Last Updated: Friday, 05 November 2021, 15:03 GMT

Entry, admission and reception / Rejection at border

Filter:
Showing 1-10 of 136 results
UNHCR Observations on the Nationality and Borders Bill, Bill 141, 2021-22

October 2021 | Publisher: UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) | Document type: Comments on National Legislation

Kosovo: Administrative Instruction (MIA) No. 04/2020 on Refusal of Entry into Republic of Kosovo

1 September 2020 | Publisher: National Legislative Bodies / National Authorities | Document type: National Legislation

National Human Rights Commission of Korea: Opinion on the human rights protection of child asylum-seekers staying at the airport terminal for an extended period

21 April 2020 | Publisher: National Authorities | Document type: General Comments/Recommendations

THE COVID-19 CRISIS: KEY PROTECTION MESSAGES

31 March 2020 | Publisher: UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) | Document type: Policy/Position Papers

Key Legal Considerations on access to territory for persons in need of international protection in the context of the COVID-19 response

16 March 2020 | Publisher: UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) | Document type: Policy/Position Papers

East Bay Sanctuary Covenant v. Trump

The panel affirmed the district court’s grant of a temporary restraining order and a subsequent grant of a preliminary injunction enjoining enforcement of a rule and presidential proclamation that, together, strip asylum eligibility from every migrant who crosses into the United States along the southern border of Mexico between designated ports of entry.

28 February 2020 | Judicial Body: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Entry / Exit - Illegal entry - Non-refoulement - Rejection at border - Right to seek asylum | Countries: United States of America

CASE OF N.D. AND N.T. v. SPAIN (Applications nos. 8675/15 and 8697/15) (Grand Chamber)

The case concerned the immediate return to Morocco of two nationals of Mali and Côte d’Ivoire who on 13 August 2014 attempted to enter Spanish territory in an unauthorised manner by climbing the fences surrounding the Spanish enclave of Melilla on the North African coast. The Court considered that the applicants had in fact placed themselves in an unlawful situation when they had deliberately attempted to enter Spain on 13 August 2014 by crossing the Melilla border protection structures as part of a large group and at an unauthorised location, taking advantage of the group’s large numbers and using force. They had thus chosen not to use the legal procedures which existed in order to enter Spanish territory lawfully. Consequently, the Court considered that the lack of individual removal decisions could be attributed to the fact that the applicants – assuming that they had wished to assert rights under the Convention – had not made use of the official entry procedures existing for that purpose, and that it had thus been a consequence of their own conduct. In so far as it had found that the lack of an individualised procedure for their removal had been the consequence of the applicants’ own conduct, the Court could not hold the respondent State responsible for the lack of a legal remedy in Melilla enabling them to challenge that removal.

13 February 2020 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Document type: Case Law | Legal Instrument: 1950 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Topic(s): Effective remedy - Expulsion - Non-refoulement - Rejection at border | Countries: Côte d'Ivoire - Mali - Morocco - Spain

CASE OF ILIAS AND AHMED v. HUNGARY (Application no. 47287/15) (Grand Chamber)

The Court found in particular that the Hungarian authorities had failed in their duty under Article 3 to assess the risks of the applicants not having proper access to asylum proceedings in Serbia or being subjected to chain-refoulement, which could have seen them being sent to Greece, where conditions in refugee camps had already been found to be in violation of Article 3. In a development of its case-law, it held that Article 5 was not applicable to the applicants’ case as there had been no de facto deprivation of liberty in the transit zone. Among other things, the Court found that the applicants had entered the transit zone of their own initiative and it had been possible in practice for them to return to Serbia, where they had not faced any danger to their life or health. Their fears of a lack of access to Serbia’s asylum system or of refoulement to Greece, as expressed under Article 3, had not been enough to make their stay in the transit zone involuntary.

21 November 2019 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Expulsion - Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment - Rejection at border - Right to liberty and security - Safe third country - Transit | Countries: Bangladesh - Greece - Hungary - North Macedonia - Serbia - Turkey

UNHCR's intervention before the Constitutional Court of Ecuador in the framework of Public Unconstitutionality Action No. 0014-19 (Ministerial Agreements and requirements for access to the territory of Venezuelans in Ecuador)

6 June 2019 | Publisher: UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) | Document type: Court Interventions / Amicus Curiae

UNHCR Submission on Nicaragua: 33rd UPR Session

May 2019 | Publisher: UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) | Document type: Commentaries

Search Refworld