Case Law

1. Following the amendment to s 82 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 ('the 2002 Act'), effective from 20 October 2014, a previous decision made by the Competent Authority within the National Referral Mechanism (made on the balance of probabilities) is not of primary relevance to the determination of an asylum appeal, despite the decisions of the Court of Appeal in AS (Afghanistan) v SSHD [2013] EWCA Civ 1469 and SSHD v MS (Pakistan) [2018] EWCA Civ 594. 2. The correct approach to determining whether a person claiming to be a victim of trafficking is entitled to asylum is to consider all the evidence in the round as at the date of hearing, applying the lower standard of proof. 3. Since 20 October 2014, there is also no right of appeal on the basis that a decision is not in accordance with the law and the grounds of appeal are limited to those set out in the amended s 82 of the 2002 Act.

29 October 2018 | Judicial Body: United Kingdom: Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) | Topic(s): Internal flight alternative (IFA) / Internal relocation alternative (IRA) / Internal protection alternative (IPA) - Social group persecution - Standard of proof - Trafficking in persons | Countries: Albania - United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Extradition) (Conditional) (Tajikistan) Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Extradition) (Conditional) (Uzbekistan) Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1-f - Extradition)

23 October 2018 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Legal Instrument: 1950 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Topic(s): Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment | Countries: Russian Federation - Tajikistan - Uzbekistan

The second subparagraph of Article 46(2) of Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection must be interpreted as meaning that subsidiary protection status, granted under legislation of a Member State such as that at issue in the main proceedings, does not offer the ‘same rights and benefits as those offered by the refugee status under Union and national law’, within the meaning of that provision, so that a court of that Member State may not dismiss an appeal brought against a decision considering an application unfounded in relation to refugee status but granting subsidiary protection status as inadmissible on the grounds of insufficient interest on the part of the applicant in maintaining the proceedings where it is found that, under the applicable national legislation, those rights and benefits afforded by each international protection status are not genuinely identical. Such an appeal may not be dismissed as inadmissible, even if it is found that, having regard to the applicant’s particular circumstances, granting refugee status could not confer on him more rights and benefits than granting subsidiary protection status, in so far as the applicant does not, or has not yet, relied on rights which are granted by virtue of refugee status, but which are not granted, or are granted only to a limited extent, by virtue of subsidiary protection status.

18 October 2018 | Judicial Body: European Union: Court of Justice of the European Union | Legal Instrument: 1950 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Topic(s): Complementary forms of protection - Decision on admissibility - Effective remedy | Countries: Afghanistan - Slovenia

On 18 October, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) delivered its judgment on a preliminary reference submitted by the Slovenian Supreme Court, on the difference between refugee and subsidiary protection statuses. The need for a preliminary ruling arose in the context of asylum proceedings, where a minor national of Afghanistan was granted subsidiary protection status, following several unsuccessful legal challenges. When the issue was brought before the Supreme Court of Slovenia, the domestic judges decided to refer a question to the CJEU regarding the admissibility of the applicant’s appeal against his subsidiary protection status in the context of sufficient interest, according to Article 46 (2) of Directive 2013/32/EU. The question was centred on the difference in cessation and duration requirements of the two statuses, as well as the ancillary rights thereof. The Court first noted that the recitals of Directive 2011/95/EU indicate that EU legislators intended to establish an integral framework for all beneficiaries of international protection, save for objectively necessary exceptions for beneficiaries of subsidiary protection status. After analysing the content of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, the Court stated that this article sets a requirement for a restrictive interpretation of any exception from the right to an effective remedy before a court, such as the one introduced by the aforementioned article of Directive 2013/32/EU. As such, for a subsidiary protection beneficiary’s action to be deemed inadmissible due to lack of sufficient interest, the rights and benefits granted must indeed be the same as those the applicant would enjoy if they held refugee status, even if the difference only encompasses ancillary rights. Moreover, a difference between the duration of the two statuses has to be regarded as difference in rights and benefits that justifies an admissible legal challenge. Lastly, any relevant assessment on the existence of different rights and benefits for international protection beneficiaries should not depend on the appellant’s individual situation, but rather on an overall assessment of national legislation. According to the Court’s restrictive interpretation, this is dictated by the text of Article 46 (2), as well as the need for the predictability of this legal provision, which would vary unacceptably according to each applicant’s personal circumstances. ELENA Weekly Legal Update - 19 October 2018

18 October 2018 | Judicial Body: European Union: Court of Justice of the European Union | Legal Instrument: 1950 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Topic(s): Complementary forms of protection - Decision on admissibility - Effective remedy | Countries: Afghanistan - Slovenia

The appeal raises two points of principle: first, the standard of proof applicable to the determination of whether a person qualifies for the status of a stateless person as defined in the 1954 Convention relating to the Status of Stateless Persons ("the 1954 Convention”); and secondly, the relevance of a finding that a person is stateless to an assessment carried out pursuant to paragraph 390A of the Immigration Rules.

