Burden / standard of proof

21 September 2020 | Publisher: UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) | Document type: Court Interventions / Amicus Curiae

no violation of article 2 or 3 ECHR

16 June 2020 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Document type: Case Law | Legal Instrument: 1950 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Topic(s): Credibility assessment - Evidence (including age and language assessments / medico-legal reports) - Rejected asylum-seekers | Countries: Iran, Islamic Republic of - Switzerland

In the light of the judgment of Flaux LJ in Secretary of State for the Home Department v MS (Pakistan) [2018] EWCA Civ 594 and subsequent decisions of the Upper Tribunal and Administrative Court, a tribunal deciding a protection or human rights appeal, which concerns alleged trafficking within the scope of the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings and decisions of the Competent Authority (CA) under the United Kingdom’s National Referral Mechanism, should proceed as follows: (a) In a protection appeal, the “reasonable grounds” or “conclusive grounds” decision of the CA will be part of the evidence that the tribunal will have to assess in reaching its decision on that appeal, giving the CA’s decision such weight as is due, bearing in mind that the standard of proof applied by the CA in a “conclusive grounds” decision was the balance of probabilities. (b) In a human rights appeal, a finding by the tribunal that the CA has failed to reach a rational decision on whether the appellant has been the victim of trafficking, such as to be eligible for leave to remain in the United Kingdom for that reason alone, may lead the tribunal to allow the human rights appeal, on the basis that removing the appellant at this stage would be a disproportionate interference with the appellant’s Article 8 ECHR rights. This scenario is, however, of narrow ambit and is unlikely to be much encountered in practice. (c) In a human rights appeal, the question whether the appellant has been the victim of trafficking may be relevant to the issue of whether the appellant’s removal would breach the ECHR, even where it is not asserted there is a trafficking-related risk of harm in the country of proposed return and irrespective of what is said in sub-paragraph (b) above: e.g. where the fact of trafficking may have caused the appellant physical or psychological harm. Here, as in sub-paragraph (a) above, the CA’s decision on past trafficking will be part of the evidence to be assessed by the tribunal.

13 November 2019 | Judicial Body: United Kingdom: Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Standard of proof - Trafficking in persons | Countries: Albania - United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

11 October 2019 | Judicial Body: New Zealand: Immigration and Protection Tribunal | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Credibility assessment - Mental health - Well-founded fear of persecution | Countries: Hong Kong (Special Administrative Region of China) - New Zealand

30 September 2019 | Publisher: UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) | Document type: Comments on National Legislation

The situation in Sudan remains volatile after civil protests started in late 2018 and the future is unpredictable. There is insufficient evidence currently available to show that the guidance given in AA (non-Arab Darfuris - relocation) Sudan CG [2009] UKAIT 00056 and MM (Darfuris) Sudan CG [2015] UKUT 00010 (IAC) requires revision. Those cases should still be followed.

29 July 2019 | Judicial Body: United Kingdom: Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Country of origin information (COI) - Darfuri | Countries: Sudan - United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

11 July 2019 | Publisher: National Legislative Bodies / National Authorities | Document type: National Legislation

The determination of the First-tier Tribunal to dismiss the claimant’s appeal against the refusal of her asylum claim was reached by a process which was procedurally unfair as it did not give her sufficient opportunity to obtain evidence from Uganda to support her claim. The determination will be quashed and the defendant will be ordered to use his best endeavours to facilitate the return of the claimant to the United Kingdom to enable her to continue with her appeal. The claimant was lawfully detained from 21 July 2013 to 6 August 2013 and from 10 September 2013 until her removal to Uganda on 12 December 2013. The claimant was unlawfully detained from (and including) 6 August 2013 up to 10 September 2013.

24 June 2019 | Judicial Body: United Kingdom: High Court (England and Wales) | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Arbitrary arrest and detention - Evidence (including age and language assessments / medico-legal reports) - Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI) - Rule of law / Due process / Procedural fairness | Countries: Uganda - United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

21 June 2019 | Publisher: UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) | Document type: Query Responses