Ainte (material deprivation – Art 3 – AM (Zimbabwe)) [2021] UKUT 0203 (IAC)
(i)Said [2016] EWCA Civ 442 is not to be read to exclude the possibility that Article 3 ECHR could be engaged by conditions of extreme material deprivation. Factors to be considered include the location where the harm arises, and whether it results from deliberate action or omission. (ii) In cases where the material deprivation is not intentionally caused the threshold is the modified N test set out in AM (Zimbabwe) [2020] UKSC 17. The question will be whether conditions are such that there is a real risk that the individual concerned will be exposed to intense suffering or a significant reduction in life expectancy. (iii) The Qualification Directive continues to have direct effect following the UK withdrawal from the EU. 22 July 2021 | Judicial Body: United Kingdom: Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) | Legal Instrument: 1950 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Topic(s): EU Qualification Directive - Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment - Livelihoods | Countries: Somalia - United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland |
Opinion of Advocate General Sharpston in Case C‑238/19 EZ v Federal Republic of Germany, represented by the Bundesamt für Migration und Flüchtlinge (Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Hannover (Administrative Court, Hanover, Germany))
Article 9(3) 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 is to be interpreted as meaning that there must always be a causal link between the reasons for persecution in Article 10(1) and the acts of persecution defined in Article 9(1), including in cases where an applicant for international protection seeks to rely on Article 9(2)(e) of that directive. – Where an applicant for asylum seeks to invoke Article 9(2)(e) of Directive 2011/95 as the act of persecution, reliance upon that provision does not automatically establish that the person concerned has a well-founded fear of persecution because he holds a political opinion within the meaning of Article 10(1)(e) thereof. It is for the competent national authorities, acting under the supervision of the courts, to establish whether there is a causal link for the purposes of that directive. In conducting that assessment the following factors may be relevant: whether the applicant’s home country is conducting a war; the nature and methods employed by the military authorities in such a war; the availability of country reports documenting matters such as whether recruitment for military service is by conscription; whether the status of conscientious objector is recognised under national law and, if so, the procedures for establishing such status; the treatment of those subject to conscription who refuse to perform military service; the existence or absence of alternatives to military service; and the applicant’s personal circumstances, including his age. 28 May 2020 | Judicial Body: European Union: Court of Justice of the European Union | Legal Instrument: 2004 Qualification Directive (EU) | Topic(s): EU Qualification Directive - Military service / Conscientious objection / Desertion / Draft evasion / Forced conscription - Persecution based on political opinion | Countries: Germany - Syrian Arab Republic |
OPINION OF ADVOCATE GENERAL
HOGAN in Case C‑255/19
Secretary of State for the Home Department
v OA (Request for a preliminary ruling from the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) (United Kingdom))
The concept of ‘protection’ of the ‘country of nationality’ in Article 2(c) and Article 11(1)(e) of Council Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection and the content of the protection granted refers primarily to State protection on the part of an applicant’s country of nationality. It is nonetheless necessarily implicit in the provisions of Article 7(1)(b) and (2) Directive 2004/83 that in certain instances actors other than the State, such as parties or organisations can supply protection deemed equivalent to State protection in lieu of the State where those non-State actors control all or a substantial part of a State and have also sought to replicate traditional State functions by providing or supporting a functioning legal and policing system based on the rule of law. Mere financial and/or material support provided by non-State actors falls below the threshold of protection envisaged by Article 7 of Directive 2004/83. In order to ascertain whether a person has a well-founded fear of persecution, in accordance with Article 2(c) of Directive 2004/83, from non-State actors, the availability of ‘protection’ as described by Article 7(2) of that directive by actors of protection must be taken into consideration. The same analysis must be conducted in respect of the cessation of refugee status in accordance with Article 11(1)(e) of Directive 2004/83. The term ‘the protection of country of nationality’ in Article 11(1)(e) of Directive 2004/83 implies that any inquiry as to the nature of the protection available in that country in the context of a cessation decision is the same as envisaged by Article 7 of that directive. In order to arrive at the conclusion that a refugee’s fear of being persecuted is no longer well-founded, the competent authorities, by reference to Article 7(2) of Directive 2004/83, must verify, having regard to the refugee’s individual situation, that the actor or actors of protection of the third country in question have taken reasonable steps to prevent the persecution, that they therefore operate, inter alia, an effective legal system for the detection, prosecution and punishment of acts constituting persecution and that the national concerned will have access to such protection if he or she ceases to have refugee status. 30 April 2020 | Judicial Body: European Union: Court of Justice of the European Union | Legal Instrument: 2004 Qualification Directive (EU) | Topic(s): Cessation clauses - Changes of circumstances in home country - EU Qualification Directive - State protection | Countries: Somalia - United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland |
THE QUEEN ON THE APPLICATION OF AB (Appellant) - and - THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Respondent)
The question of wider importance raised on this appeal is whether rule 334(i) of the Immigration Rules requires an applicant for asylum in the United Kingdom to be present in the country at the time of the decision on the application. 6 March 2018 | Judicial Body: United Kingdom: Court of Appeal (England and Wales) | Legal Instrument: 1951 Refugee Convention | Topic(s): Entry / Exit - Re-entry | Countries: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland |
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 |
KB & AH (credibility-structured approach) Pakistan [2017] UKUT 00491 (IAC)
The ‘Credibility Indicators’ identified in the Home Office Asylum Policy Instruction, Assessing credibility and refugee status Version 3.0, 6 January 2015 provide a helpful framework within which to conduct a credibility assessment. However, any reference to a structured approach in relation to the subject matter of credibility assessment must carry a number of important (interrelated) caveats [...] Consideration of credibility in light of such indicators, if approached subject to the [..] caveats, is a valid and useful exercise, based squarely on existing learning. 13 December 2017 | Judicial Body: United Kingdom: Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) | Legal Instrument: 2004 Qualification Directive (EU) | Topic(s): Ahmadis - Credibility assessment - Evidence (including age and language assessments / medico-legal reports) | Countries: Pakistan - United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland |
AA (Iraq) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
11 July 2017 | Judicial Body: United Kingdom: Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) | Legal Instrument: 1950 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Topic(s): Credibility assessment - Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment - Refugee identity documents - Travel documents | Countries: Iraq - United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland |
Flüchtlingsanerkennung für palästinensische Personen aus Syrien und wegen Wehrdienstentziehung
28 June 2017 | Judicial Body: Germany: Verwaltungsgericht | Legal Instrument: 1951 Refugee Convention | Topic(s): Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment - Military service / Conscientious objection / Desertion / Draft evasion / Forced conscription - Palestinian - Persecution based on political opinion - Refugee status determination (RSD) / Asylum procedures - Torture | Countries: Germany - Palestine, State of |
LC (Albania) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department v. the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (Intervener)
9 May 2017 | Judicial Body: United Kingdom: Court of Appeal (England and Wales) | Legal Instrument: 1951 Refugee Convention | Topic(s): Children-at-risk - Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI) - Persecution on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity | Countries: Albania - United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland |
Case C 560/14 M. v. Minister for Justice and Equality, Ireland and the Attorney General
9 February 2017 | Judicial Body: European Union: Court of Justice of the European Union | Legal Instrument: 2004 Qualification Directive (EU) | Topic(s): Complementary forms of protection - Refugee / Asylum law | Countries: Ireland - Rwanda |