Case summaries

When addressing asylum claims, refugee status must be recognised when there is a well-founded fear of persecution for any of the reasons foreseen in the 1951 Refugee Convention. Assessment of an asylum request fundamentally needs careful consideration of the facts and personal circumstances of the asylum seeker, as well as an analysis of the nature of the risk. The criteria of this test does not have to be restrictive, it is sufficient that the competent authority has a rational belief that the requirements are met for the purpose of receiving refugee status.

This case is concerned with whether the Secretary of State for Justice has discharged or breached his duty of care with regards to the risk of refoulement in an asylum application.

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. 

The applicant did not have the possibility to have his allegations (which also supported his subsequent application)  duly taken into consideration. His written answers to the questions asked by the administrative authorities on his subsequent application were not documented with precision. His allegations need to be examined and evaluated further.

The Austrian asylum authorities have to consider accurately and comprehensively the changes in the legal situation and the development of the actual situation of asylum seekers in Hungary when deciding on a Dublin transfer to this country.

This Case examines the refusal to grant refugee status to a Nepalese national. The Tribunal failed to provide clear, cogent reasoning for the decision. Documentation and explanations provided by the Applicant were not included in the decision. Unreasonable assumptions were made by the Tribunal including: as the Applicant’s wife, children and brother were safely residing in the country of origin, this inferred that the Applicant could do the same; since the applicant spent 6 years living safely in India, he could continue to live there safely. The High Court criticised the procedural approach by the Tribunal and the lack of coherent reasoning provided. The High Court granted leave and quashed the Tribunal’s decision.

This judicial review case quashed a Refugee Appeals Tribunal decision on the basis that the Tribunal member incorrectly made credibility findings regarding the applicant’s claim without a fully reasoned consideration of the country of origin information and a flawed reliance on inconsistencies in an Iranian Court document. 

The case focused on, among other things (consideration of documentation & country of origin information), the crucial issue of the duty of the State to provide appropriate and competent interpreters during the asylum process. Quashing the RAT (Refugee Appeals Tribunal)decision in this case, Faherty J ruled that she was not satisfied that the RAT had done its utmost, as required by law, to procure a Kurdish-Badini interpreter, and that the Court has to countenance the possibility that an error in interpretation could account for the perceived discrepancies in the applicant’s oral evidence.

The Supreme Court held that an immigrant whose passport or equivalent identity document reveals their minority cannot be subjected to additional tests in order to determine his age unless a proportionality judgment about the document’s reliability has first been carried out. The Court also held that medical techniques to determine an age cannot be applied indiscriminately.

The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) found that the procedure for examining applications for family reunification had to contain a number of elements, having regard to the applicants’ refugee status on the one hand and the best interests of the children on the other, so that their interests as guaranteed by Article 8 of the Convention from the point of view of procedural requirements were safeguarded.