Last Updated: Tuesday, 23 May 2023, 12:44 GMT

Protection

Filter:
Showing 81-90 of 5,360 results
Dead Ends: No Path To Protection for Asylum Seekers Under the Guatemala Asylum Cooperative Agreement

10 June 2020 | Publisher: Americas - Miscellaneous | Document type: Country/Situation Specific Position Papers

Submission by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in the case of 2019Nu61740 before the Seoul High Court

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

UNHCR Observations on the New Version of the Draft Law on Granting Protection to Foreigners and Stateless Persons (Ukraine)

May 2020 | Publisher: UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) | Document type: Comments on National Legislation

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 | Document type: Case Law | 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

Esther Segai Gersagher et al. v. the Knesset et al.

The Court is requested to order the voidness of section 4 of the Prevention of Infiltration and Ensuring the Departure of Infiltrators from Israel 5775-2014 (Legislative Amendments and Temporary Provisions) 5775-2014 (hereinafter: the "Amending Law") that obliges foreign workers who entered Israel not through a border crossing (hereinafter: "Infiltrator Workers") and their employers to deposit in a special bank account a total amount at a rate of 36% of the worker's wages that will be paid to the worker only at the time of his departure from Israel (hereinafter: the "Deposit Scheme"). In short, the Petitioners argue that the Deposit Scheme, in general, or in the least some of its components, is unconstitutional and therefore should be voided.

23 April 2020 | Judicial Body: Israel: High Court of Justice | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Administrative law - Asylum-seekers - Constitutional law - Illegal entry - Non-refoulement | Countries: Eritrea - Israel - Sudan

Key Legal Considerations on access to territory for persons in need of international protection in the context of the COVID-19 response

16 March 2020 | Publisher: UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) | Document type: Policy/Position Papers

Georgia: UNHCR Submission for the Universal Periodic Review - Georgia - UPR 37th Session (2021)

March 2020 | Publisher: UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) | Document type: Country Reports

Saint Kitts and Nevis: UNHCR Submission for the Universal Periodic Review - Saint Kitts and Nevis - UPR 37th Session (2021)

March 2020 | Publisher: UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) | Document type: Country Reports

East Bay Sanctuary Covenant v. Trump

The panel affirmed the district court’s grant of a temporary restraining order and a subsequent grant of a preliminary injunction enjoining enforcement of a rule and presidential proclamation that, together, strip asylum eligibility from every migrant who crosses into the United States along the southern border of Mexico between designated ports of entry.

28 February 2020 | Judicial Body: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Entry / Exit - Illegal entry - Non-refoulement - Rejection at border - Right to seek asylum | Countries: United States of America

Q.A. v. Sweden

20 February 2020 | Judicial Body: UN Human Rights Committee (HRC) | Document type: Case Law | Legal Instrument: 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) | Topic(s): Atheist / Agnostic - Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment - Non-refoulement - Religious persecution (including forced conversion) - Right to life | Countries: Afghanistan - Sweden

Search Refworld