Adjudication of asylum claims (refugee status determination / asylum procedures) / Internal flight alternative (IFA) / Internal relocation alternative (IRA) / Internal protection alternative (IPA)
- Amnesty International 1
- Asylum Research Centre (ARC) 1
- Australia: Administrative Appeals Tribunal 22
- Australia: Federal Court 19
- Australia: Federal Magistrates Court 13
- Australia: High Court 4
- Australia: Refugee Review Tribunal 89
- Austria: Constitutional Court of Austria (Verfassungsgerichtshof) 2
- Austria: Supreme Administrative Court (Verwaltungsgerichtshof) 9
- Austrian Centre for Country of Origin and Asylum Research and Documentation (ACCORD) 1
- Belgium: Commission permanente de recours des réfugiés (see: Conseil du Contentieux des Etrangers) 1
- Belgium: Conseil du Contentieux des Etrangers 1
- Bulgaria: Supreme Administrative Court 2
- Cambridge University Press 2
- Canada: Federal Court 29
- Canada: Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada 81
- Consonant (formerly Asylum Aid) 5
- Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights 19
- Denmark: Danish Immigration Service 1
- European Council on Refugees and Exiles 12
- European Union: European Asylum Support Office (EASO) 1
- Finland: Helsinki Administrative Court 1
- Finland: Supreme Administrative Court 1
- France: Conseil d'Etat 1
- France: Cour nationale du droit d'asile 1
- Germany: Bundesverwaltungsgericht 1
- Germany: Verwaltungsgericht 1
- International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) 1
- International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) 1
- International Crisis Group (ICG) 2
- Ireland: High Court 6
- Ireland: Refugee Documentation Centre 4
- Netherlands, The: The Hague District Court 2
- New Zealand: Court of Appeal 1
- New Zealand: High Court 1
- New Zealand: Immigration and Protection Tribunal 2
- New Zealand: Refugee Status Appeals Authority 64
- Norway: Borgarting Court of Appeal 1
- Norway: Landinfo - Country of Origin Information Centre 1
- Norway: Supreme Court 1
- Norwegian Refugee Council/Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre (NRC/IDMC) 1
- Radio Free Asia 1
- South Africa: High Court 1
- South Africa: Refugee Appeal Board 1
- Still Human Still Here 3
- Switzerland: Tribunal administratif fédéral 1
- UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) 72
- United Kingdom: Asylum and Immigration Tribunal / Immigration Appellate Authority 105
- United Kingdom: Court of Appeal (England and Wales) 37
- United Kingdom: Court of Appeal (Northern Ireland) 1
- United Kingdom: Court of Session (Scotland) 21
- United Kingdom: High Court (England and Wales) 9
- United Kingdom: Home Office 89
- United Kingdom: House of Lords (Judicial Committee) 4
- United Kingdom: Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) 22
- United States Committee for Refugees and Immigrants 1
- United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit 1
- United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit 3
- United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit 2
- United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit 1
- United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 5
- United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit 1
- University of Michigan Law School 2
- World Organisation Against Torture 1
- Annual Reports 1
- Case Law 519
- Commentaries 4
- Conference Reports 1
- Country News 4
- Country Reports 104
- Country/Situation Specific Position Papers 41
- Court Interventions / Amicus Curiae 15
- Fact Finding Reports 1
- Handbooks/Manuals 1
- Legal Articles/Analyses/Commentaries 6
- Operational Guidelines 1
- Policy/Position Papers 6
- Query Responses 76
- Regional Reports 2
- Research, Background and Discussion Papers 2
- Sessional Reports 1
- Thematic Guidelines 7
- Thematic Reports 1
- Afghanistan 68
- Albania 13
- Algeria 9
- Australia 147
- Austria 15
- Bahrain 1
- Bangladesh 11
- Belgium 3
- Bulgaria 4
- Burundi 3
- Cambodia 1
- Cameroon 1
- Canada 41
- Chad 1
- Chile 1
- China 26
- Colombia 11
- Congo, Democratic Republic of the 3
- Congo, Republic of the 2
- Côte d'Ivoire 3
- Croatia 2
- Czech Republic 5
- Denmark 2
- Ecuador 1
- Egypt 6
- El Salvador 3
- Eritrea 4
- Ethiopia 7
- Fiji 1
- Finland 2
- France 4
- Gambia 2
- Germany 3
- Ghana 3
- Guatemala 2
- Haiti 1
- Honduras 1
- Hong Kong (Special Administrative Region of China) 1
- Hungary 4
- India 53
- Indonesia 5
- Iran, Islamic Republic of 22
- Iraq 72
- Ireland 7
- Israel 1
- Italy 1
- Jamaica 6
- Kenya 6
- Kiribati 1
- Korea, Democratic People's Republic of 1
- Kyrgyzstan 1
- Lebanon 10
- Liberia 1
- Libya 3
- Malawi 2
- Malaysia 7
- Mali 4
- Mexico 11
- Moldova, Republic of 6
- Montenegro 2
- Morocco 2
- Myanmar 2
- Namibia 1
- Nepal 7
- Netherlands 11
- New Zealand 67
- Nicaragua 1
- Niger 1
- Nigeria 41
- North Macedonia 1
- Norway 5
- Pakistan 67
- Palestine, State of 3
- Peru 3
- Philippines 4
- Poland 2
- Romania 3
- Russian Federation 19
- Senegal 1
- Serbia 21
- Sierra Leone 2
- Slovakia 3
- Slovenia 1
- Somalia 59
- South Africa 4
- South Sudan 1
- Spain 1
- Sri Lanka 32
- Sudan 28
- Sweden 14
- Switzerland 1
- Syrian Arab Republic 2
- Tanzania, United Republic of 3
- Thailand 2
- Timor-Leste (East Timor) 1
- Togo 1
- Türkiye 25
