Magaming v The Queen [2013] HCA 40 (11 October 2013)
The High Court has dismissed an appeal regarding a mandatory minimum sentence imposed under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), highlighting a gap in human rights protection under Australian law.
Read MoreMail and Guardian Media Limited and Others v Chipu N.O. and Others Case CCT 136/12 - [2013] ZACC 32 (27 September 2013)
The Constitutional Court of South Africa has upheld a challenge to the constitutionality of section 21(5) of the Refugees Act, which provides for the absolute confidentiality of asylum applications in South Africa. The Court declared that the absolute confidentiality of asylum applications was an unjustifiable limitation on the constitutional right to freedom of expression and gave Parliament two years to remedy the defect in the legislation. In the interim, the Refugee Appeal Board (RAB) has been given a discretion to allow third parties access to hearings in particular circumstances.
Read MoreF.K.A.G. et al. v Australia, UN Doc CCPR/C/108/D/2094/2011 (23 August 2013)
The UN Human Rights Committee found that Australia violated articles 7 and 9(1), (2) and (4) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights by indefinitely detaining refugees subject to adverse security assessments without adequate reasons, review rights or individualised consideration of less intrusive options.
Read MoreEzokola v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) 2013 SCC 40 (19 July 2013)
The Supreme Court of Canada unanimously held that to lawfully exclude a person from the definition of refugee because of their membership of a group suspected of war crimes, crimes against humanity or other international crimes, there must be serious reasons for considering that the person has made a “voluntary, knowing, and significant contribution” to the group’s crime or criminal purpose.
Read MoreCase of Hode and Abdi v United Kingdom [2012] EHCR, Application no. 22341/09 (6 November 2012)
The European Court of Human Rights has held that the United Kingdom Government’s refusal to allow the family reunion of a refugee and his wife under relevant immigration rules was unlawfully discriminatory against the refugee on the basis of his immigration status.
Read MoreChun Rong v Australia [2012], CAT/C/49/D/416/2010
The UN Committee against Torture found that Australia was in violation of its non-refoulement obligations under the Convention against Torture because it failed to satisfy procedural obligations under article 3.
Read MorePlaintiff M47/2012 v Director-General of Security & Ors [2012] HCA 46 (5 October 2012)
In this case the full bench of the High Court of Australia considered the lawfulness of the indefinite detention of the plaintiff, a refugee who has been held in detention in Australia without a visa for three years. He had been assessed as a refugee but his application for a visa had been denied on the basis of an adverse security assessment conducted by the Australian Security and Intelligence Organisation.
Read MoreMM and AO (A Child), R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] EWCA Civ 668 (18 May 2012)
This case adds to pre-existing UK and European authority about the circumstances in which an investigation of an allegation of torture or ill-treatment will be required. In this particular case, an intervention to stop a protest at an immigration detention centre caused such physical and psychological harm that a claim of ill-treatment was raised. The question was thus to what extent, especially in cases involving children, an independent investigation was required beyond procedures already in place.
Read MoreHA (Nigeria), R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] EWHC 979 (Admin) (17 April 2012)
The High Court of England and Wales considered the detention of a Nigerian asylum seeker who was suffering serious mental health difficulties whilst in detention
Read MoreHirsi Jamaa and Others v Italy [2012] ECHR Application no. 27765/09 (23 February 2012)
In a landmark decision the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that Italy violated the European Convention of Human Rights by forcibly returning a group of asylum seekers by sea to Libya.
Read MoreSonko v Spain, UN Doc CAT/C/47/D/368/2008 (20 February 2012)
Summary
The UN Committee against Torture has found that Spain violated its obligations under the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment in its treatment of Senegalese asylum seeker Mr Sonko, who drowned after being forced out of a Spanish Civil Guard vessel. This decision exemplifies that placing a person in a situation that causes his or her death will constitute cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment in contravention of article 16 of the Convention.
Read MoreThe Queen (on the application of S) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] EWCH 2120 (Admin) (5 August 2011)
The Claimant, S, sought judicial review of the decision to detain him pending deportation. Owing to circumstances relating to his mental illness, the High Court of England and Wales held that S's detention amounted to false imprisonment and a violation of Articles 3 and 5 of the European Convention of Human Rights, which prohibit inhuman or degrading treatment and protect an individual's right to liberty and security of the person, respectively.
Read MoreSufi and Elmi v The United Kingdom [2011] ECHR 1045 (28 June 2011)
The European Court of Human Rights (the Court) has found that the return of two Somali nationals to Mogadishu, Somalia would amount to inhuman and degrading treatment in breach of article 3 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (the Convention) because of the situation of general violence there.
Read More
ZH (Tanzania) FC (Appellant) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] UKSC 4 (1 February 2011)
The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom has held that the 'best interests of the child' should be the first consideration where children are affected by the decision to remove or deport one or both of their parents. While the best interests of the child can be cumulatively outweighed by other factors in determining proportionality, no consideration is inherently more significant than the best interests of the child.
