Case summaries
The appellant mother (M) appealed against a Court of Appeal decision upholding a finding by an Asylum and Immigration Tribunal that her two children (aged 12 and 9), who were British citizens, could reasonably be expected to follow her when she was removed to Tanzania.
The Migration Board accepted the applicant and her children were in need of international protection as refugees in relation to Senegal but claimed that they could obtain protection in Nigeria (considered a safe third country). The Migration Court upheld the applicant’s appeal stating that once a case has been examined in substance in relation to a country of origin and protection needs ascertained it is not possible subsequently to refuse protection by referring to a safe third country. Cases concerning safe third countries must be dismissed in accordance with Art 25.2(c) of the Asylum Procedures Directive which is transposed into Swedish law by the Aliens Act (2005:716) Chapter 5 Section 1 (b).
This decision concerns an appeal lodged before the Supreme Court against the decision of the High National Court, confirming the Ministry of Interior’s decision to revoke the refugee status of the appellant and her children. This revocation was issued following the voluntary return of the applicant’s husband to Colombia, his country of origin.
This appeal challenged a negative decision of the Ministry of Interior to refuse family refugee status extension to the applicants whose son was granted refugee status in 2006.
After the applicant absconded the time frame for a deportation was extended by 18 months and, therefore, Poland’s original acceptance was still valid at the time of the second application. Art 7 Dublin II Regulation is not applicable because the applicant’s family life was established after his first application for asylum. There is no violation of Art 8 ECHR because the applicant’s family life was formed at a moment when the applicant did not know whether he would be able to maintain it.
The right to family life can outweigh the ‘state responsibility’ criteria in the Dublin II Regulation. The Court held that the application for asylum should be processed in Sweden, in order to secure the right to family and private life (Art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights), despite the fact that another State was responsible under the Dublin II Regulation.
The applicant and her husband were both Ethiopian nationals who had their asylum applications in Switzerland definitively rejected, but were unable to return. The Swiss authorities refused the applicant’s requests to be transferred to her husband’s canton, leading to approximately 5 years separation.
The Court found a violation of their Article 8 right to respect for family life, as the measure had not been necessary in a democratic society.
The applicant and her husband were both Ethiopian nationals who had their asylum applications in Switzerland definitively rejected, but were unable to return. The Swiss authorities refused the applicant’s requests to be transferred to her husband’s canton, leading to approximately 5 years separation.
The Court found a violation of their Article 8 right to respect for family life, as the measure had not been necessary in a democratic society.
In this case, the Austrian Asylum Court held the decision of the Federal Asylum Office not to grant refugee status to the applicant’s child was a violation of Austrian asylum law since the child’s father had been granted refugee status. The Court also held a separation of the newborn child from its mother violates Art 8 ECHR and, therefore, the applicant’s asylum application has to be admitted to the procedure on the merits.