Last Updated: Thursday, 29 September 2022, 11:15 GMT

Immigration law / Deportation / Forcible return

Filter:
Showing 1-10 of 3,457 results
MIG 2021:20, case no. UM5998-21

20 December 2022 | Judicial Body: Sweden: Migration Court of Appeal (Migrationsöverdomstolen) | Document type: Case Law | Legal Instrument: 2013 Recast Reception Conditions Directive (EU) | Topic(s): Deportation / Forcible return - Immigration Detention - Residence permits / Residency | Countries: Sweden

W v. France (Application no. 1348/21)

Le requérant considère qu’un éloignement vers la Fédération de Russie l’exposerait à des traitements contraires à l’article 2 § 1 de la Convention. 86. Il considère également que l’exécution de l’arrêté d’expulsion entraînerait une violation de l’article 8 de la Convention. 87. Enfin, le requérant se plaint de ne pas avoir bénéficié en droit français d’un recours effectif pour faire valoir ses griefs tirés des articles 2, 3 et 8 au mépris de l’article 13 de la Convention. 88. Eu égard aux faits de l’espèce, aux arguments des parties et à la conclusion à laquelle la Cour est parvenue sur le terrain de l’article 3 de la Convention, elle estime avoir examiné la principale question juridique soulevée par la requête. La Cour en conclut qu’il n’y a pas lieu de statuer séparément sur les autres griefs (Centre de ressources juridiques au nom de Valentin Câmpeanu c. Roumanie [GC], no 47848/08, § 156, CEDH 2014).

30 August 2022 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Deportation / Forcible return | Countries: France - Russian Federation

NANCY GIMENA HUISHA-HUISHA, AND HER MINOR CHILD, ET AL., APPELLEES v. ALEJANDRO N. MAYORKAS, SECRETARY OF HOMELAND SECURITY, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY, ET AL., APPELLANTS

It is likely that § 265 grants the Executive sweeping authority to prohibit aliens from entering the United States during a public-health emergency; that the Executive may expel aliens who violate such a prohibition; and that under § 1231(b)(3)(A) and the Convention Against Torture, the Executive cannot expel aliens to countries where their “life or freedom would be threatened” on account of their “race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion” or where they will likely face torture.

4 March 2022 | Judicial Body: United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): COVID-19 - Deportation / Forcible return - Expulsion - Public health | Countries: United States of America

UNHCR Position on Returns to Ethiopia

March 2022 | Publisher: UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) | Document type: Country/Situation Specific Position Papers

UNHCR Guidance Note on the International Protection Needs of People Fleeing Afghanistan

February 2022 | Publisher: UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) | Document type: Country/Situation Specific Position Papers

Y (représenté par un conseil, Rêzan Zehrê) v. Suisse

28 January 2022 | Judicial Body: UN Committee Against Torture (CAT) | Document type: Case Law | Legal Instrument: 1984 Convention against Torture (CAT) | Topic(s): Convention against Torture (CAT) - Deportation / Forcible return - Eritreans - Exhaustion of domestic remedies - Torture | Countries: Eritrea - Switzerland

A.A. v. Sweden

20 January 2022 | Judicial Body: UN Committee Against Torture (CAT) | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Christian - Deportation / Forcible return - Evidence (including age and language assessments / medico-legal reports) - Rule of law / Due process / Procedural fairness | Countries: Afghanistan - Iran, Islamic Republic of - Sweden

UNHCR Position on Returns to Mali – Update III

January 2022 | Publisher: UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) | Document type: Country/Situation Specific Position Papers

Tewelde and Others v. Russia

Having regard to the information submitted by the parties, the Court finds that at first all the applicants were detained with a view to being removed, and their detention was presumably carried out initially in good faith and in compliance with Article 5 § 1 (f) of the Convention. However, the length of the applicants’ detention, as summarised in the relevant part of the Appendix, was from fourteen to sixteen months and the Government submitted no information about any actions taken in pursuit of the applicants’ administrative removal during these periods. Accordingly, in the Court’s view, the length of the applicants’ detention was not demonstrably related to the purpose pursued. 51. Furthermore, as regards the applicants’ complaint under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention concerning the lack of an effective procedure for review of detention, the Court notes that nothing in the available materials indicates that the applicants’ continued detention had been periodically reviewed or that they had indeed access to any procedure for such review. 52. Accordingly, the Court concludes that there has been a violation of Article 5 § 1 (f) and Article 5 § 4 of the Convention.

7 December 2021 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Deportation / Forcible return - Eritreans - Immigration Detention | Countries: Eritrea - Russian Federation

Brief of Amicus Curiae United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in Support of Plaintiffs-Appellees and Affirmance in the case of Nancy Gimena Huisha-Huisha, et al. v. Alejandro Mayorkas, et al.

19 November 2021 | Publisher: UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) | Document type: Court Interventions / Amicus Curiae

Search Refworld