relocation is available
and it is reasonable to expect the claimant to relocate. This may apply if the claim is
a fear of ill-treatment by non-state actors or rogue agents or where the authorities do

Page 15 of 33 Published for Home Office staff on 12 February 2019

not control the entire country. See: Assessing credibility and refugee status for
further details.

Related content
Contents
Examples of when a human rights claim can be certified
Credibility

Page 16 of 33 Published for Home Office staff on 12 February 2019

Examples of when a human rights
claim can be certified
This section provides examples of when a human rights claim can be certified.

Caseworkers should consult the guidance Considering Human Rights claims for
general information on the different human rights claims that can be made and how
to consider them.

All the facts of the claim must be considered and a decision made on the claim
before going on to consider certification.

Article 8 claims
Caseworkers must refer to section 1.0b Family and private life – 10 year route for
guidance on considering Article 8 family and private life cases except in deportation
cases. In criminal deportation cases, caseworkers must refer to Criminality guidance
for Article 8 ECHR cases.

The fact that the Article 8 claim falls to be refused and there are no exceptional
circumstances (or very compelling circumstances in criminal deportation cases) does
not mean that the claim should be certified. A claim can only be certified where it is
clearly unfounded. A human rights claim must only be certified only where it is so
clearly without substance that it is bound to fail. The decision on whether to certify
must take into account the family’s claim as a whole and the individual
circumstances of every applicant within it in their own right.

For example, a human rights claim may be suitable for certification where:

• there is a partner application but the claim does not raise any circumstances
which suggest that family life with their partner could not continue overseas and
there is no evidence of any exceptional circumstances
• the basis of the application is as a partner, but there is no evidence that the
relationship is genuine or subsisting
• the basis of the application is as a partner with a dependent child but there is
no evidence of a genuine and subsisting parental relationship between parent
and child, for example, no evidence that the parent sees the child or has any
involvement in their life
• the basis of the claim is as a parent but there is no evidence of a child

A claim based on other family relationships may be suitable for certification where:

• the Article 8 claim is based on a relationship other than partner, child or adult
dependent relative, such as two adult siblings or a parent/ child relationship
where the child is aged 18 or above, and there is no evidence of any arguably
unusual level of dependency or exceptional features in the claim

Page 17 of 33 Published for Home Office staff on 12 February 2019

A private life claim may be suitable for certification where there is a:

• claim based on limited job prospects in their country of origin

• claim that private life would be breached owing to a medical condition but no
evidence of this condition has been provided, the condition is not serious or
treatment is available in country of return
• claim that a student or worker would be unable to continue with their studies or
work and there is no evidence of an established private life other than normal
level of social interaction as a student or worker
• claim by an adult aged 25 and the claim does not raise any circumstances
which suggest there would be significant obstacles to the claimant’s integration
into the country to which they would have to go if required to leave the UK, and
there is no evidence of any exceptional circumstances

Caseworkers should note that the above are only examples of cases that may be
suitable for certification and that each case must be assessed on its individual
merits.

When considering whether to certify an Article 8 claim caseworkers are not simply
applying the guidance on whether the claim should be refused. The mere fact that a
claim falls to be refused does not mean the claim should be certified. For example in
a complex case the rules are not met and there are no exceptional circumstances
the claim may nonetheless not be clearly unfounded even if the claim is refused.

Evidence for the purposes of certification can include claims made by a person in
their application even where this is not supported by documentary evidence.
However where no documentation is provided and there is no explanation for the
omission then it is open to caseworkers to make enquiries as to why documentary
evidence has not been provided. In cases where a person has failed to provide
evidence when they could reasonably be expected to do so the claim may be
certified as clearly unfounded. This is provided the absence of documentary
evidence means it is bound to fail and there are no other reasons as to why the claim
should not be certified.

Examples of Article 8 claims not likely to be suitable for certification:

• there is a child of the family who is a British Citizen

• there is a child of the family who is not a British Citizen but has lived in the UK
for 7 years or longer
• there is a child who is not British or who has been in the UK for less than 7
years, where there is evidence of potential exceptional circumstances or
compassionate or compelling grounds that may mean it is in the child’s best
interests for them to remain in the UK
• there are obstacles to the applicant continuing family life outside the UK but
these obstacles are not insurmountable
• there is evidence of circumstances that may amount to exceptional
circumstances (though the caseworker does not consider that the
circumstances are exceptional and therefore the claim falls to be refused)

Page 18 of 33 Published for Home Office staff on 12 February 2019

This is not an exhaustive list.

