Case summaries
The administrative detention of an Afghan national was imposed on the basis of a procedural error due to the lack of relevant documentation and unjustified information by the French authorities (Prefect and Prosecutor).
The applicant claims that the original Court neither made a detailed analysis of the applicant's political action – that gave rise to the persecution and, consequently, the asylum application – nor of the subsidiary protection application.
The recursive claim was declared unfounded by the Central Court, which found that there was no evidence of persecution or systematic human rights violations in the country of origin.
The benefit of the doubt benefits the minor.
Effective access to justice relies on an individual having a voice in the proceedings concerning him or her. Solely focusing on the credibility of the appellant’s account and not having regard to objective evidence testifying to the appellant’s vulnerability or the risk to the appellant of return to Afghanistan has led to the proceedings being neither fair nor just. A material error of law has therefore been committed.
The Tribunal reasserted the decision maker’s duty of confidentiality in considering documents produced in support of a protection claim. Where there is a needed to make an inquiry in the country of origin then written consent must be given by the applicant. Moreover, Article 22 of the Asylum Procedures Directive prohibits direct contact with the alleged actor of persecution. Additionally, the Refugee Convention requires that the authentication of a document is undertaken with a precautionary approach, namely whether an inquiry is necessary or should be framed in a specific manner and whether there is a safer alternative. Ultimately, disclosure of personal information should go no further than is strictly necessary.
The Tribunal found that the respondent was unlikely to have breached confidentiality in her inquiries into the authenticity of the documents produced; and that if she had, the remedy would not be the grant of refugee status; and that the appellant had not established that he had a credible case for asylum on the basis of the documents submitted. Nonetheless the Tribunal highlighted that a failure to comply with the duty of confidentiality might be relevant to the overall assessment of risk on return.
In case of reasonable doubt, the statement of the applicant for asylum about his or her date of birth has to be viewed as a credible statement.
The applicant, an ethnic Al-Bagal and Sunni Muslim from Moraya, Nyala, Darfur, Sudan feared imprisonment or execution by the Sudanese authorities. According to the applicant’s account he had been imprisoned for alleged political activities for a total of 18 months during which he was tortured. Subsequently, he was regularly harassed by the Intelligence Service.
The Danish Immigration Service rejected the asylum application in July 2016.
On 29 November 2016, the Refugee Appeals Board upheld the decision of the Danish Immigration Service. The majority of the Board did not find to a sufficient degree that a torture examination would be of essential importance for deciding the case.
The Refugee Appeals Board resumed the case based on a forensic report presented by the applicant. The Board now referring to the forensic report accepted that the applicant had been exposed to torture. The Board thus found that the applicant, to a sufficient degree, had rendered probable that he, if returning to Sudan, was at risk of persecution and granted the applicant refugee status according to the Danish Aliens Act Art. 7 (1).
An application seeking leave for judicial review to quash the decision of the Refugee Appeals Tribunal on the basis of the Tribunal failing to take into account relevant information and a misapplication of Regulation 5(2) of S.I. 518 of 2006.
The applicant appealed against a deportation order on account of the high risk that he faced of being subject to treatment contrary to Article 3 ECHR in the case of return to Russia.
The Supreme Court considered the appellant’s appeal against the decision by the defendant Secretary of State, by which his application for a Tier 4 student visa had been rejected, on the ground that the applicant had only provided bank statements covering 22 out of the required 28 days. The court held that the refusal of the appellant’s application was unlawful because according to the process instruction the UK Border Agency should not have rejected his application without previously giving the appellant the opportunity to repair the deficit in his evidence.