Case Law
- Australia: Federal Circuit Court 1
- Australia: Federal Court 68
- Australia: Federal Magistrates Court 60
- Australia: High Court 6
- Australia: Refugee Review Tribunal 24
- Austria: Federal Administrative Court (Bundesverwaltungsgericht) 1
- Belgium: Commission permanente de recours des réfugiés (see: Conseil du Contentieux des Etrangers) 2
- Belgium: Conseil d'État 2
- Belgium: Conseil du Contentieux des Etrangers 1
- Bulgaria: Supreme Administrative Court 3
- Canada: Federal Court 72
- Canada: Federal Court of Appeal 14
- Canada: Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada 5
- Canada: Supreme Court 2
- Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights 25
- European Union: Court of Justice of the European Union 5
- France: Commission des Recours des Réfugiés (CRR) 2
- France: Conseil constitutionnel 1
- France: Conseil d'Etat 5
- International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) 20
- International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) 17
- Ireland: High Court 14
- Italy: Courts of First Instance 1
- Italy: Italian Supreme Court (Corte Suprema di Cassazione) 1
- Lithuania: Supreme Court 1
- Netherlands, The: Council of State (Raad van State) 4
- New Zealand: Court of Appeal 3
- New Zealand: High Court 4
- New Zealand: Immigration and Protection Tribunal 1
- New Zealand: Refugee Status Appeals Authority 74
- New Zealand: Supreme Court 2
- South Africa: High Court 2
- Spain: Tribunal Supremo 4
- Special Court for Sierra Leone 1
- Special Tribunal for Lebanon 1
- Switzerland: Federal Court 1
- Switzerland: Tribunal administratif fédéral 2
- UN Committee Against Torture (CAT) 34
- UN Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC) 1
- UN Human Rights Committee (HRC) 3
- United Kingdom: Asylum and Immigration Tribunal / Immigration Appellate Authority 133
- United Kingdom: Court of Appeal (England and Wales) 93
- United Kingdom: Court of Session (Scotland) 34
- United Kingdom: High Court (England and Wales) 84
- United Kingdom: High Court (Northern Ireland) 1
- United Kingdom: House of Lords (Judicial Committee) 7
- United Kingdom: Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC) 4
- United Kingdom: Supreme Court 5
- United Kingdom: Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) 38
- United States Board of Immigration Appeals 6
- United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit 1
- United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit 7
- United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit 1
- United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit 1
- United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit 2
- United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit 3
- United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 25
- United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit 2
- United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit 6
- United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit 1
- United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 1
- United States District Courts 1
- United States Supreme Court 2
- Afghanistan 58
- Albania 8
- Algeria 13
- Angola 3
- Armenia 2
- Australia 160
- Austria 1
- Azerbaijan 1
- Bahrain 1
- Bangladesh 39
- Barbados 1
- Belarus 2
- Belgium 6
- Benin 1
- Bosnia and Herzegovina 17
- Bulgaria 6
- Burundi 3
- Cameroon 11
- Canada 95
- Chad 1
- China 57
- Colombia 4
- Congo, Democratic Republic of the 24
- Congo, Republic of the 4
- Costa Rica 2
- Côte d'Ivoire 6
- Croatia 13
- Czech Republic 3
- Denmark 4
- Djibouti 1
- Egypt 7
- El Salvador 1
- Eritrea 17
- Ethiopia 18
- Fiji 1
- Finland 2
- France 10
- Gambia 2
- Georgia 3
- Germany 2
- Ghana 1
- Greece 1
- Guatemala 4
- Guinea 8
- Guyana 1
- Honduras 1
- Hungary 3
- India 38
- Indonesia 2
- Iran, Islamic Republic of 74
- Iraq 30
- Ireland 15
- Israel 1
- Italy 4
- Jamaica 6
- Jordan 5
- Kazakhstan 2
- Kenya 4
- Korea, Democratic People's Republic of 1
- Korea, Republic of 1
- Kuwait 4
- Latvia 2
- Lebanon 7
- Libya 9
- Lithuania 3
- Malawi 2
- Malaysia 5
- Mali 1
- Malta 2
- Mauritania 3
- Mexico 5
- Montenegro 2
- Morocco 4
- Myanmar 6
- Nepal 10
- Netherlands 13
- Netherlands Antilles 1
- New Zealand 83
- Nicaragua 6
- Nigeria 19
- North Macedonia 1
- Pakistan 35
- Palestine, State of 3
- Panama 1
- Peru 2
- Philippines 3
- Poland 2
- Romania 4
- Russian Federation 16
- Rwanda 25
- Saint Vincent and the Grenadines 2
- Saudi Arabia 2
- Senegal 1
- Serbia 23
- Sierra Leone 7
- Slovakia 1
- Somalia 32
- South Africa 3
- South Sudan 1
- Spain 4
- Sri Lanka 83
- Sudan 19
- Sweden 18
- Switzerland 10
- Syrian Arab Republic 5
- Tanzania, United Republic of 3
- Thailand 1
- Togo 4
- Tunisia 2
- Türkiye 29
- Uganda 7
- Ukraine 6
- United Arab Emirates 1
- United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland 403
- United States of America 65
- Uzbekistan 1
- Vanuatu 1
- Venezuela 2
- Viet Nam 1
- Yemen 4
- Zimbabwe 11
|
KV (Sri Lanka) (Appellant) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Respondent)
6 March 2019 | Judicial Body: United Kingdom: Supreme Court | Topic(s): Evidence (including age and language assessments / medico-legal reports) - Torture | Countries: Sri Lanka - United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland |
|
D.D. v. Spain
1 February 2019 | Judicial Body: UN Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC) | Topic(s): Evidence (including age and language assessments / medico-legal reports) - Expulsion - Non-refoulement - Unaccompanied / Separated children | Countries: Mali - Morocco - Spain |
|
Applicant v. State Secretary for Security and Justice, 201805022/1/V2
