Bentley had been convicted of the murder of a policeman. He was of low intelligence and he was captured. His co-accused still held a gun. He shouted out ‘Let him have it’ He was convicted, but had said that he had only intended for the gun to be surrendered. A posthumous pardon was sought. Held: … Continue reading Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department Ex Parte Bentley: QBD 8 Jul 1993
Whether a stateless person who is unable to return to the country of his former habitual residence is, by reason of those facts alone, a refugee within the meaning of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, as modified by the 1967 New York Protocol. The Tribunal found, and the Secretary of State … Continue reading Revenko v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 31 Jul 2000
A scheme had been introduced to arrange pre-entry clearance for visitors to the United Kingdom by posting of immigration officers in the Czech Republic. The claimants argued that the system was discriminatory, because Roma visitors were now subjected to a much more rigorous examination than others, and also that the arrangement put the respondent in … Continue reading European Roma Rights Centre and others v Immigration Officer at Prague Airport and Another: CA 20 May 2003
The applicant had sought asylum. Her case had been refused, according to the law as stated at that time, but the decision then binding on the adjudicator (Shah), had been reversed in the House of Lords. It had now been held that the women of a country could be seen, at law, as a persecuted … Continue reading Regina (Ivanauskiene) v A Special Adjudicator: CA 31 Jul 2001
Where a country was a signatory to the Convention, but chose to interpret it so as not to give the same protection against oppression by non-state agents which would be given here, the Home Secretary was wrong to certify such countries, in this case France and Germany, as safe countries in which the asylum seekers … Continue reading Regina v Secretary of State for Department (ex parte Adan) and Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department (ex parte Subaskaran) etc: CA 23 Jul 1999
A refugee does not become a refugee because of recognition as such. He is recognised because he is a refugee so, for the purposes of Article 31.1 the term refugee includes someone who is only subsequently established as being a refugee, in other words a bona fide claimant. Citations:  Imm AR 483 Statutes: Convention … Continue reading Khaboka v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 1993
The mother fled Pakistan and secured asylum here, proving a well founded fear of persecution if she returned. She had brought her son. The father applied for the child to be returned for the courts there to decide his future, saying he had been abducted. Held: To order the return of the child anticipating the … Continue reading In re H (a Minor) (Child abduction: Mother’s Asylum): FD 25 Jul 2003
Judges: Pill, Arden, Black LJJ Citations:  EWCA Civ 1145 Links: Bailii Statutes: UN Convention relating to the Status of Refugees 1951 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Immigration Updated: 09 February 2022; Ref: scu.463709
1. The Geneva Convention relating to the Status of Refugees 1951 provides greater protection than the minimum standards imposed by a literal interpretation) of Article 10(1)(d) of the Qualification Directive (Particular Social Group). Article 10 (d) should be interpreted by replacing the word ‘and’ between Article 10(1)(d)(i) and (ii) with the word ‘or’, creating an … Continue reading DH (Particular Social Group: Mental Health) Afghanistan: UTIAC 3 Jun 2020
Whether the respondent has a well-founded fear of being persecuted ‘for reasons of membership of a particular social group’: ‘The basis of the claim for asylum was that he was being persecuted by criminals while working as a security officer in a . .
The applicants contended that as children of Palestinian Arabs who were entitled to be treated as asylum applicants, they were to be treated on the same basis. The Immigration Appeal Tribunal had decided that they had to establish such entitlement . .
The defendant appealed against his conviction in a case concerning the use of a false passport. The central issue was whether the appellant had a defence based upon the proposition that he was a refugee entitled to asylum in this country. He had . .
Even the justified fears of being stoned to death for adultery did not create a particular separate group from which protection from persecution could be claimed in support of an application for asylum. A ‘social group’ for refugee applicants, had . .
A number of difficult questions as to the proper construction and application of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees (as amended by the 1967 Protocol) . .