Other human rights claim likely to be clearly unfounded

Article 4(3) of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) excludes military
service from the definition of forced labour. A claim based on risk of compulsory
military service would in itself be clearly unfounded unless there was another aspect
to a claim. Examples of this would be a real risk of discriminatory treatment, r a
disproportionate punishment for draft evasion or a real risk of being subject to prison
conditions that would amount to treatment contrary to Article 3 of the ECHR.

Related content
Contents
Examples of when a protection claim can be certified
Credibility

Page 19 of 33 Published for Home Office staff on 12 February 2019

When not to certify a clearly unfounded
claim: exceptions
This section sets out the exceptions to the policy that where a claim is clearly
unfounded it must be certified under section 94 of the Nationality, Immigration and
Asylum Act 2002.

Claims that are clearly unfounded should not be certified under section 94:

• if an individual makes both a protection and human rights claim and only one of
these claims is clearly unfounded
• except cases where the protection claim is certifiable and the human rights
claim can be certified under section 94B see: certification under Section 94B of
the Nationality Immigration and Asylum Act 2002
• where extradition is an issue and the process is at the beginning, extradition is
unlikely to be appropriate
• for more information on extradition see: guidance on extradition processes
• if any form of leave is granted

Official - sensitive: start of section

The information on this page has been removed as it is restricted for internal Home
Office use.

Official - sensitive: end of section

Related content
Contents

Page 20 of 33 Published for Home Office staff on 12 February 2019

Miscellaneous issues
This section gives you guidance on issues that may arise when you consider
certification in relation to non-compliance with the asylum process, dependents and
families of mixed nationality.

Non compliance
Where a claimant from a designated state does not comply with the asylum process,
the claim must be considered in the same way as other non-compliance cases. A
decision must be made based on the available information. This will normally mean
that if the claim is refused it should be certified because there is no information to
satisfy the caseworker that the claim is not clearly unfounded. See guidance on Non-
compliance.

Dependants
Dependants are provided with the opportunity to make a protection or human rights
claim if they have a claim in their own right. Although where more than one family
member applies in their own right it is possible to certify a claim by one member and
not another, although this is not recommended as removal of the certified person
may have to await the in-country appeal of other family members.

If the appeal of another family member succeeds, the decision in the certified case
must be reviewed in light of the appeal outcome.

If a dependant makes a protection or human rights claim after the principal claimant
has been certified, we would not normally remove the principal claimant pending a
decision on the dependent’s claim. The exception to this would be where family life is
not subsisting, for example where a family were living separately before arrival in the
UK and have not resumed or maintained their family life whilst in the UK. See
Dependants and former dependants for further guidance.

Families of mixed nationality

Where the principal claimant and partner or child have different countries of origin
and one is from a designated state, if the partner or child:

• is claiming solely as a dependant, then their claim should be certified in line

with the claim of the principal claimant on a case-by-case basis unless they are
entitled to reside in the same designated state as the principal claimant
• claims in their own right, the claim should be assessed against their country of
nationality or return

Related content
Contents

Page 21 of 33 Published for Home Office staff on 12 February 2019

Certification process
This section explains the process for certifying a protection and/ or human rights
claim.

Caseworkers who are not non-suspensive appeals (NSA) trained but consider that
they may have a case suitable for certification must refer the case to their senior
caseworker (SCW). If the case is suitable for certification the file should be
reallocated to an NSA trained caseworker.

A certification decision must be authorised by an accredited caseworker. This is

referred to as a second pair of eyes (SPoE).

Where the claimant is entitled to reside in a designated state, a decision not to certify
a protection claim must be authorised by an accredited caseworker. It is not
necessary to seek such authorisation where the decision is taken not to certify a
human rights claim where the claimant is from a designated state.

Certification paragraphs
Caseworkers must use the templates available on document generator (Doc Gen) to
be sure the most up to date version is used.

Protection cases
Asylum caseworkers must consider whether the following are appropriate before
certifying a claim:

• a grant of asylum
• humanitarian protection
• family/ private life leave
• discretionary leave
• outright refusal

Human rights cases

Non-criminal deportation cases which relate to human rights claims must first be
considered under the Immigration Rules. The list of which applications under the
Immigration Rules are human rights claims can be found in rights of appeal.

