Adjudication of asylum claims (refugee status determination / asylum procedures)
- Acts of persecution 51
- Agents of persecution 37
- Article 1D 11
- Blood feuds 92
- Cancellation 9
- Cessation clauses 168
- Changes of circumstances in home country 178
- Convention refugee 134
- Cumulative grounds of persecution 11
- Denial of refugee status 530
- Derivative status 32
- Discrimination based on race, nationality, ethnicity 9,118
- Exclusion clauses 335
- Gang related violence 336
- Gender-based persecution 913
- Grounds for persecution 133
- Group / Prima facie determination 60
- Inclusion clauses 9
- Internal flight alternative (IFA) / Internal relocation alternative (IRA) / Internal protection alternative (IPA) 867
- Mandate status 44
- Manifestly unfounded / Clearly abusive claims 121
- Mental harm 8
- Military service / Conscientious objection / Desertion / Draft evasion / Forced conscription 3,455
- Non-state agents of persecution 1,162
- One-child policy / Family planning 165
- Persecution based on class/wealth/occupation 689
- Persecution based on nationality 243
- Persecution based on political opinion 6,175
- Persecution of family members 598
- Persecution on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity 2,575
- Physical harm 30
- Prosecution vs persecution 388
- Racial / Ethnic persecution 3,364
- Refugee status determination (RSD) / Asylum procedures 1,049
- Rejected asylum-seekers 608
- Religious discrimination 7,389
- Religious persecution (including forced conversion) 4,521
- Safe country of origin 219
- Safe third country 493
- Social group discrimination 3,140
- Social group persecution 1,078
- Sur place persecution 81
- Threats / Intimidation 1,208
- Transgression of social / cultural norms 78
- Well-founded fear of persecution 458
|
Handbook for Interpreters in Asylum Procedures
2022 | Publisher: UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) | Document type: Handbooks/Manuals |
|
UNHCR Updated Observations on the Nationality and Borders Bill,
as amended
January 2022 | Publisher: UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) | Document type: Comments on National Legislation |
|
Supreme Administrative Court decision of 31 December 2021 - KHO:2021:195
31 December 2021 | Judicial Body: Finland: Supreme Administrative Court | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Christian - Refugees sur place - Religious persecution (including forced conversion) | Countries: Finland - Iraq |
|
Opinion by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees
for the Petition of 21-Jinjeong-0274200 submitted to the
National Human Rights Commission of Korea
December 2021 | Publisher: UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) | Document type: Court Interventions / Amicus Curiae |
|
Case of M.J. v. The Netherlands (Application no. 49259/18)
In view of the above, the Court notes that the risk of the applicant being expelled and, potentially, being exposed to a risk of treatment in breach of Article 3, has now, at least temporarily, been removed. Moreover, the Court finds that the complaints under Article 13 and on the procedural requirements of Article 3 in the present case are in essence inextricably connected to the proposed expulsion of the applicant (see Nasseri v the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 24239/09, § 18, 13 October 2015, and J.W. v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 16177/14, § 32, 27 June 2017). In these circumstances, the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 (c)). Moreover, it is satisfied that respect for human rights, as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto, does not require a continuation of the application by virtue of Article 37 § 1 in fine. Accordingly, the application should be struck out of the list. 21 October 2021 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Human rights law - Internal flight alternative (IFA) / Internal relocation alternative (IRA) / Internal protection alternative (IPA) - Refugee status determination (RSD) / Asylum procedures | Countries: Afghanistan - Netherlands |
|
UNHCR Position on Returns to South Sudan - Update III
October 2021 | Publisher: UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) | Document type: Country/Situation Specific Position Papers |
|
UNHCR Observations on the Nationality and Borders Bill,
Bill 141, 2021-22
October 2021 | Publisher: UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) | Document type: Comments on National Legislation |
|
OPINION OF ADVOCATE GENERAL PIKAMÄE, in Case C‑483/20 XXXX
v Commissaire général aux réfugiés et aux apatrides (Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'État (Belgium))
1. Migratory journeys are often the result of a combination of two elements: chance and necessity. In the case before the Court, a Syrian national, after travelling through Libya and Turkey, arrived in Austria, where, out of necessity, he lodged an application for international protection. After obtaining refugee status, he went to Belgium to be reunited with his two children, one of whom is a minor, and there lodged a new application for international protection, which was declared inadmissible in view of the prior recognition granted in the first Member State. 2. It is against that background that the question arises, to my knowledge for the first time, whether, in particular, the fundamental right to respect for family life enshrined in Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’), read in conjunction with the obligation to take into consideration the child’s best interests set out in Article 24(2) of the Charter, can override the inadmissibility mechanism for applications for international protection laid down in Article 33(2)(a) of Directive 2013/32/EU. (2) 30 September 2021 | Judicial Body: European Union: Court of Justice of the European Union | Document type: Case Law | Legal Instrument: 2013 Dublin III Regulation (EU) | Topic(s): Refugee status determination (RSD) / Asylum procedures - Right to family life | Countries: Austria - Belgium - Syrian Arab Republic |
|
Somali Association of South Africa and Others v The Refugee Appeal Board and Others (Case
no 585/2020) [2021] ZASCA 124 (23 September 2021)
23 September 2021 | Judicial Body: South Africa: Supreme Court of Appeal | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Burden of proof - Credibility assessment - Persecution based on political opinion - Rule of law / Due process / Procedural fairness | Countries: Somalia - South Africa |
|
Letter from UNRWA to UNHCR describing UNRWA's mandate and services
22 September 2021 | Publisher: UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) | Document type: Memoranda |
