Case Law
- Australia: Federal Circuit Court 1
- Australia: Federal Court 3
- Australia: Federal Magistrates Court 4
- Australia: Immigration Review Tribunal 2
- Australia: Refugee Review Tribunal 15
- Belgium: Cour de cassation 1
- India: High Courts 3
- India: Magistrate Courts 3
- Ireland: High Court 1
- Ireland: Supreme Court 1
- Japan: District Courts 2
- Myanmar: Supreme Court 5
- New Zealand: Immigration and Protection Tribunal 1
- New Zealand: Refugee Status Appeals Authority 6
- UN Committee Against Torture (CAT) 1
- United Kingdom: Asylum and Immigration Tribunal / Immigration Appellate Authority 3
- United Kingdom: Court of Appeal (England and Wales) 1
- United Kingdom: High Court (England and Wales) 1
- United Kingdom: Supreme Court 1
- United Kingdom: Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) 3
- United States Board of Immigration Appeals 1
- United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit 1
- United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit 1
- United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 1
- Appeal / Right to appeal 1
- Arbitrary arrest and detention 13
- Asylum-seekers 2
- Benefit of the doubt 1
- Burden of proof 2
- Changes of circumstances in home country 1
- Children-at-risk 1
- Chin 2
- Christian 5
- Citizenship / Nationality law 5
- Convention against Torture (CAT) 1
- Country of origin information (COI) 14
- Credibility assessment 6
- Crimes against humanity 1
- Criminal justice 1
- Deportation / Forcible return 5
- Discrimination based on race, nationality, ethnicity 3
- EU Qualification Directive 1
- Effective protection 1
- Effective remedy 1
- Elections 1
- Entry / Exit 1
- Evidence (including age and language assessments / medico-legal reports) 6
- Exclusion clauses 1
- Expulsion 2
- False documents 1
- Family reunification 1
- Flight by land, air or sea 1
- Forced labour 1
- Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment 8
- Freedom of expression 1
- Freedom of speech 1
- Fresh / New claim 2
- Hindu 1
- Human rights activists 1
- Illegal entry 1
- Illegal immigrants / Undocumented migrants 1
- Immigration law 1
- Internal flight alternative (IFA) / Internal relocation alternative (IRA) / Internal protection alternative (IPA) 1
- Kachin 2
- Karen 2
- Multiple nationality 1
- Muslim 1
- Non-refoulement 2
- Opposition 2
- Passports 2
- Persecution based on political opinion 30
- Persecution of family members 3
- Political parties 1
- Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) 1
- Pre-trial detention 1
- Prison or detention conditions 2
- Proof of nationality 4
- Racial / Ethnic persecution 10
- Reception 2
- Refoulement 2
- Refugee status determination (RSD) / Asylum procedures 1
- Regional instruments 2
- Rejected asylum-seekers 2
- Religious discrimination 1
- Religious persecution (including forced conversion) 5
- Resettlement 1
- Residence permits / Residency 1
- Right to employment 3
- Rohingya (Arakanese) 5
- Rule of law / Due process / Procedural fairness 1
- Safe third country 1
- Sexual and gender-based violence (SGBV) 3
- Social group persecution 4
- State protection 1
- Statelessness 3
- Sur place persecution 2
- Tamil 1
- Travel documents 1
- Unlawful departure 3
- Visas 1
- Well-founded fear of persecution 2
- Witnesses 1
- Women-at-risk 1
|
[email protected] BINTI MUHAMMAD SIDDIQ & Anor v. COMMANDANT, IMMIGRATION DEPOT BELANTIK, KEDAH & Anor
this Court is of the view that the continued detention of the Applicants at the Belantik Immigration Detention Centre is a direct violation of their rights as a child pursuant to the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Child Act 2001 which guarantees protection and assistance to be given to children in all circumstances without regard to race, colour, gender, language, religion or distinction of any kind; Based on these reasons, and with the powers vested upon the High Court, I accept the alternative prayer of the Applicants that they are allowed to be placed at a shelter which can protect and provide the necessary welfare to them. September 2018 | Judicial Body: Malaysia: High Court of Malaya | Topic(s): Arbitrary arrest and detention - Children's rights - Habeas corpus | Countries: Malaysia - Myanmar |
|
OO (Burma -TS remains appropriate CG) Burma [2018] UKUT 00052 (IAC)
1. Whether there has been a change of conditions in Burma to justify a departure from the country guidance in TS. 2. Second, whether this appellant is reasonably likely to be at prospective risk in Burma, given his particular political profile and likely political activities in Burma, in light of TS and / or the updated country conditions. 3. Third, and in the alternative, whether the appellant would be unable to renew his passport or obtain a certificate of identity (‘CoI’) from the Burmese Embassy, with the result that he would be detained on return to Burma. 9 January 2018 | Judicial Body: United Kingdom: Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) | Legal Instrument: 1950 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Topic(s): Changes of circumstances in home country - Evidence (including age and language assessments / medico-legal reports) | Countries: Myanmar - United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland |
|
Refugee and Migratory Movements Research Unit (RMMRU) v. Government of Bangladesh
31 May 2017 | Judicial Body: Bangladesh: Supreme Court | Legal Instrument: 1951 Refugee Convention | Topic(s): Arbitrary arrest and detention - Non-refoulement - Refugee camps - Right to liberty and security | Countries: Bangladesh - Myanmar |
|
N.H.V -v- Minister for Justice & Equality and ors, [2017] IESC 35
in principle [...] in circumstances where there is no temporal limit on the asylum process, then the absolute prohibition on seeking of employment contained in s.9(4) ( and re-enacted in s.16(3)(b) of the 2015 Act ) is contrary to the constitutional right to seek employment 30 May 2017 | Judicial Body: Ireland: Supreme Court | Topic(s): Right to employment | Countries: Ireland - Myanmar |
|
AE (Myanmar)
12 March 2015 | Judicial Body: New Zealand: Immigration and Protection Tribunal | Topic(s): Family reunification - Immigration law | Countries: Myanmar - New Zealand |
|
Plaintiff B9/2014 v Minister for Immigration
15 October 2014 | Judicial Body: Australia: Federal Circuit Court | Topic(s): Children-at-risk - Flight by land, air or sea - Illegal immigrants / Undocumented migrants | Countries: Australia - Myanmar |
|
RRT Case No. 1311126
3 March 2014 | Judicial Body: Australia: Refugee Review Tribunal | Topic(s): Rohingya (Arakanese) - Statelessness | Countries: Australia - Myanmar |
|
State v. Ranjeet Singh: In the Court of Nivedita Anil Sharma (Special Fast Track Court), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
11 November 2013 | Judicial Body: India: Magistrate Courts | Topic(s): Criminal justice - Sexual and gender-based violence (SGBV) | Countries: India - Myanmar |
|
TS (Political opponents – risk) Burma CGCG v. Secretary of State for the Home Department
21 June 2013 | Judicial Body: United Kingdom: Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) | Countries: Myanmar - United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland |
|
Win (s. 83 - order of events) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department
10 October 2012 | Judicial Body: United Kingdom: Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) | Topic(s): Appeal / Right to appeal | Countries: Myanmar - United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland |
