Asylum-migration nexus / Trafficking in persons

6 August 2020 | Publisher: National Legislative Bodies / National Authorities | Document type: National Legislation

6 August 2020 | Publisher: National Legislative Bodies / National Authorities | Document type: National Legislation

19 June 2020 | Publisher: Council of Europe: Group of Experts on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings | Document type: Thematic Guidelines

June 2020 | Publisher: UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) | Document type: Thematic Guidelines

March 2020 | Publisher: Global Protection Cluster (GPC) | Document type: Thematic Guidelines

18 February 2020 | Judicial Body: Ireland: High Court | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Gender-based persecution - International protection - Trafficking in persons | Countries: Ireland - Nigeria

The Tribunal is not satisfied that there are serious reasons for considering that the appellant “has committed a serious non-political crime outside [New Zealand] prior to his admission to [New Zealand] as a refugee” because any crime he committed was of a political kind. [125] Accordingly, the appellant is not excluded from the protection of the Refugee Convention under Article 1F(b) of that Convention.

18 November 2019 | Judicial Body: New Zealand: Immigration and Protection Tribunal | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Exclusion clauses - Serious non-political crime - Trafficking in persons | Countries: China - Korea, Democratic People's Republic of - Korea, Republic of - New Zealand

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

May 2019 | Publisher: UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) | Document type: Commentaries

May 2019 | Publisher: UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) | Document type: Commentaries