Adjudication of asylum claims (refugee status determination / asylum procedures) / Cessation clauses

Is it reasonable for the RPD to rely upon evidence of the refugee’s lack of subjective [let alone any] knowledge that use of a passport confers diplomatic protection to rebut the presumption that a refugee who acquires and travels on a passport issued by their country of origin has intended to avail themselves of that state’s protection? Yes. Is it reasonable for the RPD to rely upon evidence that a refugee took measures to protect themselves against their agent of persecution [or that of their family member who is the principal refugee applicant] to rebut the presumption that a refugee who acquires [or renews] a passport issued by their country of origin and uses it to return to their country of origin has intended to avail themselves of that state’s protection? Yes.

29 March 2022 | Judicial Body: Canada: Federal Court of Appeal | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Cessation clauses - Diplomatic protection - Passports | Countries: Canada - Colombia

8 July 2021 | Judicial Body: Sweden: Migration Court of Appeal (Migrationsöverdomstolen) | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Cessation clauses - Complementary forms of protection | Countries: Afghanistan - Sweden

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

On those grounds, the Court (Second Chamber) hereby rules: (1) 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, must be interpreted as meaning that the requirements to be met by the ‘protection’ to which that provision refers in respect of the cessation of refugee status must be the same as those which arise, in relation to the granting of that status, from Article 2(c) of that directive, read together with Article 7(1) and (2) thereof. (2) Article 11(1)(e) of Directive 2004/83, read together with Article 7(2) of that directive, must be interpreted as meaning that any social and financial support provided by private actors, such as the family or the clan of a third country national concerned, falls short of what is required under those provisions to constitute protection and is, therefore, of no relevance either to the assessment of the effectiveness or availability of the protection provided by the State within the meaning of Article 7(1)(a) of that directive, or to the determination, under Article 11(1)(e) of that directive, read together with Article 2(c) thereof, of whether there continues to be a well-founded fear of persecution.

20 January 2021 | Judicial Body: European Union: Court of Justice of the European Union | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Cessation clauses - State protection | Countries: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

16 December 2020 | Publisher: UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) | Document type: Court Interventions / Amicus Curiae

21 September 2020 | Publisher: UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) | Document type: Court Interventions / Amicus Curiae

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 | Document type: Case Law | 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

10 April 2020 | Publisher: UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) | Document type: Court Interventions / Amicus Curiae

16 December 2019 | Judicial Body: United Kingdom: Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) | Document type: Case Law | 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) In Secretary of State for the Home Department v MS (Somalia) [2019] EWCA Civ 1345, the Court of Appeal has authoritatively decided that refugee status can be revoked on the basis that the refugee now has the ability to relocate internally within the country of their nationality or former habitual residence. The authoritative status of the Court of Appeal’s judgments in MS (Somalia) is not affected by the fact that counsel for MS conceded that internal relocation could in principle lead to cessation of refugee status. There is also nothing in the House of Lords’ opinions in R (Hoxha) v Special Adjudicator and Another [2005] UKHL 19 that compels a contrary conclusion to that reached by the Court of Appeal. (2) The conclusion of the Court of Appeal in Secretary of State for the Home Department v Said [2016] EWCA Civ 442 was that the country guidance in MOJ & Ors (Return to Mogadishu) Somalia CG [2014] UKUT 00442 (IAC) did not include any finding that a person who finds themselves in an IDP camp is thereby likely to face Article 3 ECHR harm (having regard to the high threshold established by D v United Kingdom (1997) 24 EHRR 43 and N v United Kingdom (2008) 47 EHRR 39). Although that conclusion may have been obiter, it was confirmed by Hamblen LJ in MS (Somalia). There is nothing in the country guidance in AA and Others (conflict; humanitarian crisis; returnees; FGM) Somalia [2011] UKUT 00445 (IAC) that requires a different view to be taken of the position of such a person. It will be an error of law for a judge to refuse to follow the Court of Appeal’s conclusion on this issue.

18 November 2019 | Judicial Body: United Kingdom: Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Cessation clauses - Internal flight alternative (IFA) / Internal relocation alternative (IRA) / Internal protection alternative (IPA) | Countries: Somalia - United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland