Case summaries

The High Administrative Court wrongly found that returnees without a family network generally could not return to Kabul as an internal protection alternative. The High Administrative Court was obliged to examine whether the applicant was the owner of property which might enable him to safeguard his means of existence upon return.

Bidoons in Kuwait are not issued with ID documents and are denied work, school and medical care. Despite the quality of the documents the applicant submitted he was considered to have established his affiliation as an unregistered Bidoon. The Court found that he had a well-founded fear of being subjected to further persecution as an unregistered Bidoon and that he qualified for refugee status. He was granted permanent residence as a refugee.

The case involves consideration by the Supreme Court of Ireland of whether or not the Minister for Justice has a discretion to consider an application for subsidiary protection from a person who has a deportation order made prior to the 20.10.2006, the date on which the law transposing the Qualification Directive came in to effect in Ireland. The Court overturned a decision of the High Court and stated that the Minister for Justice does not have discretion to consider an application for subsidiary protection from a person with a deportation order prior to the 20.10.2006.

The court confirmed in this case that the assessment framework of Art 4:6 of the General Administrative Law Act, in relation to subsequent asylum applications, is in conformity with the Asylum Procedures Directive.

This case concerned the asserted right of an applicant to cross-examine the representative of the State who was presenting the State’s case on appeal to the Tribunal.

The time limit of 21 days to lodge a complete asylum application to the Ofpra [in the framework of the regular procedure] is sufficient.

Partial quashing of the list of safe countries of origin: Armenia, Madagascar, Turkey and Mali (women only) removed from the list

Political persecution can also exist when legally adopted criminal sanctions are imposed following standard legal proceedings against someone who has simply expressed political opinions. On the other hand, repressive measures with criminal sanctions against incitement to violence cannot be considered to be persecution.

The applicant claimed asylum in 2006 (along with her children) alleging a well founded fear of persecution on the grounds of political opinion. The application was refused in the initial procedure and on appeal.  She returned to Colombia and two years later, returned to Spain and reapplied for asylum and was again refused. She lodged an appeal before the Supreme Court and was granted subsidiary protection.