Arrêt E-1813/2019 du 1er juillet 2020
In a landmark judgment, the Federal Administrative Court acknowledged the existence of a new specific circumstance that goes against the granting of family asylum. In addition, it considered that the result of the assessment of evidence made in the original, already concluded, asylum procedure cannot be simply transposed to the subsequent family asylum procedure. The right to be heard must be granted again and the results assessed separately.
1 July 2020 | Judicial Body: Switzerland: Tribunal administratif fédéral | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Refugee status determination (RSD) / Asylum procedures - Right to family life - Rule of law / Due process / Procedural fairness | Countries: China - Switzerland
CASE OF M.A. AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA
(Application no. 5115/18)
The Court had therefore to examine whether any effective guarantees existed that protected the applicants against arbitrary refoulement by the Bulgarian authorities to China, be it direct or indirect. No destination country had been indicated in the initial decisions for the applicants’ repatriation or in the expulsion decisions. According to the Supreme Administrative Court, the determination of such a country and the assessment of any risk the applicants would face if returned to China fell to be carried out in the process of implementation of the expulsion decisions. However, such an approach offered no guarantees that the Bulgarian authorities would examine with the necessary rigour the question of the risk the applicants would face if returned to the country they had fled. It was unclear by reference to what standards and on the basis of what information the authorities would determine, if at all, the relevant risk. Lastly, there was no indication as to whether, if the authorities chose to send the applicants to a third country, they would properly examine whether they would in turn be sent from there to China without due consideration for the risk of ill‑treatment and even death. In sum, there were no effective guarantees, in the process of implementation of the repatriation or the expulsion decisions against the applicants, that they would not be sent back to China.
20 February 2020 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Document type: Case Law | Legal Instrument: 1950 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Topic(s): Arbitrary arrest and detention - Expulsion - Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment - Uighur | Countries: Bulgaria - China
AC (North Korea)  NZIPT 801589
The Tribunal is not satisfied that there are serious reasons for considering that the appellant “has committed a serious non-political crime outside [New Zealand] prior to his admission to [New Zealand] as a refugee” because any crime he committed was of a political kind.  Accordingly, the appellant is not excluded from the protection of the Refugee Convention under Article 1F(b) of that Convention.
18 November 2019 | Judicial Body: New Zealand: Immigration and Protection Tribunal | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Exclusion clauses - Serious non-political crime - Trafficking in persons | Countries: China - Korea, Democratic People's Republic of - Korea, Republic of - New Zealand
|Options Paper 1: Options for governments on care arrangements and alternatives to detention for children and families (first published 2015, revised version 2019)|
|Prominent Chinese photographer 'taken by police' in Xinjiang|
|Kazakhs from Xinjiang say relatives not allowed to leave China|
|Pakistani police allege India linked to attack on China consulate|
|Pakistan foils suicide attack on Karachi Chinese consulate, dozens dead in separate attack in northwest|
|Children of ethnic Kazakhs in China beg for help to release their parents in Xinjiang|
|Freedom on the Net 2018 - China|