International law / EU Qualification Directive

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) | Document type: Case Law | 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

This decision replaces all existing country guidance on Iraq.

22 April 2022 | Judicial Body: United Kingdom: Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) | Document type: Case Law | 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

(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) | Document type: Case Law | 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

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

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) | Document type: Case Law | 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

21 June 2013 | Judicial Body: United Kingdom: Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) | Document type: Case Law | Countries: Myanmar - United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

April 2013 | Publisher: Refugee Studies Centre | Document type: Thematic Reports

18 May 2012 | Judicial Body: United Kingdom: Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) | Document type: Case Law | 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

December 2011 | Publisher: Consonant (formerly Asylum Aid) | Document type: Country Reports

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) | Document type: Case Law | 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