UNHCR is not responsible for the content and availability of non-UNHCR websites. Content displays in a new window.
EMAP (Gang violence – Convention Reason) El Salvador CG v. Secretary of State for the Home Department [2022] UKUT 00335 (IAC)
The main determination in this case is whether harm amounts to persecution for one of the five reasons set out in the Refugee Convention. The Court considered country background of El-Salvador to assess and determine if the appellant has a well-founded fear/risk of persecution for reasons relating to membership of a particular social group and different political opinion. 15 December 2022 | Judicial Body: United Kingdom: Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) | Legal Instrument: 1951 Refugee Convention | Topic(s): Acts of persecution - Asylum-seekers - EU Qualification Directive - Gang related violence | Countries: El Salvador - United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland |
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 |
Ainte (material deprivation – Art 3 – AM (Zimbabwe)) [2021] UKUT 0203 (IAC)
(i)Said [2016] EWCA Civ 442 is not to be read to exclude the possibility that Article 3 ECHR could be engaged by conditions of extreme material deprivation. Factors to be considered include the location where the harm arises, and whether it results from deliberate action or omission. (ii) In cases where the material deprivation is not intentionally caused the threshold is the modified N test set out in AM (Zimbabwe) [2020] UKSC 17. The question will be whether conditions are such that there is a real risk that the individual concerned will be exposed to intense suffering or a significant reduction in life expectancy. (iii) The Qualification Directive continues to have direct effect following the UK withdrawal from the EU. 22 July 2021 | Judicial Body: United Kingdom: Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) | Legal Instrument: 1950 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Topic(s): EU Qualification Directive - Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment - Livelihoods | Countries: Somalia - United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland |
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 | 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 |
FA (Libya: art 15(c)) Libya CG
This decision replaces AT and Others Libya CG [2014] UKUT 318 (IAC) in respect of assessment of the art 15(c) risk. 20 September 2016 | Judicial Body: United Kingdom: Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) | Topic(s): Complementary forms of protection - Conflict situation - EU Qualification Directive - Evidence (including age and language assessments / medico-legal reports) | Countries: Libya - United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland |
TS (Political opponents – risk) Burma CGCG v. Secretary of State for the Home Department
21 June 2013 | Judicial Body: United Kingdom: Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) | Countries: Myanmar - United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland |
AK (Article 15(c)) Afghanistan v. Secretary of State for the Home Department
18 May 2012 | Judicial Body: United Kingdom: Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) | Topic(s): Country of origin information (COI) - EU Qualification Directive - IDP camps - Internal armed conflict - Internal flight alternative (IFA) / Internal relocation alternative (IRA) / Internal protection alternative (IPA) - Internally displaced persons (IDPs) | Countries: Afghanistan - United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland |
AMM and others (conflict; humanitarian crisis; returnees; FGM) Somalia v. Secretary of State for the Home Department
Heard at Field House on 13 to 21 June and 15 July 2011. 25 November 2011 | Judicial Body: United Kingdom: Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) | Topic(s): Complementary forms of protection - EU Qualification Directive - Female genital mutilation (FGM) - Internal flight alternative (IFA) / Internal relocation alternative (IRA) / Internal protection alternative (IPA) | Countries: Somalia - United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland |
Sufi and Elmi v. United Kingdom
28 June 2011 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Topic(s): Complementary forms of protection - Country of origin information (COI) - Deportation / Forcible return - EU Qualification Directive - Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment - Internal armed conflict - Internal flight alternative (IFA) / Internal relocation alternative (IRA) / Internal protection alternative (IPA) - International protection - Rejected asylum-seekers - Returnees - Security situation | Countries: Somalia - United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland |
FA (Iraq) (FC) (Respondent) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department (Appellant)
On appeal from the Court of Appeal (England and Wales: [2010] EWCA Civ 696. 25 May 2011 | Judicial Body: United Kingdom: Supreme Court | Topic(s): Appeal / Right to appeal - Complementary forms of protection - Credibility assessment - EU Qualification Directive - Unaccompanied / Separated children | Countries: Iraq - United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland |