Burden / standard of proof / Evidence (including age and language assessments / medico-legal reports)

The determination of the First-tier Tribunal to dismiss the claimant’s appeal against the refusal of her asylum claim was reached by a process which was procedurally unfair as it did not give her sufficient opportunity to obtain evidence from Uganda to support her claim. The determination will be quashed and the defendant will be ordered to use his best endeavours to facilitate the return of the claimant to the United Kingdom to enable her to continue with her appeal. The claimant was lawfully detained from 21 July 2013 to 6 August 2013 and from 10 September 2013 until her removal to Uganda on 12 December 2013. The claimant was unlawfully detained from (and including) 6 August 2013 up to 10 September 2013.

24 June 2019 | Judicial Body: United Kingdom: High Court (England and Wales) | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Arbitrary arrest and detention - Evidence (including age and language assessments / medico-legal reports) - Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI) - Rule of law / Due process / Procedural fairness | Countries: Uganda - United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

1. The Court of Justice of the European Union has jurisdiction, on the basis of Article 267 TFEU, to interpret Article 11(2) of Council Directive 2003/86/EC of 22 September 2003 on the right to family reunification in a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, where a national court is called upon to rule on an application for family reunification lodged by a beneficiary of subsidiary protection, if that provision was made directly and unconditionally applicable to such a situation under national law. 2. Article 11(2) of Directive 2003/86 must be interpreted as precluding, in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, in which an application for family reunification has been lodged by a sponsor benefiting from subsidiary protection in favour of a minor of whom she is the aunt and allegedly the guardian, and who resides as a refugee and without family ties in a third country, that application from being rejected solely on the ground that the sponsor has not provided official documentary evidence of the death of the minor’s biological parents and, consequently, that she has an actual family relationship with him, and that the explanation given by the sponsor to justify her inability to provide such evidence has been deemed implausible by the competent authorities solely on the basis of the general information available concerning the situation in the country of origin, without taking into consideration the specific circumstances of the sponsor and the minor and the particular difficulties they have encountered, according to their testimony, before and after fleeing their country of origin.

13 March 2019 | Judicial Body: European Union: Court of Justice of the European Union | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Complementary forms of protection - Country of origin information (COI) - Evidence (including age and language assessments / medico-legal reports) - Family reunification | Countries: Eritrea - Netherlands

6 March 2019 | Judicial Body: United Kingdom: Supreme Court | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Evidence (including age and language assessments / medico-legal reports) - Torture | Countries: Sri Lanka - 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) | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Credibility assessment - Evidence (including age and language assessments / medico-legal reports) | Countries: Iraq - Netherlands

14 May 2018 | Publisher: European Union | Document type: Thematic Reports

7 March 2018 | Publisher: European Union: European Asylum Support Office (EASO) | Document type: Thematic Guidelines

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) | Document type: Case Law | 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