EDAL case summaries
The Tribunal reasserted the decision maker’s duty of confidentiality in considering documents produced in support of a protection claim. Where there is a needed to make an inquiry in the country of origin then written consent must be given by the applicant. Moreover, Article 22 of the Asylum Procedures Directive prohibits direct contact with the alleged actor of persecution. Additionally, the Refugee Convention requires that the authentication of a document is undertaken with a precautionary approach, namely whether an inquiry is necessary or should be framed in a specific manner and...
The Applicant and the Applicant’s children were applying for leave to remain in Sweden due to affiliation with their husband and father respectively who had permanent residency in Sweden. The Applicant and the Applicant’s children were all granted evidentiary relief regarding their identities. Further, one of the Applicant’s children, a 20 year old daughter, was deemed to fulfil the criteria for household community and special dependency. The Applicant and all of the Applicant’s children were granted leave to remain.
The Court found a violation of Article 3 in relation to a subsequent application for asylum, which had been rejected on the basis that it contained no new elements indicating that the Applicants ran a real risk of being subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment on deportation to Russia. Because new information had in fact been provided, the national authorities were under an obligation to thoroughly review the information in order to assure themselves that the Applicants’ rights under Article 3 would be safeguarded.
The case dealt primarily with the standard of reasoning required in credibility assessment among other issues (travel findings and best interests of the child). In quashing the RAT decision, the High Court ruled that the RAT had not met the standard of reasoning required in assessment of the credibility of oral testimony (as established in the jurisprudence of the Court and EU law), reiterating the obligation upon the decision maker to ensure that each negative credibility finding is accompanied by an adequate rationale clearly outlining the reasons for such findings.
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 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...
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...
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.
A national decision maker must pay close attention to a United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) decision when determining an application for asylum. Such a decision does not create a presumption, however, substantive countervailing reasons are required to justify the decision maker coming to a different decision to the UNHCR.
Pages
Languages
Filter by case summary type
Filter by applicable legal provisions
Filter by keywords
- (-) Remove Credibility assessment filterCredibility assessment
- (-) Remove Relevant Documentation filterRelevant Documentation
- Country of origin information 7
- Obligation to give reasons 6
- Refugee Status 6
- Well-founded fear 6
- Actor of persecution or serious harm 5
- Assessment of facts and circumstances 5
- Duty of applicant 5
- Membership of a particular social group 5
- Persecution Grounds/Reasons 5
- Relevant Facts 5
- Standard of proof 5
- Individual threat 4
- Procedural guarantees 4
- Religion 4
- Burden of proof 3
- Effective remedy (right to) 3
- Internal protection 3
- Persecution (acts of) 3
- Political Opinion 3
- Previous persecution 3
- Real risk 3
- Subsidiary Protection 3
- Accelerated procedure 2
- Benefit of doubt 2
- Effective access to procedures 2
- Internal armed conflict 2
- Medical Reports/Medico-legal Reports 2
- Non-state actors/agents of persecution 2
- Personal circumstances of applicant 2
- Personal interview 2
- Protection 2
- Refugee sur place 2
- Unaccompanied minor 2
- Accommodation centre 1
- Actors of protection 1
- Best interest of the child 1
- Child Specific Considerations 1
- Dependant (Dependent person) 1
- Detention 1
- Discrimination 1
- Family member 1
- Family reunification 1
- Family unity (right to) 1
- First country of asylum 1
- Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment 1
- Safe third country 1
- Subsequent application 1
- Torture 1