Criminal deportation cases which relate to human rights claims must consider
whether the foreign criminal qualifies under the exceptions to deportation at
paragraph 399 and 399A of the Immigration Rules. If they do not qualify under the
exceptions, then consideration must be given to whether there are any compelling
circumstances that outweigh the public interest in deportation, in line with paragraph
398 of the Immigration Rules (see guidance on criminality and Article 8), before
considering certification.

Page 22 of 33 Published for Home Office staff on 12 February 2019

Related content
Contents

Page 23 of 33 Published for Home Office staff on 12 February 2019

Approval of decisions on protection
claims: designated states
This section only applies to protection cases where the claimant is entitled to reside
in a designated state.

A recommendation minute must be drafted for all proposed decisions to grant

asylum, humanitarian protection or any other form of leave which must be forwarded
to the second pair of eyes process (SPoE) for consideration and authorisation.

The caseworker must:

• gather any relevant evidence including that on the Home Office file, CID and
substantive interview
• assess the evidence and claim in accordance with the relevant guidance:
o Considering Human Rights
o Assessing credibility and Refugee status
o Humanitarian Protection
o section 1.0b Family and private life – 10 year route
o Discretionary Leave
• draft a recommendation minute to SPoE (ASL.4903)
• draft the relevant asylum/ human protection consideration minute
• draft one of the following:
o ASL.2376ASY – Grant Refugee Status
o ASL.2376HP – Grant Humanitarian Protection
o ASL 2376DL – Grant Discretionary Leave
o ASL.2376 – Article 8/ UASC – Grant Article 8 family or private life or UASC
leave)
• draft the ASL.0015.IA RFRL (if asylum has been refused) with the appropriate
paragraphs selected and/ or tailored as appropriate
• forward to the SPoE to consider, review and approve the decision
• refer to SpoE process for next steps

Approval of decisions on human rights claims: designated

states
SPoE approval is not needed to:

• grant a human rights claim from a designated state

• refuse without certifying a human rights claim from a designated state

SPoE approval is needed for a decision to certify a human rights claim from a
designated state.

Page 24 of 33 Published for Home Office staff on 12 February 2019

Where the claimant is from a designated state and certification is not considered
appropriate, the following wording should be noted on both CID notes and the grant
minute:

‘This case has been identified as listed under section 94(4) as a designated state.
After consideration I have decided that the claim should not be certified as clearly
unfounded for the reasons outlined in the grant minute / refusal letter printed on
(date).’

Further submissions post section 94 certification

All representations received following the service of a section 94 certified decision
must be considered in line with the case ZT(Kosovo) [2009] UKHL 6 which stated
that paragraph 353 of the Immigration Rules must be applied to all further
submissions in section 94 cases. See the further submissions guidance for details.

Related content
Contents

Page 25 of 33 Published for Home Office staff on 12 February 2019

Explaining the certification decision
This section gives you guidance on the need for the decision letter to give reasons
why a claim is being certified.

The decision letter should make clear the provision under which the claim is certified
for example section 94(1) or section 94(3) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum
Act 2002. However, detailed reasons for certification must be given regardless of
whether certification is under section 94(1) or section 94(3).

The case of FR & KL (2016) v SSHD EWCA CIV 605 gave the following guidance:

• it is important that separate consideration is given to the decision to refuse the

claim and on the decision to certify
• there is a 2 stage reasoning process in play. It is not permissible to have an
approach that simply says because the claim is rejected the claim is rejected as
clearly unfounded

When you have decided to refuse the claim you must then consider whether the
claim is clearly unfounded. Where you decide the claim is clearly unfounded you
must set out the reasons why you have decided the claim is clearly unfounded.

You should make it clear when considering certification you have not taken into
account credibility.

However if you are certifying on the basis that the claim is not credible you must set
out on what basis you are satisfied that nobody could believe the claim.

You should provide reasons why the claim is clearly unfounded. For example in a
protection claim where you consider that the claim is clearly unfounded because
there is sufficiency of protection you should make that clear at the point in the letter
where you are certifying the claim, referring to the relevant case specific and country
information.

The same principle applies to a human rights claim. For example where family life
with a partner is raised you should explain why the claim is clearly unfounded, which
can include references to lack of evidence of a genuine relationship or no evidence
that family life cannot continue overseas.

However the fact that a claim does not succeed under the rules is not of itself
sufficient reason to certify a claim. In order to certify the claim the decision maker
must be satisfied that the claim is ‘clearly unfounded’.