12 October 2018 | Judicial Body: United Kingdom: Court of Appeal (England and Wales) | Topic(s): Proof of nationality - Standard of proof - Statelessness | Countries: Guinea - United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

Immigration Directive 21 of 2015 — validity of directive — imposes blanket ban on asylum seekers applying for visas under Immigration Act 13 of 2002 — inconsistent with Immigration Act — invalid

9 October 2018 | Judicial Body: South Africa: Constitutional Court | Topic(s): Residence permits / Residency - Visas | Countries: South Africa

The principal issues in the appeals concern the meaning and effect of Article 2(n) and Article 28 of Dublin III ("Article 2(n)" and "Article 28", respectively), which relate to the detention of an individual for the purpose of transfer to another Member State under that Regulation. Mr Hemmati and Mr Khalili also raise a distinct issue regarding whether Garnham J was right to hold that their detention was lawful by application of the usual principles of domestic law first adumbrated in Re Hardial Singh [1984] 1 WLR 704 and rehearsed in later authorities such as R (I) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2002] EWCA Civ 888 and Lumba v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] 1 AC 245 ("the Hardial Singh principles").

4 October 2018 | Judicial Body: United Kingdom: Court of Appeal (England and Wales) | Legal Instrument: 2013 Dublin III Regulation (EU) | Topic(s): Arbitrary arrest and detention - Prison or detention conditions | Countries: Afghanistan - Austria - Bulgaria - Iran, Islamic Republic of - Iraq - United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

an investigation into the origin of a foreign national is the responsibility of the state secretary and is not limited to a language analysis. If a language analysis does not provide a definitive answer about the origin of the applicant, but the State Secretary maintains his position that an alleged origin is not credible, he will have to motivate this. The State Secretary has, and wrongly, not been able to assess the credibility of the applicant's statement that she has been living indoors for 15 years. He also wrongly failed to respond to the report by Buro Kleurkracht that supports her story. The State Secretary has therefore not soundly substantiated that the origin of the applicant is not credible.

4 October 2018 | Judicial Body: Netherlands, The: Council of State (Raad van State) | Topic(s): Credibility assessment - Evidence (including age and language assessments / medico-legal reports) | Countries: Iraq - Netherlands

France – Council of State rules in case concerning the execution of an ECtHR judgment by the National Court of Asylum On 3 October, the French Council of State ruled in a case concerning the rejection of the asylum application of a national of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), despite a decision by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) that considered him to be in a real risk of inhuman and degrading treatment upon return to his country. The applicant’s asylum request had been rejected both by the French Asylum Office and the National Court of Asylum. After two unsuccessful re-examination attempts, the domestic authorities issued a decision imposing an obligation on the applicant to leave the country. The applicant brought the case before the European Court of Human rights, where his claim of a possible violation of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), upon his return to the DRC, succeeded. The applicant requested another re-examination of his case, but that request was rejected by the French Asylum Office and, on appeal, by the CNDA. It was considered that the risk of inhuman and degrading treatment could not be considered as established. The applicant sought to annul that decision before the Council of State. The Court based its reasoning on Articles 41 and 46 of the ECHR, regarding consequences of violation of a Convention right and the execution of definitive judgments. It found that the execution of a judgment by the ECtHR entails both an obligation to remedy the consequences of the violation and to eliminate its source. In addition to that, the State has to ensure the applicant receives the sums decided by the ECtHR as just satisfaction. Moreover, a decision that declares a removal as violating Article 3 ECHR constitutes a novel element that would justify the re-examination of the case. During this re-examination, the domestic authorities should refrain from executing any removal measure, while ensuring that the applicant will be protected from inhuman and degrading treatment, by being granted subsidiary protection status according to French law. The Court annulled the decision and remitted the case back to the National Court of Asylum for reconsideration. Based on an unofficial translation by the ELENA Weekly Legal Update.

3 October 2018 | Judicial Body: France: Conseil d'Etat | Legal Instrument: 1950 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Topic(s): Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment - Human rights courts | Countries: Congo, Democratic Republic of the - France

This matter engages the jurisdiction of this Court as it involves a constitutional challenge to section 4(1)(b) of the Act. Beyond this, it raises arguable points of law of general public importance, such as the definition of a political crime, the proper interpretation and application of the “exclusion clause”, whether an internal appeal process is available to an excluded person under the Act, as well as what the rights are of an excluded person who may be persecuted upon returning to her country of origin. These are issues of great importance to asylum seekers and refugees, and impact their right to fair administrative action.

28 September 2018 | Judicial Body: South Africa: Constitutional Court | Topic(s): Exclusion clauses - Extradition - Serious non-political crime | Countries: Serbia - South Africa