Case summaries

Persecution by non-State actors according to Section 60 (1) sentence 4 (c) of the Residence Act (similar to Art 6 (c) of the Qualification Directive) is not established if the group of actors is small and only consists of a limited number of private persons. In this case, the "dangerousness" of the persecution is not comparable to those cases where the persecution stems from the State or State-like actors according to Section 60 (1) sentence 4 (a) and (b) of the Residence Act (similar to Art. 6 (a) and (b) of the Qualification Directive) .

A family or an extended group of relatives do not constitute a "social group" in the context of refugee protection. A family is not clearly perceived as a definable group with its own "group" identity. Such a clear definition of a family or clan could only be established if membership of the family was considered of high importance and the family or clan had a distinct identity.

Application for annulment of a decision by the Minister of Public Order 

The contested ministerial decision, which held that the applicant's application for recognition as a refugee should be rejected because  threats emanating from non-state actors do not constitute a well-founded fear of persecution within the meaning of the 1951 Convention, is in direct violation of Article 1A(2) of the 1951 Convention.

Having regard to the security situation which prevailed in the area of Chlef, the CRR did not consider that the Algerian authorities were, at the time, able to provide protection against the persecution inflicted by Islamic armed groups. Furthermore, given the impossibility of finding employment and the constant fear of being forcibly returned to this area, it was not reasonable to consider that Algiers constituted an internal protection alternative.

The Court of Appeal gave guidance on the relevant factors to consider in assessing claims for protection against persecution from non-state actors under the Refugee Convention and Article 3 of the ECHR.

Where the actors of persecution feared are themselves state agents consideration must still be given to whether the applicant can avail himself of protection, but this assessment must be made in context. There will be a spectrum of cases between, on the one extreme, those where the only ill-treatment is by non-state actors and, on the other extreme, those where the state itself is wholly complicit in the ill-treatment.

In cases where the applicant fears persecution from non-state actors, the home state can be judged to provide protection if it has in place a system of domestic protection machinery for the detection, prosecution and punishment of such acts, and has an ability and readiness to operate the machinery.  Where the line is drawn will depend on the facts of the case.

In assessing whether a state is a safe third country with regard to its interpretation of the 1951 Refugee Convention, it was not sufficient to assess whether the foreign state’s interpretation of the Convention was reasonable. The Secretary of State for the Home Department had to be satisfied that the foreign state applied the one true interpretation of the Convention decided upon by the UK Courts.