The Refugee Convention had ‘indirectly’ been incorporated under English law. The court considered whether a person allowed entry by an immigration officer was lawfully here irrespective of other considerations. As to the case of Musis in the Bugdaycay case: ‘Each of the present applicants had only been granted temporary admission and they required, but had … Continue reading Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex parte Singh: QBD 8 Jun 1987
The Court asked: ‘1(a) Is a person who is outside his country of origin and recognised as a refugee, and who has subsequent to that recognition taken on the nationality of the host country, still a refugee within the meaning of the 1951 Geneva Convention on the Status of Refugees?(b) If such a person does … Continue reading DL (DRC) v The Entry Clearance Officer, Pretoria: CA 18 Dec 2008
The defendants had been convicted of not having an immigration document when presenting themselves for interview. They had handed their passports to the ‘agents’ who had assisted their entry. Held: The jury should have been directed as to the defence of reasonable excuse and otherwise. The statute had to be read so as to comply … Continue reading Regina v Fraydon Navabi; Senait Tekie Embaye: CACD 11 Nov 2005
The claimants sought to maintain their claims for asylum. They had fled persecution, but before their claims for asylum were determined conditions in their home country changed so that they could no longer be said to have a well founded fear of persecution. Held: The decision on the grant required the fear to remain well … Continue reading Hoxha and Another v Secretary of State for the Home Department: HL 10 Mar 2005
The mother had applied here for asylum. Her application had been refused but was subject to appeal. The father in India sought the return of the children on the basis that they had been removed from a Convention country which was their habitual residence, and against his will as their father. The mother applied for … Continue reading In re S (Children) (Child abduction: Asylum appeal): FD 24 Apr 2002
The applicant sought asylum. He had suffered persecution, and continued to suffer the effects of that persecution on his health. He appealed a refusal which was on the basis that the conditions which led to the persecution would not now apply. Held: The applicants had had well founded fears of persecution when they left Albania, … Continue reading Hoxha and Another v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 14 Oct 2002
When assessing the propriety of an order requiring an asylum seeker to be removed and returned to a third country, it was wrong to look at the processes which might be applied by that third country. The court should look at the outcome of the decision and the test laid down, namely whether that third … Continue reading Regina (Yogathas) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 9 Sep 2001
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Preliminary objection rejected (victim); Violation of Art. 5-1; Non-pecuniary damage – finding of violation sufficient; Costs and expenses partial award – domestic proceedings; Costs and expenses partial award – Convention proceedings‘In order to determine whether someone has been ‘deprived of his liberty’ within the meaning of Article 5, the … Continue reading Amuur v France: ECHR 25 Jun 1996
The applicant for asylum was a Tamil. He was persecuted. He claimed it was political. The possibility of drawing that inference was greater when legal mis-treatment was not expected to be followed by legal proceedings. Excessive or arbitrary punishment for political offences did not necessarily amount to persecution for a Convention reason, but it did … Continue reading Sivakumar v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 24 Jul 2001
When asking whether it was correct to certify the removal of an asylum seeker to a third country, in the light of a country’s compliance with the Convention, the issue should be approached in an intensely practical fashion. The question was not primarily whether the third country’s laws were compliant, but rather what was the … Continue reading Regina on the Application of Santia Yogathas v Secretary of State for Home Department: Admn 25 May 2001
Both applicants, Islam and Shah, citizens of Pakistan, but otherwise unconnected with each other, had suffered violence in Pakistan after being falsely accused them of adultery. Both applicants arrived in the UK and were granted leave to enter as visitors for six months. Both applicants subsequently applied for asylum on the ground that having been … Continue reading Regina v Immigration Appeal Tribunal and Another ex parte Shah: HL 25 Mar 1999
The degree of protection from non-state persecution available to an asylum seeker, is a relevant factor in asylum applications. Where that protection was inadequate, for reasons not related to the nature of that persecution, that also was relevant. It affected the issues of whether persecution existed, whether the fear of it was well founded, and … Continue reading Horvath v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 2 Dec 1999
When considering the fear of prosecution in an applicant for asylum, the degree of persecution expected from individuals outside the government was to be assessed in the context also of the attitude of the government of the country to such persecution, and the level of protection it was prepared to offer. The failure of state … Continue reading Horvath v Secretary of State for the Home Department: HL 7 Jul 2000
Where a conscientious civil servant was threatened by insurgents who sought to persuade her to use her position to their advantage, but that civil servants could not expected to receive the protection of her estate from such insurgents, the Convention would give her protection as a refugee for asylum. The position of government employees in … Continue reading Noune v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 20 Dec 2000
Mr Musisi sought entry to the United Kingdom as a visitor from Kenya. When that application looked as though it might fail, he claimed political asylum as a refugee from Uganda. His application for asylum was refused on the basis that he had come from a safe third country, Kenya. This decision was challenged on … Continue reading Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Musisi: HL 1987
US Board of Immigration Appeals – Held: ‘We find the well-established doctrine of ejusdem generis, meaning literally, ‘of the same kind,’ to be most helpful in construing the phrase ‘membership in a particular social group.’ That doctrine holds that general words used in an enumeration with specific words should be construed in a manner consistent … Continue reading In re Acosta: 1985
ECJ Reference for a preliminary ruling – Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, signed in Geneva on 28 July 1951 – Articles 23 and 26 – Area of freedom, security and justice – Directive 2011/95/EU – Rules relating to the content of international protection – Subsidiary protection status – Article 29 – Social welfare … Continue reading Alo (Judgment): ECJ 1 Mar 2016
