KM (exclusion; Article 1F(a); Article 1F(b)) Democratic Republic of Congo
1. This decision considers whether the appellant should be excluded from the protection of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (‘the Convention’) because there are serious reasons for considering that he committed crimes against humanity (Article 1F(a)) or in the alternative a serious non-political crime (Article 1F(b)) during his service in the Police d’Intervention Rapide (PIR) in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). 9 March 2022 | Judicial Body: United Kingdom: Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) | Document type: Case Law | Legal Instrument: 1951 Refugee Convention | Topic(s): 1951 Refugee Convention - Crimes against humanity - Exclusion clauses - International criminal law - Serious non-political crime | Countries: Congo, Democratic Republic of the - United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland |
Urteil (des Bundesgerichts) 2C_587/2021 vom 16. Februar 2022
16 February 2022 | Judicial Body: Switzerland: Federal Court | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Exclusion clauses - Palestinian - Statelessness - Statelessness Determination Procedures - UNRWA | Countries: Switzerland - Syrian Arab Republic |
Arrest nr 260 333
7 September 2021 | Judicial Body: Belgium: Conseil du Contentieux des Etrangers | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Exclusion clauses - Forced marriage - Military service / Conscientious objection / Desertion / Draft evasion / Forced conscription - Serious non-political crime | Countries: Belgium - Syrian Arab Republic |
Urteil (des Bundesgerichts) 2C_330/2020 vom 6. August 2021
6 August 2021 | Judicial Body: Switzerland: Federal Court | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Exclusion clauses - Palestinian - Statelessness - Statelessness Determination Procedures - UNRWA | Countries: Switzerland - Syrian Arab Republic |
Brief of United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees as Amicus Curiae Supporting Petitioner in the case of Daniel Girmai Negusie V. Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General
4 August 2021 | Publisher: UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) | Document type: Court Interventions / Amicus Curiae |
Decision 202004766/1/V1
14 July 2021 | Judicial Body: Netherlands, The: Council of State (Raad van State) | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Article 1D - Exclusion clauses - Palestinian - Security situation - Statelessness - UNRWA | Countries: Netherlands - Palestine, State of |
Intervention by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in the case of The Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness v. Medhanie Aregawi Weldemariam
27 April 2021 | Publisher: UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) | Document type: Court Interventions / Amicus Curiae |
International Protection Considerations with regard to people fleeing the Syrian Arab Republic, Update VI
March 2021 | Publisher: UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) | Document type: Country/Situation Specific Position Papers |
Bundesrepublik Deutschland v XT, Case C‑507/19, Request for a preliminary ruling
1. The second sentence of Article 12(1)(a) of Directive 2011/95/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on standards for the qualification of third-country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection, for a uniform status for refugees or for persons eligible for subsidiary protection, and for the content of the protection granted must be interpreted as meaning that, in order to determine whether the protection or assistance from the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) has ceased, it is necessary to take into account, as part of an individual assessment of all the relevant factors of the situation in question, all the fields of UNRWA’s area of operations which a stateless person of Palestinian origin who has left that area has a concrete possibility of accessing and safely remaining therein. 2. The second sentence of Article 12(1)(a) of Directive 2011/95 must be interpreted as meaning that UNRWA’s protection or assistance cannot be regarded as having ceased where a stateless person of Palestinian origin left the UNRWA area of operations from a field in that area in which his or her personal safety was at serious risk and in which UNRWA was not in a position to provide that individual with protection or assistance, first, if that individual voluntarily travelled to that field from another field in that area in which his or her personal safety was not at serious risk and in which he or she could receive protection or assistance from UNRWA and, secondly, if he or she could not reasonably expect, on the basis of the specific information available to him or her, to receive protection or assistance from UNRWA in the field to which he or she travelled or to be able to return at short notice to the field from which he or she came, which is for the national court to verify. 13 January 2021 | Judicial Body: European Union: Court of Justice of the European Union | Document type: Case Law | Legal Instrument: 2011 Recast Qualification Directive (EU) | Topic(s): Exclusion clauses - Palestinian - Statelessness | Countries: Germany - Lebanon - Syrian Arab Republic |
UNHCR observations
on legislative amendments related to exclusion from and revocation of refugee status and subsidiary protection status
December 2020 | Publisher: UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) | Document type: Comments on National Legislation |