Case summaries

As a result of six convictions owing to trivial offences against property, subsidiary protection was withdrawn from the Applicant, as he would represent a danger to the general public. The Constitutional Court revoked this decision as unconstitutional: the Asylum Court had not interpreted the corresponding national stipulation in accordance with the Directives as the crimes committed were not of the seriousness required in Art 17 Qualification Directive.

The applicant sought to have the decision of the Refugee Appeals Tribunal (RAT) to refuse to recommend refugee status set aside, on the basis that the RAT had implicitly found him to be entitled to refugee status, but had then proceeded to find that he was excluded from same due to his activities in Afghanistan, without however carrying out an assessment of his individual responsibility, having regard to the standard of proof required by Article 12(2) of Council Directive 2004/83/EC, as transposed into Irish law by the European Communities (Eligibility for Protection) Regulations 2006.

A former officer in Saddam Hussein’s Security Services was excluded from protection due to possible crimes against humanity. He was however granted a temporary residence permit as the decision could not be executed without violating the principle of non-refoulement.

Article 1F(b) of the 1951 Refugee Convention is applicable even if the sentence (for a serious non-political crime) has been served. The Court has to inquire whether the reception of the applicant in France represents a danger or a risk to the population.

The case concerned an appeal against a decision of the Ministry of Interior (MOI) to refuse a claim for subsidiary protection status on the grounds that the applicant was excluded as a result of his activities, which were considered ‘contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.’ The appeal was successful, the Supreme Administrative Court (SAC) held that exclusion clauses must be interpreted restrictively, that there must be ‘serious grounds to believe’ such acts were carried out and notwithstanding the exclusion clause, non refoulement obligations under Art 3 of the ECHR apply.

The Migration Court of Appeal held that internal armed conflict prevails in all parts of southern and mid Somalia.

This Case concluded that membership of a terrorist organisation is not in itself a sufficient ground for exclusion from refugee status. 

The applicant in this case claimed to fear persecution in Nigeria on account of his sexuality. A decision to affirm a deportation order against him was quashed on the basis that insufficient assessment was given to whether the applicant’s human rights would be infringed by the behaviour required of him in order to avoid persecution. The thrust of the refugee and subsidiary protection decisions in the case, and of the deportation decision, was that the applicant could hide his homosexuality and not therefore expose himself to persecution, prosecution or serious harm.  

The Tribunal considered whether a woman who had been involved in invasions of white-owned farms at the behest of the ruling party in Zimbabwe was excluded under Article 1F(a) of the 1951 Refugee Convention. The Tribunal held, first of all, that Article 7(1) of the Statute of the International Criminal Court is usually regarded as providing the best working definition of a crime against humanity for the purposes of Article 1F(a) of the 1951 Refugee Convention. Secondly, it held that where the act or crime does not involve the specifically listed forms of acts or crimes, in order to consider that a crime against humanity had occurred, the Tribunal must consider if the acts participated in by the appellant were of a “similar character” to those specified in Article 7(1)(a) to (j) of the Statute. In so doing, the Tribunal must consider the specific purpose of the crime, its intent and effect, the participation of an appellant in the crime and if needs be whether the appellant made a substantial contribution to the crime.

The facilitated standard of proof under Art. 4.4 of the Qualification Directive may be applied to the examination of subsidiary protection. Under German law, subsidiary protection is not excluded on the ground that the applicant is a “danger to the community”.