When a state tries to move asylum seekers to a third country for processing, when does the law stop it?
How courts constrain sending asylum seekers to a third country, and the advocacy that forced evacuations.
What worked, what failed, what is reusable.
Attack the designation, not the policy. In Plaintiff M70 the High Court did not hold offshore processing unlawful in principle. It struck down the Malaysia declaration because Malaysia did not meet the statutory criteria for a safe third country. Narrow the fight to the factual precondition the government has to satisfy.
Build the receiving-state record. M.S.S. and N.S. turned on evidence of systemic deficiencies in the receiving state, not on abstract principle. The win lived in the country-conditions file. The UK Supreme Court took the same path in AAA (Rwanda): a real risk of refoulement from Rwanda's own asylum system made removal unlawful.
*The wall: Sale. The US Supreme Court held non-refoulement did not reach the high seas. Where transfer happens before territory, the protective reasoning thins. Distinguish Sale*; do not build on it.
The movement half. #KidsOffNauru narrowed the ask to children first and won evacuations; ARAN and #GameOver held the line on resettlement. A concrete, sympathetic group moves a government faster than the principle alone.
Reusable kit: the precondition attack (M70) plus the conditions record (M.S.S.) plus the children-first frame (#KidsOffNauru).
Research resource, not legal advice. Read the original source before acting. Cases and campaigns are gathered by shared issue tags; some may be machine-extracted and pending human review.