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

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

Filter:
Showing 1-10 of 167 results
UNHCR Observations on the Proposal for amendments to the Norwegian Immigration Act (Deportation of refugees due to imposed punishment)

28 November 2022 | Publisher: UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) | Document type: Comments on National Legislation

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 | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Cessation clauses - Diplomatic protection - Passports | Countries: Canada - Colombia

MIG 2021:14, case no. UM2839-20

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

Canada (MCI) v Camayo - Memorandum of the Intervener: U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees

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

Secretary of State for the Home Department v. OA

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

Amicus curiae of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in case number 20-121835SIV-HRET regarding F.K. and others against the State/the Norwegian Appeals Board before the Supreme Court of Norway (Norges Høyesterett)

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

Amicus curiae of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in case number UM 2839-20, X against the Migration Agency before the Migration Court of Appeal (Kammarrätten i Stockholm, Migrationsöverdomstolen)

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

OPINION OF ADVOCATE GENERAL HOGAN in Case C‑255/19 Secretary of State for the Home Department v OA (Request for a preliminary ruling from the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) (United Kingdom))

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

Amicus curiae of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees1 in case number 19-028135ASD-BORG/01 (represented by lawyer Arild Humlen) against the State/the Norwegian Appeals Board before the Borgarting Court of Appeal (Borgarting Lagmannsrett) on the interpretation of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees

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

PS (cessation principles) Zimbabwe [2021] UKUT 00283 (IAC)

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

Search Refworld