Related content
Contents

Page 26 of 33 Published for Home Office staff on 12 February 2019

Certification: recording the decision
This section provides guidance for caseworkers on recording the decision in section
94 certification cases.

Initial caseworker action: protection claim

For decisions that must be reviewed by a second pair of eyes (SPoE) the
caseworkers must complete:

• one copy of the ASL.1956.IA (NSA RFRL) – you must not update the outcome
fields of case information database (CID) at this point because the SPoE may
overturn the decision and the date of the decision may be later
• one copy of the non-suspensive appeal (NSA) recommendation minute
(ASL.4903)

Caseworkers should select their recommendation and check the box as appropriate
(right click, properties, checked). In the free text box you should briefly outline why
you consider the case to be certifiable or not.

You must pass the file to the accredited SPoE for the second pair of eyes check.

Initial caseworker action: human rights only cases

Prepare one copy of the template ICD.1182.IA.

You must not update the outcome fields of CID at this point because the SPoE may
overturn the decision and the date of decision may be some significant time later.

You must complete one copy of the non-suspensive appeal (NSA) recommendation
minute (ASL.4904), select the recommendation and check the box as appropriate.

To do this:

1) right click
2) select ‘properties’
3) click ‘checked’

In the free text box you should briefly outline why you consider the case to be
certifiable or not.

Initial SPoE action

For all SPoE cases you must take the following action:

Page 27 of 33 Published for Home Office staff on 12 February 2019

 1) log the case and ‘stop’ (abandon) the reasons for refusal letter (RFRL) on
document generator (Doc Gen) to make sure only the authorised version of
the decision can be accessed and read in the future- to do this you must:
2) open Doc Gen and select the correct case reference and ‘printed documents’
3) select ‘RFRL’ by clicking once so the document is highlighted but is not
opened up on screen
4) select ‘properties’ (right click)
5) select ‘dispatch stopped’, select ‘yes’, then click on ‘OK’ giving reason for
stop as – ‘NSA Pre SCW Draft’
6) from the menu bar at the top, select ‘new’
7) highlight the document by clicking once so that the document is highlighted
not selected as above and select ‘create new document’
8) use this to create a new RFRL and amend as appropriate (even if no
amendments are needed, you must produce a new RFRL)
9) review the RFRL making amendments if required
10) confirm that both protection and human rights claims have been certified and
the necessary certification paragraphs selected
11) print one copy of the RFRL marked clearly as ‘final version’
12) complete the NSA recommendation and determination minute (ASL.4903)
and confirm whether or not you agree with the decision, explain the reasons
for your decision and indicating any changes required before final
authorisation
13) if significant changes are required these should be completed by the
caseworker and the case returned to the SPoE for the final check
14) return file to caseworker to complete any outstanding actions and arrange
implementation of the decision
15) SPoE authorises outcome of case on CID

Caseworker action on receipt of file from SPoE

Action caseworkers must take on receipt of file from SPoE:

• caseworker will receive the file back to action any comments and then
implement the decision
• caseworker enters the agreed case outcome on CID
• decisions must be served on the claimant at the earliest opportunity- the
service of decision must not be delayed in order to pursue travel documents,
see Drafting, Implementing and Serving Decisions

Official - sensitive: start of section

The information on this page has been removed as it is restricted for internal Home
Office use.

Official - sensitive: end of section

Related content
Contents

Page 28 of 33 Published for Home Office staff on 12 February 2019

Appeal stage
This section explains what happens when an out-of-country appeal is brought in a
certified claim.

Where a claim has been certified under section 94 of the Nationality, Immigration
and Asylum Act 2002, the appeal will take place while the claimant is outside the UK.

Any attempt by the claimant to lodge an appeal against refusal of a certified claim
whilst still in the UK must be rejected by the tribunal as invalid.

Where a protection claim has been certified as clearly unfounded, the appeal is to be
treated as if the appellant were not outside the UK (under section 92(7) of the
Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 as amended). This means that
appellants are not prevented from qualifying for recognition as refugees simply
because they are not outside their countries of nationality or former habitual
residence. It also means that, if the appeal is allowed on protection grounds, the UK
will be the state responsible for providing protection.