- Uganda 3
- Ukraine 12
- United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland 210
- United States of America 13
- Uzbekistan 1
- Vanuatu 1
- Venezuela 5
- Viet Nam 1
- Western Sahara Territory 1
- Yemen 2
- Zimbabwe 10
|
Letter to the Court in case D v. the Netherlands
3 June 2019 | Publisher: UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) | Document type: Court Interventions / Amicus Curiae |
|
Ra 2019/14/0153
Cessation decisions can be based on an available IFA in the country of origin. Generally, changes after the last extension of subsidiary protection status are relevant to determine the change of circumstances. Attaining the age of majority constitutes a relevant change of individual circumstances. 27 May 2019 | Judicial Body: Austria: Supreme Administrative Court (Verwaltungsgerichtshof) | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Cessation clauses - Changes of circumstances in home country - Complementary forms of protection - Internal flight alternative (IFA) / Internal relocation alternative (IRA) / Internal protection alternative (IPA) - Unaccompanied / Separated children | Countries: Afghanistan - Austria |
|
AS (AFGHANISTAN) (Appellant) - and - SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Respondent) - and -
THE UNITED NATIONS HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR
REFUGEES (Intervener) [2019] EWCA Civ 873
24 May 2019 | Judicial Body: United Kingdom: Court of Appeal (England and Wales) | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Internal flight alternative (IFA) / Internal relocation alternative (IRA) / Internal protection alternative (IPA) | Countries: Afghanistan - United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland |
|
UNHCR Submission on Norway: 33rd UPR Session
May 2019 | Publisher: UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) | Document type: Commentaries |
|
International Protection Considerations with Regard to People Fleeing the Republic of Iraq
May 2019 | Publisher: UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) | Document type: Country/Situation Specific Position Papers |
|
Iraq: Country of Origin Information on Access and Residency Requirements in Iraq: Ability of Persons Origination from Formerly ISIS-Held or Conflict-Affected Areas to Legally Access and Remain in Proposed Areas of Relocation
25 April 2019 | Publisher: UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) | Document type: Country Reports |
|
Submission by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in the case AS (Afghanistan) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department
7 March 2019 | Publisher: UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) | Document type: Court Interventions / Amicus Curiae |
|
Ra 2018/18/0533
The applicant is an Afghan national and member of the ethnic group of Hazaras who was born and raised in Iran. He lodged an application for international protection in Austria in July 2015 which was rejected in first instance in September 2017.The Federal Administrative Court dismissed his appeal on 03/09/2018, arguing that even though the applicant cannot return to Sar-e Pol (where his family was originally from), there was an IFA available in Kabul or Mazar-e Sharif. It elaborated that the applicant had already gathered professional experience, had grown up in an Afghan family and was native speaker of one of the official languages and concluded that the applicant was familiar with the cultural circumstances in Afghanistan. The Austrian Supreme Administrative Court annulled this decision. It stated that the Federal Administrative Court's conclusion that the applicant was familiar with the cultural circumstances in Afghanistan was not evidence-based and emphasized that that the applicant had explicitly contested this. Furthermore the Supreme Administrative Court criticized that the Federal Administrative Court did not take into account and analyse the UNHCR-Afghanistan guidelines. A respective obligation derives from the respective Austrian case law as well as from European Union Law. The Court emphasized that according to UNHCR there was in general no IFA available in Kabul and that the availability of an IFA in other cities was questionable and needed to be assessed in a thorough manner on a case-to-case basis. 13 December 2018 | Judicial Body: Austria: Supreme Administrative Court (Verwaltungsgerichtshof) | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Internal flight alternative (IFA) / Internal relocation alternative (IRA) / Internal protection alternative (IPA) | Countries: Afghanistan - Austria - Iran, Islamic Republic of |
|
Applicant v. State Secretary for Security and Justice
12 November 2018 | Judicial Body: Netherlands, The: The Hague District Court | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Internal flight alternative (IFA) / Internal relocation alternative (IRA) / Internal protection alternative (IPA) - Internally displaced persons (IDPs) - Safe country of origin | Countries: Netherlands - Ukraine |
|
UNHCR Leitfaden Zur Prüfung Einer Innerstaatlichen Fluchtalternative in Afghanistan
November 2018 | Publisher: UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) | Document type: Country/Situation Specific Position Papers |