ECJ Reference for a preliminary ruling – Geneva Convention of 28 July 1951 relating to the Status of Refugees – Article 31 – Third country national who has entered the territory of a Member State after passing through another Member State – Use of the services of human traffickers – Unauthorised entry and stay – … Continue reading Qurbani: ECJ 17 Jul 2014
The appellant Iranian challenged refusal of his claim for asylum. He had been granted refugee status in Iraq and in Turkey by the United Nations commission, but on arrival in the UK, his asylum claim had been rejected on the basis of the credibility of his assertions. Held: The appeal failed. Those making such decisions … Continue reading IA (Iran) v The Secretary of State for The Home Department (Scotland): SC 29 Jan 2014
ECJ Directive 2004/83/EC – Minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees – Stateless person of Palestinian origin who has not sought protection or assistance from the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) – Application for refugee status – … Continue reading Bolbol (Area Of Freedom, Security And Justice): ECJ 17 Jun 2010
The three asylum seeker appellants arrived in the United Kingdom at different times in possession of false passports. They were prosecuted for possession or use of false documents contrary to section 5, and for obtaining air services by deception under the Criminal Attempts Act. At the time, their applications to be accorded refugee status had … Continue reading Regina v Uxbridge Magistrates and Another ex parte Adimi; R v CPS ex parte Sorani; R v SSHD and Another ex parte Kaziu: Admn 29 Jul 1999
A fear of persecution which was justified only historically, was insufficient to justify an asylum claim. The applicant must show justification for contemporary fears. The applicant had been granted exceptional leave to remain in the UK, but wanted full refugee status because of the additional rights that would bring. In each case an applicant had … Continue reading Adan v Secretary of State for the Home Department: HL 6 Apr 1998
The Tribunal had confirmed the appellant’s refugee status, but the respondent had ordered nevertheless that she be returned. The judge’s order setting aside that decision had been overturned in the Court of Appeal. Held: The claimant’s appeal failed. The Convention set two standards of protection for refugees. Article 33 prevented the return of anyone to … Continue reading ST Eritrea, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: SC 21 Mar 2012
The House considered the point of law: ‘If a defendant is charged with an offence not specified in section 31(3) of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, to what extent is he entitled to rely on the protections afforded by article 31 of the 1951 United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees?’ The … Continue reading Regina v Fregenet Asfaw: HL 21 May 2008
The asylum seeker was accused of complicity in war crimes in Sri Lanka. He had worked as an intelligence officer but his cover had been broken and he fled to the UK. It was said that he was excluded from protection as an asylum seeker. Held: The Home Secretary’s appeal failed. Article 28 is to … Continue reading JS (Sri Lanka), Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: SC 17 Mar 2010
The House of Lords were concerned with the correct test to be applied in determining whether asylum seekers are entitled to the status of refugee. That in turn gave rise to an issue, turning upon the proper interpretation of Article 1.A(2) of the Convention. Held: When deciding whether an asylum applicant’s fear of persecution was … Continue reading Regina v Home Secretary, ex parte Sivakumaran: HL 16 Dec 1987
The court considered the claimants appeal against refusal of asylum and for his return to Palestine, against the case of MA which decided that denial of return to a stateless person to his country of former habitual residence did not of itself give . .
The applicant had claimed asylum on entry and was temporarily admitted. Though his claim for asylum was later refused, those admitted in this way were granted indefinite leave to remain. He had claimed and received benefits at first, but then these . .
The Home Secretary appealed against a finding that it had been an abuse of process and unlawful for the Secretary of State to have refused to grant to the Respondent refugee status and 5 years’ leave to remain in this country on the ground that he . .
The appellants had been refused refugee status on the ground that they were suspected of having been guilty of terrorist acts. They said that the definition of terrorism applied within the UK was wider than that in the Convention which contained the . .
The Convention gave protection to an asylum seeker fearing persecution by non-state agents in his country of origin where that government was unable or unwilling to provide protection. France and Germany did not recognise this right, and therefore . .
Extra Division, Inner House – The applicant sought leave to appeal against a decision of the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal rejecting his appeals. The latter decision dismissed the applicant’s appeal against a decision of the respondent, the Home . .
Fraudulent claim by asylum seeker did not destroy entire claim if genuine cause. . .
Issues under Article 1F of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees (‘the Refugee Convention’). . .
The phrase ‘particular social group’ in the Convention does not include groups which a person can choose to leave; It must be a fundamental characteristic of the person, not his job. . .
A wife, afraid with cause of being stoned to death for adultery if she returned home, was part of ‘a particular social group’ within the Convention, and was entitled to claim asylum. Commenting on the unique complexity of such cases: ‘Its . .
The applicant was an ethnic Kurd who claimed asylum, having fled Iraq.
Held: To establish a claim, he must show that because of a well founded fear of persecution for a Convention reason, he was outside his country and unable or, because of . .
The appellant sought refugee status. He was a wealthy man, but his life and that of his family had been threatened in Colombia unless he paid 10,000,000 pesos per month to Marxist guerillas.
Held: Such a threat was not sufficient to warrant . .
The Secretary of State appealed against an order requiring him to recognise the respondent as a refugee and to grant permissions accordingly. His ddecision to order her return had been contrary to a finding of the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal. . .
(Australia) A claim to refugee status was made by a husband and wife who had come from China to Australia. They said that they feared sterilization under the ‘one child policy’ of China if they were returned.
Held: There is a general principle . .
The claimant appealed against rejection of his claim for asylum and protection on human rights grounds. He said that if returned to Afghanistan he would face a real risk of serious harm. . .
1267 – 1278 – 1285 – 1297 – 1361 – 1449 – 1491 – 1533 – 1677 – 1688 – 1689 – 1700 – 1706 – 1710 – 1730 – 1737 – 1738 – 1751 – 1774 – 1792 – 1793 – 1804 – 1814 – 1819 – 1824 – 1828 – 1831 – 1832 … Continue reading Acts