Treating appellants as if they were in the UK does not mean treating them as if they
had remained in the UK ever since their departure. Appellants who wish to raise their
experiences abroad since departure are not prevented by section 92(7) from doing
so. On the other hand, appellants are not entitled to argue hypothetically on the
basis of what would have or might have happened if they had remained in the UK
until the date of the hearing.

This is a change from the position under section 94(9) of the 2002 Act which has
been repealed but which provided that the appeal should be considered as if the
appellant had not been removed from the UK.

For further guidance see: Rights of appeal.

Related content
Contents

Page 29 of 33 Published for Home Office staff on 12 February 2019

Successful out-of-country appeals
This section explains what to do if there is a successful out-of-country appeal in a
claim that has been certified.

If, following the certification of a claim under section 94 of the Nationality,

Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, the out-of-country appeal is allowed, the claimant
may need to be brought back to the UK.

Where instructions have been received to return the claimant, you must obtain a
copy of the determination by contacting the appeals determination management unit
for protection only or protection and human rights claims. Where the appeal is a
human rights only claim, you must contact the relevant presenting officers unit.

A copy of the determination must be sent to the Non-suspensive Appeals (NSA)

Oversight team.

Official - sensitive: start of section

The information on this page has been removed as it is restricted for internal Home
Office use.

Official - sensitive: end of section

Related content
Contents

Page 30 of 33 Published for Home Office staff on 12 February 2019

Current list of designated states
This section gives you a list of designated states for the purpose of certification
claims.

Albania
Bolivia
Bosnia Herzegovina
Brazil
Ecuador
India
Macedonia
Mauritius
Moldova
Mongolia
Montenegro
Peru
Serbia
South Africa
Ukraine
Ghana (men)
Gambia (men)
Kenya (men)
Kosovo
Liberia (men)
Malawi (men)
Mali (men)
Nigeria (men)
Sierra Leone (men)
South Korea

Related content
Contents

Page 31 of 33 Published for Home Office staff on 12 February 2019

SPoE process
The section provides information about the second pair of eyes (SPoE) process.

Designated state cases

The role of the SPoE is to review the decision of the caseworker recommending
certification or non certification of designated state cases. If the claim relates to a
designated state human rights claim, the claim will only be referred to a SPoE for
authorisation if it is to be certified.

Non designated state cases

The role of the SPoE is to review the decision of the caseworker recommending
certification or non certification of case by case claims.

SPoE accreditation
SPoE accreditation is achieved though a mentoring process where the mentee
works through a series of live cases with the guidance of an accredited SpoE. Once
the mentee has achieved the required standard on a consistent basis (minimum 5
consecutive decisions), they will be recommended for accreditation to the Non-
suspensive Appeals (NSA) Oversight team.

Required standard
To become an accredited SPoE the mentee must be able to demonstrate the
following standards have been met in all cases:

• correctly identifies cases that are both suitable and not suitable for certification,
providing succinct/ constructive feedback to caseworkers if disagreeing with
their decision
• all the correct paperwork is present on the case before decision service
(ASL.4903/ 4904)
• all evidence has been considered and is covered in the consideration
• all objective evidence/ country information and other references are all up to
date and accurate - all evidence referred to is relevant and not selective
• caselaw referred to is pertinent, current and has the correct citation
• standard paragraphs are correct and tailored appropriately
• all letters have a high standard of English and all paragraphs are numbered
and spaced correctly
• the correct certification paragraphs are used
• all aspects of the case are considered fully to ensure sustainability, including,
but not limited to, risk on return for trafficking victims, section 55 best interests
of the child and medical considerations
• follows procedure after decision authorised, checks correct outcome entered on
CID and authorises, all draft versions of letters cancelled
Page 32 of 33 Published for Home Office staff on 12 February 2019
Relevant NSA SPoE checklists can be found on the transfer drive at:

• NSA SPoE checklist - HR only

• NSA SPoE checklist - Asylum and HR cases

Mentor responsibilities
The mentor will sign off all decisions of the mentee before they are fully accredited
and will keep a log of the cases checked with any issues noted. This will allow the
mentor to address gaps in knowledge or understanding and also have a record of
cases completed for the mentees portfolio.

Recording cases correctly during mentoring

When completing a determination minute (ASL. 4903/ 4904) you must insert the
following above the signature section:

‘I am working towards accreditation [date].’

The accredited SPoE will then add in the following wording before finally authorising
the decision:

‘SPoE completed by [date].'

Related content
Contents

Page 33 of 33 Published for Home Office staff on 12 February 2019