Revista Temas de Derecho Constitucional

251 Asilo en el reino unido: un derecho restringido by Paragraphs 335 and subsequent of the IR. Whether fresh submissions amount to a fresh claim will depend on whether ‘they are significantly different from the material that has previously been considered’. To be ‘significantly different’ their content must not have already been considered by the Secretary of State and, taken together with the previously considered material, they must create a ‘realistic prospect of success’ ( R on the Application of WM (DRC) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2006] EWCA Civ 1495. In other words, is there is a realistic possibility that faced with the new material an immigration judge will decide in favour of the claimant’s case? That, once again, is a high test. Since it has to be taken together with it, the previous claim weighs in. Related negative findings with regards to credibility and reliability will have an impact on the fresh assessment of the overall claim. The matter is entirely for the Secretary of State, and his decision can only be reviewed on Wednesbury grounds, as per ( R v Secretary of State expert Onibiyo [1996] QB 768 at 785D). Assuming however that the test is met, the effect of a successful fresh claim is for the claimant to go back to the beginning and start the process all over again. CONCLUSION Amidst a climate of public hostility towards ‘third country’ migration in general and towards refugees in particular, access to the right of asylum is becoming increasingly difficult. The UK has adopted a policy of strict migratory control in response to public clamour calling for a curb in mass migration. Statistics show however that the number of asylum claimants represents in fact a very small percentage of the total population. Suchpolicyhas ledtohyper-regulation.Theresult isacomplex, convolutedandmarkedly punitive legislative framework. The Secretary of State for the Home Department, the authority telling ‘illegal’ migrants to “Go home or face arrest”40 is the same public body in charge of making the decision as to whether an asylum claim is or not successful. Once negatively assessed by the Secretary of State, the fate of a claim is pretty much sealed. Judicial remedies are available, but challenges to decisions by the Secretary of State are difficult to pursue, not least because of their dependability on access to legal aid. A claim’s progress up the appellate ladder depends on the claimant or their representatives’ ability to articulate the various procedural and substantial legal tests successfully, from the First-tier Tribunal to the Supreme Court. The right of asylum is a universal right, or so shouldbe. It ismeant toprotect everywhere, those persecuted anywhere. Yet those hoping for refuge in Britain must be prepared not to expect a warm welcome. Between the rules and the procedures, access to asylum in the UK is, rather than a universal right, a much restricted, hard-fought privilege.