an investigation into the origin of a foreign national is the responsibility of the state secretary and is not limited to a language analysis. If a language analysis does not provide a definitive answer about the origin of the applicant, but the State Secretary maintains his position that an alleged origin is not credible, he will have to motivate this. The State Secretary has, and wrongly, not been able to assess the credibility of the applicant's statement that she has been living indoors for 15 years. He also wrongly failed to respond to the report by Buro Kleurkracht that supports her story. The State Secretary has therefore not soundly substantiated that the origin of the applicant is not credible. 4 October 2018 | Judicial Body: Netherlands, The: Council of State (Raad van State) | Topic(s): Credibility assessment - Evidence (including age and language assessments / medico-legal reports) | Countries: Iraq - Netherlands |
|
Judgement FAC E–891/2017 of 8 Aug. 2018
The methods of medical age assessment that are used in Switzerland are considered as indications, which are weighted differently depending on their results, to determine whether a person has reached majority (consid. 4.2.2). Moroever, the usual rules for the assessment of evidence must be observed. Medical evidence is a strong indication of a person’s age (consid. 4.2.2). 8 August 2018 | Judicial Body: Switzerland: Tribunal administratif fédéral | Topic(s): Evidence (including age and language assessments / medico-legal reports) | Countries: Switzerland |
|
OO (Burma -TS remains appropriate CG) Burma [2018] UKUT 00052 (IAC)
1. Whether there has been a change of conditions in Burma to justify a departure from the country guidance in TS. 2. Second, whether this appellant is reasonably likely to be at prospective risk in Burma, given his particular political profile and likely political activities in Burma, in light of TS and / or the updated country conditions. 3. Third, and in the alternative, whether the appellant would be unable to renew his passport or obtain a certificate of identity (‘CoI’) from the Burmese Embassy, with the result that he would be detained on return to Burma. 9 January 2018 | Judicial Body: United Kingdom: Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) | Legal Instrument: 1950 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Topic(s): Changes of circumstances in home country - Evidence (including age and language assessments / medico-legal reports) | Countries: Myanmar - United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland |
|
KB & AH (credibility-structured approach) Pakistan [2017] UKUT 00491 (IAC)
The ‘Credibility Indicators’ identified in the Home Office Asylum Policy Instruction, Assessing credibility and refugee status Version 3.0, 6 January 2015 provide a helpful framework within which to conduct a credibility assessment. However, any reference to a structured approach in relation to the subject matter of credibility assessment must carry a number of important (interrelated) caveats [...] Consideration of credibility in light of such indicators, if approached subject to the [..] caveats, is a valid and useful exercise, based squarely on existing learning. 13 December 2017 | Judicial Body: United Kingdom: Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) | Legal Instrument: 2004 Qualification Directive (EU) | Topic(s): Ahmadis - Credibility assessment - Evidence (including age and language assessments / medico-legal reports) | Countries: Pakistan - United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland |
|
KB & AH (credibility-structured approach) Pakistan [2017] UKUT 00491 (IAC)
The ‘Credibility Indicators’ identified in the Home Office Asylum Policy Instruction, Assessing credibility and refugee status Version 3.0, 6 January 2015 provide a helpful framework within which to conduct a credibility assessment. However, any reference to a structured approach in relation to the subject matter of credibility assessment must carry a number of important (interrelated) caveats [...] Consideration of credibility in light of such indicators, if approached subject to the [..] caveats, is a valid and useful exercise, based squarely on existing learning. 13 December 2017 | Judicial Body: United Kingdom: Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) | Legal Instrument: 2004 Qualification Directive (EU) | Topic(s): Ahmadis - Credibility assessment - Evidence (including age and language assessments / medico-legal reports) | Countries: Pakistan - United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland |
|
The Queen on the application of:
1) HK (Iraq)
2) HH (Iran)
3) SK (Afghanistan)
4) FK (Afghanistan)
- and -
The Secretary of State for the Home Department
23 November 2017 | Judicial Body: United Kingdom: Court of Appeal (England and Wales) | Legal Instrument: 1950 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Topic(s): Evidence (including age and language assessments / medico-legal reports) | Countries: Afghanistan - Bulgaria - Iran, Islamic Republic of - Iraq - United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland |
|
Opinion of Advocate General Bot: A.S. v. Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie
16 November 2017 | Judicial Body: European Union: Court of Justice of the European Union | Legal Instrument: 1950 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Topic(s): Evidence (including age and language assessments / medico-legal reports) - Family reunification - Refugee status determination (RSD) / Asylum procedures - Right to family life - Unaccompanied / Separated children | Countries: Netherlands |
|
R (on the application of AS (by his litigation friend Francesco Jeff) v Kent County Council (age assessment; dental evidence)
11 September 2017 | Judicial Body: United Kingdom: Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) | Topic(s): Benefit of the doubt - Burden of proof - Evidence (including age and language assessments / medico-legal reports) - Refugee status determination (RSD) / Asylum procedures - Unaccompanied / Separated children | Countries: Afghanistan - United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland |
