Case summaries
Law 12/2009 establishes a special guarantee for applications for international protection filed at the border, providing that legal assistance is mandatory at the time of formalising the request, and has to be provided even if the applicant does not ask for it or rejects it.
Moreover, communication must be in the language preferred by the applicant unless there is another language that he understands and in which he is able to communicate clearly.
The applicant challenged by way of judicial review the decision of the Refugee Appeals Tribunal (hereinafter RAT) (adverse credibility findings) on the grounds that it failed to have reasonable regard to the documents submitted. The Court held that the Tribunal failed to provide reasons rejecting a medico-legal report and further held that the Tribunal’s analysis of documentary evidence supportive of ethnicity submitted was wrong in fact. The Court quashed the decision of the Tribunal.
The decision of the German Federal Constitutional Court allowed a Dublin transfer of a woman and her infant child to Italy stating that the applicants did not sufficiently substantiate that they were at risk of living on the streets when returned to Italy.
The competent authority has to provide suitable guarantees to ensure the well-being of the infant applicant when returned to Italy.
This case concerned forced child labour in ther country of origin and sexual exploitation of the daughter of an Ethiopian father and an Eritrean mother, strained relations between the two countries, mass expulsions on the basis of ethnic origin, absence of a family network in the country of origin, total illiteracy, unequal treatment of single women, and an inability to integrate into society.
In relation to the absence of a family network, the case considered the stigma which may be suffered as a member of the particular social group of “single women in Ethiopia”.
Should she return to Ethiopia, it was considered likely that the Applicant would be totally ostracised to such an extent that she would be unable to integrate into society and enjoy her legal rights.
When the asylum claim of an applicant has not been individually assessed, the National Court of Asylum has to cancel the asylum refusal decision and the asylum claim has to be reassessed by the OFPRA.
An Ethiopian man was considered eligible for protection as a refugee due to his involvement in the government-hostile OLF guerilla group, which has been declared a terrorist organisation.
Domestic Immmigration Rules are likely to bar family reunion for children of refugees who have been informally adopted or whose legal adoption is not recognised by the UK.
The Tribunal considered an appeal which raised issues relating to when the arbitrary deprivation of nationality, including the circumstances in which the refusal by the State of nationality to provide documents to allow the applicant to be re-admitted constitutes persecution. It held that these were matters within its jurisdiction and the question of whether a national of a State has been lawfully or unlawfully deprived of that nationality was a legitimate issue to be considered in deciding upon a claim for international protection. Whether arbitrary deprivation of nationality amounts to persecution is a question of fact. The same is true of the denial of the right of return as a national; although in practice it is likely that such a denial will be found to be persecutory.
The applicant based her claim for asylum on the threats and human rights violations arising as a result of her common-law husband’s political activities and the authorities’ suspicion of the applicant’s support of the opposition party. Refugee status was refused. The Administrative Court found that the applicant had failed to establish a risk of persecution based on her imputed political opinion. The Administrative Court held, that to return the applicant to her country of origin where she has experienced serious human rights violations, in the final stages of pregnancy or with a newborn child, without any social networks to fall back on, taken into account together, would form a real threat of serious harm suffering inhuman or degrading treatment as laid out in Art 88 of the Aliens Act.
The Ethiopian applicant was a victim of sexual violence and suffered from serious post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Her claim was rejected based on credibility concerns. The court ruled that the asylum authority failed to assess the facts of the case in a proper manner by applying inappropriate interview techniques and wrongly concluded that the applicant did not substantiate her well-founded fear of persecution.