Sri Lanka

On 11 February 2020, the Swiss Federal Administrative Tribunal (TAF) ruled in case F-7195/2018 concerning the Dublin transfer of an asylum seeker to Bulgaria that there are no systemic flaws in the asylum procedure and in the reception conditions for applicants in Bulgaria, and that there is no reason for a complete suspension of Dublin transfers to Bulgaria. The court ruled that the Swiss asylum authority SEM should assess on a case-to-case basis whether a Dublin transfer must be suspended. This examination could include obtaining concrete and prior guarantees from the Bulgarian authorities. A transfer is only possible if the possibility that the asylum-seeker concerned would be subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment on his return to Bulgaria is excluded. In this particular case, the appeal against the transfer decision was made by the applicant, arguing that she suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder which could not be treated adequately in Bulgaria, that she risked not being able to access the regular reception services due to the fact that her asylum application had already been rejected by the Bulgarian authorities, that she even risked being detained and subjected to inhuman conditions and that she finally risked being returned to her country of origin contrary to the principle of non-refoulement. Taking her particular circumstances into account, the TAF quashed the transfer decision and upheld the appeal, ruling that even though there are no systemic deficiencies in the asylum system in Bulgaria, the transfer decision should be based on a detailed analysis of all relevant circumstances of the asylum seeker.

11 February 2020 | Judicial Body: Switzerland: Tribunal administratif fédéral | Topic(s): Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment - Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) - Reception - Rejected asylum-seekers | Countries: Bulgaria - Sri Lanka - Switzerland

28 June 2016 | Judicial Body: Armenia: Administrative Court of Appeals | Topic(s): 1951 Refugee Convention - Credibility assessment - Discrimination based on race, nationality, ethnicity - Flight by land, air or sea - Persecution based on class/wealth/occupation - Persecution based on political opinion - Persecution of family members - Political groups - Rejected asylum-seekers - Tamil - Unlawful departure | Countries: Australia - Sri Lanka

1 June 2016 | Judicial Body: Australia: Administrative Appeals Tribunal | Topic(s): 1951 Refugee Convention - Arbitrary arrest and detention - Discrimination based on race, nationality, ethnicity - Persecution based on political opinion - Political groups - Political parties - Rejected asylum-seekers - Social group discrimination - Social group persecution - Tamil | Countries: Australia - Sri Lanka

23 April 2016 | Judicial Body: Australia: Administrative Appeals Tribunal | Topic(s): 1951 Refugee Convention - Persecution based on political opinion - Persecution of family members - Political groups - Political parties - Rejected asylum-seekers - Social group discrimination - Social group persecution | Countries: Australia - Sri Lanka

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

17 October 2013 | Judicial Body: Australia: Refugee Review Tribunal | Topic(s): Discrimination based on race, nationality, ethnicity - Persecution based on political opinion - Rejected asylum-seekers - Social group persecution - Tamil | Countries: Australia - Sri Lanka

This decision by the Federal Administrative Court updates the Court's decision of 14 February 2008 (Tribunal administratif fédéral ATAF 2008/2). It states that political opponents, critical journalists, human rights activists, critical NGO representatives, as well as victims of or witnesses to serious human rights violations and persons who are presumed to have close contacts to the LTTE represented groups are still at risk of persecution in Sri Lanka. In general, returns to Sri Lanka including the East and North are considered reasonable, with the exception of Vanni region where no returns should take place. For persons who left the northern province some time ago, the existence of social network and chances for securing minimal living conditions should be considered.

27 October 2011 | Judicial Body: Switzerland: Tribunal administratif fédéral | Topic(s): Deportation / Forcible return - Involuntary repatriation - Rejected asylum-seekers | Countries: Sri Lanka - Switzerland

20 January 2011 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Topic(s): Combatants / Former combatants - Deportation / Forcible return - Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment - Persecution based on political opinion - Rejected asylum-seekers - Tamil | Countries: Denmark - Sri Lanka

20 January 2011 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Topic(s): Combatants / Former combatants - Deportation / Forcible return - Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment - Persecution based on political opinion - Rejected asylum-seekers - Tamil | Countries: Denmark - Sri Lanka

.

20 January 2011 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Topic(s): Combatants / Former combatants - Deportation / Forcible return - Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment - Persecution based on political opinion - Rejected asylum-seekers - Tamil | Countries: Denmark - Sri Lanka