Case Law

The primary issue to be determined by the Tribunal is whether the appellant is excluded from the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (“Refugee Convention”) by the operation of Article 1D which applies, in certain circumstances, to persons being protected or assisted by United Nations (“UN”) organs and agencies other than the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (“UNHCR”). If so, the appellant will not be entitled to recognition as a refugee under section 129 of the Immigration Act 2009 (“the Act”).

28 May 2019 | Judicial Body: New Zealand: Immigration and Protection Tribunal | Legal Instrument: 1951 Refugee Convention | Topic(s): Cessation clauses - Palestinian | Countries: Lebanon - New Zealand - Palestine, State of

THE INSTITUTION OF ASYLUM AND ITS RECOGNITION AS A HUMAN RIGHT IN THE INTER-AMERICAN SYSTEM OF PROTECTION (INTERPRETATION AND SCOPE OF ARTICLES 5, 22.7 AND 22.8 IN RELATION TO ARTICLE 1(1) OF THE AMERICAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS)

30 May 2018 | Judicial Body: Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACrtHR) | Legal Instrument: 1951 Refugee Convention | Topic(s): Non-refoulement - Refoulement - Refugee status determination (RSD) / Asylum procedures - Right to seek asylum | Countries: Ecuador

whether acts may be sufficient to satisfy the threshold for exclusion from the Convention under Article 1F(c), where those acts were neither themselves completed or attempted terrorist acts, nor can they be shown to have led to specific completed or attempted terrorist acts by others.

26 April 2018 | Judicial Body: United Kingdom: Court of Appeal (England and Wales) | Legal Instrument: 1951 Refugee Convention | Topic(s): Acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations - Exclusion clauses | Countries: Egypt - Jordan - United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

Acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the UN are those that are likely to affect international peace and security, peaceful relations between states as well as serious violations of human rights. exclusion under 1F(c) depends on the existence of serious reasons to consider that part of the responsibility in the actions can be personally imputed to the applicant. The court has to assess whether the facts resulting from the investigation are such as to give rise to serious grounds for believing that the applicant was personally involved in such actions.

11 April 2018 | Judicial Body: France: Conseil d'Etat | Legal Instrument: 1951 Refugee Convention | Topic(s): Acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations - Exclusion clauses | Countries: France - Syrian Arab Republic

If acts of a terrorist nature may fall under Article 1 (b) of the Geneva Convention, terrorist acts of an international scale in terms of seriousness, international impact and implications for peace and international security may also amount to acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations within the meaning of Article F (c). In assessing whether there are serious reasons to consider that such an act has been committed, its gravity in relation to its international effects has to be examined.

11 April 2018 | Judicial Body: France: Conseil d'Etat | Legal Instrument: 1951 Refugee Convention | Topic(s): Acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations - Exclusion clauses - Terrorism | Countries: France - Turkey

the term "particularly serious crime" concerns only criminal offenses that objectively violate particularly important legal interests. Typically, serious crimes include homicides, rape, child abuse, arson, drug trafficking, armed robbery, and the like.

5 April 2018 | Judicial Body: Austria: Supreme Administrative Court (Verwaltungsgerichtshof) | Legal Instrument: 1951 Refugee Convention | Topic(s): Exclusion clauses - Serious non-political crime | Countries: Austria - Syrian Arab Republic

situation in region and Kabul is likely to be qualified as situation of indiscriminate violence resulting from an internal armed conflict in light of subsidiary protection. In these conditions, the prefect had erred in applying the law by deciding that, instead of authorising to register the application in France, the applicant be transferred to Finland where this country had already rejected the asylum application, expelled and issue an entry ban against the applicant.

13 March 2018 | Judicial Body: France: Cour administrative | Legal Instrument: 1951 Refugee Convention | Topic(s): Generalized violence - Internal armed conflict - Refoulement | Countries: Afghanistan - Finland - France