Case summaries

The Court of Appeal concluded that the Tribunal must make a best interest of the child determination in considering an asylum appeal made by an unaccompanied minor. Further, that although the Secretary of State has a duty to trace the applicant’s family under the Reception Conditions Directive, this duty exists independently of the obligation to appropriately consider an asylum claim. Therefore the Secretary of State’s failure to act on the basis of the duty is not a ground on which an asylum appeal could be allowed.  

An unaccompanied minor from Mongolia was granted a residence permit on the gounds of “particularly distressing circumstances”. The Court held that the applicant would be in a very fragile and vulnerable position if returned as she was a minor without a family or a social network, she suffered from psychological problems and would be forced to live in an orphanage. The Court noted that child labour, child abuse and the sexual exploitation of children are problems in Mongolia and that it is a source and transit country for trafficking.

Insofaras the Federal Asylum Agency did not apply an age-appropriate standard when assessing the credibility of the minor Applicant and did not comply with the particular obligation to provide instruction and the duty of care applicable in the case of a minor, the authority committed a gross procedural error.

Art 17.4 of the Asylum Procedures Directive guarantees certain rights for minor applicants. This case confirmed that these rights should be known to those involved, so that the rights can be invoked before the court. Further it was confirmed that Art 3:2 of the General Administrative Law Act does not meet this requirement.

The applicant informed the authorities in Finland that he was a minor; however, he was registered as an adult in Malta. It was decided that the applicant must clarify and correct the information given to the authorities in Malta with respect to his age. Malta was deemed responsible for examining the applicant’s asylum claim under the Dublin II regulation even though he would have been considered a minor when applying for asylum in Finland.

In a decision on whether the return of an unaccompanied minor to Hungary under the Dublin Regulation is unlawful in light of Art. 3 ECHR and therefore the sovereignty clause should be used, Art. 24(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union(CFRU – best interest of the child as a primary consideration for authorities) is significant.

In UK domestic law, if a person has made a claim for asylum but his claim has been rejected by the Secretary of State, but he has been given leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom for over a year, the person can appeal to the Tribunal on the grounds that he or she is a refugee in order to ‘upgrade’ his or her status. The Court held that the general principle of equivalence in EU Law requires that the appeal right against the rejection of the claim cannot be restricted to the grounds that the applicant is a refugee but must also allow the applicant to appeal on the grounds that he is entitled to subsidiary protection.

The Supreme Court came to the conclusion that it could not uphold the Regional Court’s decision regarding the Applicant’s credibility given the specific nature of the case, which concerned an unaccompanied foreign minor who  found himself in a completely different cultural and social environment, a factor which must be taken into account when assessing his application for asylum and his credibility.

This case concerned the treatment of evidence from unaccompanied minors. The applicant was an unaccompanied minor from Afghanistan. He claimed asylum on the basis of a fear of persecution both by the Taliban and the Afghan government. The Refugee Appeals Tribunal refused his refugee appeal on the grounds that the applicant was not credible and that his claim was not objectively well-founded. The Court found that the Tribunal Member had engaged in impermissible speculation and conjecture in relation to the applicant’s prospect of State protection in Afghanistan, that the Tribunal Member had imputed expectations to the applicant without any consideration of the applicant’s level of maturity at the time, and that the Tribunal Member had failed to consider whether the applicant’s fears in relation to the Taliban were realistic having regard to his age, maturity and the particular circumstances in Northern Afghanistan.

The Supreme Administrative Court (SAC) quashed a decision of the Finnish Immigration Service which, applying the Dublin II Regulation, did not examine the application for international protection and decided to return the applicant to Greece. The SAC returned the case to the Immigration Service for a new examination based on new evidence that was presented regarding the applicant’s health.