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

Protection

Filter:
Showing 1-10 of 5,315 results
UNHCR observations on the Order of the Cabinet of Ministers of the Republic of Latvia on the Declaration of Emergency Situation (No 518)

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

Conclusion of the executive committee on international protection and durable solutions in the context of a public health emergency

October 2021 | Publisher: UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) | Document type: Conclusions on International Protection

UNHCR observations on draft Amendments to the Law of the Republic of Lithuania on Legal Status of Aliens (No 21-29207)

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

CASE OF M.D. AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 71321/17 and 9 others – see appended list)

Relying on Article 2 (right to life) and Article 3 (prohibition on inhuman or degrading treatment), the applicants complain that their expulsion to Syria would put them at grave physical risk. Some of the applicants also complain under Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) that they had no effective domestic remedies in respect of their complaints under Articles 2 and 3 that their detention pending removal was arbitrary and the examination of their complaints against detention orders was not speedy.

14 September 2021 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Arbitrary arrest and detention - Effective remedy - Expulsion - Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment - Non-refoulement - Right to life | Countries: Russian Federation - Syrian Arab Republic

D.Z. v. Switzerland

Examination of the same matter under another procedure of international investigation or settlement; non-exhaustion of domestic remedies Risk of torture upon return to country of origin; non-refoulement

31 August 2021 | Judicial Body: UN Committee Against Torture (CAT) | Document type: Case Law | Legal Instrument: 1984 Convention against Torture (CAT) | Topic(s): Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment - Non-refoulement | Countries: China - Switzerland

RÄTTSLIGT STÄLLNINGSTAGANDE: Prövningen av skyddsbehov och verkställighetshinder för personer som är hemmahörande i Afghanistan

23 July 2021 | Publisher: Sweden: Swedish Migration Agency | Document type: Policy/Position Papers

DN v Bundesrepublik Deutschland

On those grounds, the Court (Third Chamber) hereby rules: 1. Article 15(c) of Directive 2011/95/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on standards for the qualification of third-country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection, for a uniform status for refugees or for persons eligible for subsidiary protection, and for the content of the protection granted, must be interpreted as precluding the interpretation of national legislation according to which, where a civilian is not specifically targeted by reason of factors particular to his or her personal circumstances, a finding of serious and individual threat to that civilian’s life or person by reason of ‘indiscriminate violence in situations of … armed conflict’, within the meaning of that provision, is subject to the condition that the ratio between the number of casualties in the relevant area and the total number of individuals composing the population of that area reach a fixed threshold. 2. Article 15(c) of Directive 2011/95 must be interpreted as meaning that, in order to determine whether there is a ‘serious and individual threat’, within the meaning of that provision, a comprehensive appraisal of all the circumstances of the individual case, in particular those which characterise the situation of the applicant’s country of origin, is required.

10 June 2021 | Judicial Body: European Union: Court of Justice of the European Union | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Generalized violence - International protection | Countries: Afghanistan - Germany

UNHCR Note on the "Externalization" of International Protection

28 May 2021 | Publisher: UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) | Document type: Policy/Position Papers

Annex to UNHCR Note on the "Externalization" of International Protection: Policies and practices related to the externalization of international protection

28 May 2021 | Publisher: UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) | Document type: Policy/Position Papers

GRACE, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. WILLIAM P. BARR, ATTORNEY GENERAL, et al., Defendants-Appellants

For UNHCR’s intervention at the district court level, see the Brief of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees as Amicus Curaie in Support of Plaintiff’s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment in case Grace, et. al., Plaintiffs, v. Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III, in his Official Capacity as Attorney General of the United States, et. al., Defendants. For UNHCR’s intervention in this case, see Brief of Amicus Curiae United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in Support of Plaintiffs-Appellees in case Grace, et. al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. William P. Barr, Attorney General, et. al., Defendants-Appellants. From the Court: "Twelve asylum seekers challenge a host of executive-branch policies adopted to implement the expedited-removal provisions of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA), [...]. Broadly speaking, the challenged policies concern how asylum officers determine whether an alien has demonstrated a “credible fear” of persecution, a threshold showing that permits an alien who would otherwise be immediately deported to seek asylum in the United States. The asylum seekers principally argue that the policies raise the bar for demonstrating a credible fear of persecution far above what Congress intended and that the Attorney General and various agencies violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), [...] by failing to adequately address important factors bearing on the policies’ adoption. Largely on these grounds, the district court found the policies inconsistent with IIRIRA, the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), [...] seq., and the APA, and enjoined their enforcement. For the reasons set forth in this opinion, we affirm in part and reverse in part."

20 May 2021 | Judicial Body: United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Agents of persecution - Burden of proof - State protection | Countries: United States of America

Search Refworld