Last Updated: Wednesday, 17 May 2023, 15:20 GMT
Refworld Home
Latest Refworld Updates for United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland RSS feed

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland - flag United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

UNHCR is not responsible for the content and availability of non-UNHCR websites. Content displays in a new window.

Filter:
Showing 51-60 of 4,874 results
WA (PAKISTAN) v. THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT

the appropriate guidance for a decision-maker can be summarised as follows: i) Is the Claimant genuinely an Ahmadi? In answering that question the guidance set out in paragraph 5 of the headnote in MN is well expressed. ii) The next step involves an inquiry into the Claimant’s behaviour if he or she is returned to Pakistan. Will he or she actually behave in such a way as to attract persecution? In answering that question, the decision-maker will again consider all the evidence and will, where appropriate, expressly consider whether the behaviour claimed by the asylum-seeker is genuinely an expression of their religious belief and is an authentic account of the way they will behave if returned. iii) If the decision-maker’s conclusion is that the Claimant, if returned to Pakistan, will avoid behaviour which would attract persecution, then the decision-maker must ask the question why that would be so. Many possibilities arise. The individual may genuinely wish to live quietly, and would do so whether or not repression existed in relation to the expression of his or her Ahmadi faith. The individual may have mixed motives for such behaviour. If such a quiet expression or manifestation of genuine Ahmadi belief is merely the result of established cultural norms or social pressures, then it is unlikely there will be a basis for asylum. However, if a material reason (and not necessarily the only reason) for such behaviour will be to avoid persecution, then it is likely that the Claimant will have a valid claim for asylum. There is no requirement that public expression of Ahmadi religious faith, of a kind which is likely to attract persecution, should be of “particular importance” to the Claimant. Such a requirement is inconsistent with the test as laid down in HJ (Iran). To that extent, the guidance given in the body of MN (Ahmadis) Pakistan CG and in the headnote is misleading and should not be followed.

6 March 2019 | Judicial Body: United Kingdom: Court of Appeal (England and Wales) | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Ahmadis - Religious persecution (including forced conversion) | Countries: Pakistan - United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

KV (Sri Lanka) (Appellant) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Respondent)

6 March 2019 | Judicial Body: United Kingdom: Supreme Court | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Evidence (including age and language assessments / medico-legal reports) - Torture | Countries: Sri Lanka - United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

R (Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants) (Claimant) - and - Secretary of State for the Home Department (Defendant) - and – (1) Residential Landlords Association (2) Equality and Human Rights Commission (3) Liberty (Intervenors)

i) an Order pursuant to s.4 Human Rights Act 1998 declaring that sections 20-37 of the Immigration Act 2014 are incompatible with Article 14 ECHR in conjunction with Article 8 ECHR; and 56 ii) An Order declaring that a decision by the Defendant to commence the Scheme represented by sections 20-37 of the Immigration Act 2014 in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland without further evaluation of its efficacy and discriminatory impact would be irrational and would constitute a breach of s. 149 Equality Act 2010.

1 March 2019 | Judicial Body: United Kingdom: High Court (England and Wales) | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Discrimination based on race, nationality, ethnicity - Housing, land and property rights (HLP) - Illegal immigrants / Undocumented migrants - Right to family life | Countries: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

Campaign Update, January - March 2019

March 2019 | Publisher: UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) | Document type: Country News

Khan c. France (application no. 12267/16)

violation of article 3 (prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment).

28 February 2019 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment - Refugee camps - Unaccompanied / Separated children | Countries: Afghanistan - France - United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

OPINION OF ADVOCATE GENERAL CAMPOS SÁNCHEZ-BORDONA delivered on 26 February 2019(1) Case C‑129/18 SM v Entry Clearance Officer, UK Visa Section

I suggest that the Court of Justice should reply to the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom in the following terms: (1) Article 2(2)(c) of Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC is to be interpreted as meaning that a child cannot be classed as a ‘direct descendant’ of a Union citizen where the child is only in the legal guardianship of that Union citizen under the institution of recueil legal (kafala) that applies in the Republic of Algeria. That child may, however, fall within the category of ‘other family members’ if the other requirements are satisfied and following completion of the procedure laid down in Article 3(2) of Directive 2004/38, in which case the host Member State must facilitate his or her entry and residence in that Member State in accordance with national legislation, having weighed the protection of family life and the defence of the child’s best interests. (2) Articles 27 and 35 of Directive 2004/38 can be applied in any of the situations referred to in that directive where grounds of public policy, public security or public health apply, and in the event of abuse of rights or fraud. (3) In applying Article 3(2) of Directive 2004/38, the authorities of the host Member State may enquire into whether sufficient regard was had, in the procedure for awarding guardianship or custody, to the best interests of the child.

26 February 2019 | Judicial Body: European Union: Court of Justice of the European Union | Document type: Case Law | Legal Instrument: 1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) | Topic(s): Adoption - Family reunification | Countries: Algeria - United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

Progress Report 2018: A Global Strategy to Support Governments to End the Detention of Asylum-Seekers & Refugees, 2014 - 2019

February 2019 | Publisher: UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) | Document type: Thematic Reports

Options Paper 1: Options for governments on care arrangements and alternatives to detention for children and families (first published 2015, revised version 2019)

2019 | Publisher: UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) | Document type: Thematic Reports

HB (Kurds) Iran CG [2018] UKUT 00430 (IAC)

“whether a failed asylum seeker of Kurdish ethnicity will be at risk of persecution on return”

14 December 2018 | Judicial Body: United Kingdom: Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Country of origin information (COI) - Kurd - Returnees | Countries: Iran, Islamic Republic of - United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

Submission by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in the case of WA (Pakistan) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department before the Court of Appeal (Civil Division)

14 December 2018 | Publisher: UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) | Document type: Court Interventions / Amicus Curiae

Search Refworld

Advanced Search | Search Tips
UNHCR logo