Case summaries

This case dealt with the issue of whether the Supreme Court’s four-stage test for the determination of sexual orientation asylum claims, set out in HJ (Iran) and HT (Cameroon) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (“HJ (Iran)”), still held good, specifically the third and fourth stages which draw the distinction between those who would conceal their sexual orientation and whether the material reason for that is fear of persecution or for other reasons.
 

Where an asylum application is made by an unaccompanied child, the tribunal must take into consideration the best interests of the child in its examination (for example, education). The decision includes a presumption of minority that the tribunal must rebut in order to allow for the transfer of the applicant. 

Article 17 forms an integral part of the Dublin Regulation and should be applied in a manner which furthers the aims and objectives of the Regulation in general. Article 17 is a justiciable right and should be particularly relied upon in circumstances where one of the overarching values of the Dublin Regulation, namely expedition, is not being fulfilled in the procedures of the host Member State. Article 17 is not subject to a prior assessment of non-satisfaction of Article 8 (family reunification) of that same Regulation.

Applicants who engaged with Dublin authorities should be subjected to less onerous standards when assessing the success of an Article 8 ECHR claim.

The UK Upper Tribunal held that there had been a failure of the Secretary of State to lawfully exercise the discretion conferred by Article 17 of the Dublin Regulation and ordered the Secretary of State to admit the applicant to the UK, based on: (1) the deficiencies of the Italian asylum system in the present case, namely the lack of sufficient expedition to register the asylum application and initiate Dublin proceedings; (2) the deficiencies and delay in the guardianship system in Italy; (3) the expected lengthy procedures for a “take charge” request and subsequent Dublin transfer; (4) the need to take into account the best interests of children.

It was unlawful to detain an unaccompanied asylum seeking child, even in the reasonable belief that he was an adult.

Switzerland is not the responsible Member State pursuant to Articles 6 and 8 of the Dublin III Regulation, since the unaccompanied minor lives in a foster family in the Netherlands and the Dutch authorities should take into consideration the factors of Article 6 (3) Dublin III Regulation, including the views of the minor. According to the court, Nidos (the guardianship institution for unaccompanied minors in the Netherlands) is an expert institution and its advice should be followed in assessing the best interest of the child.

Decision about the (provisional) taking care of an unaccompanied refugee minor and clarification of the steps to verify the age.

Sweden is the responsible Member State pursuant to Articles 6 and 8 of the Dublin III Regulation, as the applicant is an unaccompanied minor and his father is legally residing in Sweden. According to the court, Nidos (the guardianship institution for unaccompanied minors in the Netherlands) is an expert institution and its advice should be followed in assessing the best interest of the child.

AA claims he was unlawfully detained from 17 February 2015 to 27 February 2015 because he was detained as an unaccompanied child in a way contrary to paragraph 18B Schedule 2 of the Immigration Act 1971.

The decision turned on whether the word “child” in the Immigration Act 1971 was to be interpreted objectively (i.e. is the individual, in physical fact, under 18) or whether the detention’s legality involved the reasonable belief of the immigration officer that the individual is under 18.

The procedural dimension of Article 8 ECHR as well as the investigative and evidence gathering obligations on Member States within the Dublin III Regulation require the Secretary of State to proactively and expeditiously undertake steps to verify familial links. Passiveness in this regard will lead to an unlawful decision making procedure.  

The three cumulative prerequisites for an internal protection alternative are not fulfilled, as it cannot be reasonably expected of the refugee to settle in the proposed part of the country. The UNHCR’s reasonability test is comparable with the national legislation’s one and UNHCR defines the internal protection alternative as ‘unreasonable’.