Case Law

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

16 December 2019 | Judicial Body: United Kingdom: Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) | Legal Instrument: 1951 Refugee Convention | Topic(s): Cessation clauses - Changes of circumstances in home country | Countries: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland - Zimbabwe

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

22 April 2014 | Judicial Body: United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit | Topic(s): Changes of circumstances in home country - Country of origin information (COI) - Persecution based on political opinion - Police - Rejected asylum-seekers - Tamil | Countries: Sri Lanka - United States of America

Rescission of an in absentia order is not required to reopen proceedings to apply for asylum and withholding of removal. The numerical limitations on filing motions to reopen are not applicable to an alien seeking reopening to apply for asylum and withholding of removal based on changed country conditions. Record remanded for further proceedings.

18 July 2013 | Judicial Body: United States Board of Immigration Appeals | Countries: China - United States of America

Case remanded to the Immigration Judge to determine whether the applicant showed compelling reasons to be granted asylum based on either severe past persecution or other serious harm.

17 February 2012 | Judicial Body: United States Board of Immigration Appeals | Countries: Albania - United States of America

28 November 2011 | Judicial Body: New Zealand: Immigration and Protection Tribunal | Topic(s): Changes of circumstances in home country - Muslim | Countries: New Zealand - Sri Lanka

Translator's Note: The Federal Administrative Court, or Bundesverwaltungsgericht, is the Federal Republic of Germany's supreme administrative court. This unofficial translation is provided for the reader's convenience and has not been officially authorised by the Bundesverwaltungsgericht. Page numbers in citations of international texts have been retained from the original and may not match the pagination in the parallel English versions.

24 February 2011 | Judicial Body: Germany: Bundesverwaltungsgericht | Topic(s): Cessation clauses - Changes of circumstances in home country - Complementary forms of protection - Persecution based on political opinion - Persecution of family members - Well-founded fear of persecution | Countries: Germany - Iraq