Last Updated: Wednesday, 17 May 2023, 15:20 GMT

Case Law

Case Law includes national and international jurisprudential decisions. Administrative bodies and tribunals are included.
Filter:
Showing 41-50 of 12,676 results
SMO & KSP (Civil status documentation; article 15) Iraq CG [2022] UKUT 00110 (IAC)

This decision replaces all existing country guidance on Iraq.

22 April 2022 | Judicial Body: United Kingdom: Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) | Legal Instrument: 2011 Recast Qualification Directive (EU) | Topic(s): EU Qualification Directive - Internal flight alternative (IFA) / Internal relocation alternative (IRA) / Internal protection alternative (IPA) - Kurd - Travel documents | Countries: Iraq - United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

2021Nu34345

Confirmed on 29 July 2022.

19 April 2022 | Judicial Body: Republic of Korea: Seoul High Court | Topic(s): Domestic violence - Honour killings - Internal flight alternative (IFA) / Internal relocation alternative (IRA) / Internal protection alternative (IPA) - Sexual and gender-based violence (SGBV) | Countries: Korea, Republic of

Decision 202102939/1/V3

State Secretary for Justice and Security must investigate whether transferring aliens to Croatia on the basis of the European Dublin Regulation is contrary to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

13 April 2022 | Judicial Body: Netherlands, The: Council of State (Raad van State) | Legal Instrument: 2013 Dublin III Regulation (EU) | Countries: Croatia - Egypt - Netherlands

CASE OF N.K. v. RUSSIA (Application no. 45761/18)

1. The case concerns removal of the applicant to Tajikistan, in breach of an interim measure issued by the Court, and the conditions and lawfulness of the applicant’s detention pending removal. Articles 3, 5 and 34 of the Convention are, principally, invoked.

29 March 2022 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Topic(s): Arbitrary arrest and detention - Expulsion - Extradition - Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment | Countries: Russian Federation - Tajikistan

MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Appellant and MARIA CAMILA GALINDO CAMAYO Respondent and UNITED NATIONS HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR REFUGEES and CANADIAN ASSOCIATION OF REFUGEE LAWYERS Interveners

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 | Topic(s): Cessation clauses - Diplomatic protection - Passports | Countries: Canada - Colombia

CASE OF T.K. AND OTHERS v. LITHUANIA (Application no. 55978/20)

22 March 2022 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Legal Instrument: 1950 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Topic(s): Expulsion - Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment - Refugee status determination (RSD) / Asylum procedures - Rejected asylum-seekers | Countries: Lithuania - Tajikistan

CASE OF SHENTURK AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN (Applications nos. 41326/17 and other applications – see appended list)

10 March 2022 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Legal Instrument: 1950 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Topic(s): Arbitrary arrest and detention - Expulsion - Extradition - Non-refoulement | Countries: Azerbaijan - Türkiye

K v Landkreis Gifhorn, Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hannover, Case C-519/20

La demande de décision préjudicielle porte sur l’interprétation de l’article 16, paragraphe 1, et de l’article 18 de la directive 2008/115/CE du Parlement européen et du Conseil, du 16 décembre 2008, relative aux normes et procédures communes applicables dans les États membres au retour des ressortissants de pays tiers en séjour irrégulier (JO 2008, L 348, p. 98).

10 March 2022 | Judicial Body: European Union: Court of Justice of the European Union | Legal Instrument: 2008 Returns Directive (EU) | Topic(s): Emergency legislation - Expulsion - Prison or detention conditions | Countries: Germany - Pakistan

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) | 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

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 | Topic(s): COVID-19 - Deportation / Forcible return - Expulsion - Public health | Countries: United States of America

Search Refworld