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

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

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

21 June 2021 | Publisher: UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) | Document type: Court Interventions / Amicus Curiae

15 June 2021 | Judicial Body: France: Cour nationale du droit d'asile | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Internal flight alternative (IFA) / Internal relocation alternative (IRA) / Internal protection alternative (IPA) | Countries: France - Mali

On those grounds, the Court (Third Chamber) hereby rules: 1. Article 40(2) of Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection, read in conjunction with Article 4(2) of Directive 2011/95/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on standards for the qualification of third-country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection, for a uniform status for refugees or for persons eligible for subsidiary protection, and for the content of the protection granted, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation under which any document submitted by an applicant for international protection in support of a subsequent application is automatically considered not to constitute a ‘new element or finding’, within the meaning of that provision, when the authenticity of that document cannot be established or its source objectively verified. 2. Article 40 of Directive 2013/32, read in conjunction with Article 4(1) and (2) of Directive 2011/95, must be interpreted as meaning, first, that the assessment of the evidence submitted in support of an application for international protection cannot vary according to whether the application is a first application or a subsequent application and, second, that a Member State is required to cooperate with an applicant for the purpose of assessing the relevant elements of his or her subsequent application, when that applicant submits, in support of that application, documents the authenticity of which cannot be established.

10 June 2021 | Judicial Body: European Union: Court of Justice of the European Union | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Credibility assessment - Refugee status determination (RSD) / Asylum procedures | Countries: Afghanistan - Netherlands

4 June 2021 | Judicial Body: Netherlands, The: The Hague District Court | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Article 1D - Palestinian - UNRWA | Countries: Lebanon - Netherlands - Palestine, State of

June 2021 | Publisher: UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) | Document type: Research, Background and Discussion Papers

For UNHCR’s intervention at the district court level, see the Brief of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees as Amicus Curaie in Support of Plaintiff’s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment in case Grace, et. al., Plaintiffs, v. Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III, in his Official Capacity as Attorney General of the United States, et. al., Defendants. For UNHCR’s intervention in this case, see Brief of Amicus Curiae United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in Support of Plaintiffs-Appellees in case Grace, et. al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. William P. Barr, Attorney General, et. al., Defendants-Appellants. From the Court: "Twelve asylum seekers challenge a host of executive-branch policies adopted to implement the expedited-removal provisions of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA), [...]. Broadly speaking, the challenged policies concern how asylum officers determine whether an alien has demonstrated a “credible fear” of persecution, a threshold showing that permits an alien who would otherwise be immediately deported to seek asylum in the United States. The asylum seekers principally argue that the policies raise the bar for demonstrating a credible fear of persecution far above what Congress intended and that the Attorney General and various agencies violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), [...] by failing to adequately address important factors bearing on the policies’ adoption. Largely on these grounds, the district court found the policies inconsistent with IIRIRA, the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), [...] seq., and the APA, and enjoined their enforcement. For the reasons set forth in this opinion, we affirm in part and reverse in part."

20 May 2021 | Judicial Body: United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Agents of persecution - Burden of proof - State protection | Countries: United States of America

12 May 2021 | Judicial Body: Netherlands, The: Council of State (Raad van State) | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Religious persecution (including forced conversion) | Countries: Iran, Islamic Republic of - Netherlands

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