Read MoreSuppiah & Ors, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] EWHC 2 (Admin) (11 January 2011)
The High Court of England and Wales decided that two families who had sought asylum in the United Kingdom were detained unlawfully by the Secretary of State for the Home Department (Defendant) because the Defendant failed to have regard to its duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of children.
Read MoreDirector of Housing v TK [2010] VCAT Application 2010/11921 (Unreported, 22 July 2010)
VCAT Deputy President Lambrick has held that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to determine whether an application made pursuant to ss 250 and 330(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act has been made in breach of the Charter. This affirms the decision of Bell J in Director of Housing v Sudi [2010] VCAT 328.
Read MoreDirector of Housing v Sudi [2010] VCAT 328 (31 March 2010)
Justice Bell, sitting as President of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal, has held that the Director of Housing acted unlawfully under s 38(1) of the Charter in seeking, without adequate justification, to evict a refugee family from social housing in breach of their right to family and the home under s 13(a). His Honour further held that this unlawfulness invalidated the Director’s application for a possession order under s 344 of the Residential Tenancies Act.
Read MoreSaeedi, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department & Ors [2010] EWHC 705 (Admin) (31 March 2010)
The England and Wales High Court recently held that the proposed transfer of an asylum applicant to Greece was not incompatible with art 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights or similar rights guaranteed under European Union law.
Read MoreA, R (on the application of) v London Borough of Croydon [2009] UKSC 8 (26 November 2009)
The difficulty in determining age has become prominent as a consequence of the increased movement of children around the world, and specifically the increased migration of unaccompanied young people. It is an issue of particular significance, for a number of reasons. States often have – or at least, ought to have – different policies and procedures in place in relation to the treatment of asylum seekers who are children. These may relate, for example, to the provision of guardianship, the provision of legal aid, conditions of any ‘detention’, the substantive consideration of whether the asylum seeker satisfies the requisite test (ie the refugee definition), or access to particular social entitlements (housing, welfare, education etc).
Read MoreKwok v Australia, CCPR/C/97/D/1442/2005 (23 November 2009)
The United Nations Human Rights Committee has found Australia to be in breach of its obligations under art 9(1) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in relation to mandatory immigration detention. The Committee ruled that 'detention for a period in excess of four years without any chance of substantive judicial review is arbitrary within the meaning of Article 9(1)'. The Committee also found potential breaches of arts 6 and 7 of the ICCPR if Australia returns the author, Ms Kwok, to China where she will likely face the death penalty.
Read MoreEW, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2009] EWHC 2957 (Admin) (18 November 2009)
In this case, the England and Wales High Court held that the extradition of an asylum seeker to a safe third country did not constitute refoulement even if that country was not able to provide temporary accommodation and financial support. The right to freedom from cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment is entrenched in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and, relevantly for this case, the European Convention on Human Rights. However, the Court in EW found that this right did not impose a positive obligation to ensure a ‘general right to accommodation or a minimum standard of living’ and, as such, would not be breached by the extradition. The Court stated that ‘the setting of such a minimum standard – no matter how low – is a matter for social legislation, not the courts’.
Read MoreX v Australia, UN Doc CAT/C/42/D/324/2007 (5 May 2009)
Mr X, a Palestinian born in Lebanon in 1960, was detained at the Villawood Detention Centre in Australia. He sought political asylum in Australia, however, his request was rejected and he risked forcible removal to Lebanon. He claimed, inter alia, that by deporting him, Australia would violate his rights under art 3 of the Convention against Torture (CAT).
Read MoreXFJ v Director of Public Transport (Occupational and Business Regulation) [2008] VCAT 2303 (31 October 2008)
In overturning a decision by the Director of Public Transport to refuse to grant XFJ, the applicant, accreditation to drive commercial taxi vehicles under the Transport Act 1983 (Act) , VCAT considered the application of the obligation under s 32(1) of the Charter to interpret laws consistently with human rights.
Read MoreAS (Pakistan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2008] EWCA Civ 1118 (15 October 2008)
The England and Wales Court of Appeal recently allowed an appeal against a decision of the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal regarding the deportation of AS, a Pakistani national. The Court held that the Tribunal erred in two respects: first, in finding that deportation would not interfere with AS’ right to respect for his private and family life (under art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights), and second, in its assessment of proportionality.
Read MoreRS (Zimbabwe) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2008] EWCA Civ 839 (18 July 2008)
The Court of Appeal of England and Wales has allowed an appeal by RS, a Zimbabwean national, against a decision of the Immigration Appeal Tribunal to dismiss her appeal against a decision of the Secretary of State for the Home Department to refuse to allow RS to remain in the United Kingdom for medical treatment and health.
Read MoreJT (Cameroon) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2008] EWCA Civ 878 (28 July 2008)
In a recent decision informed by the interpretive principle in s 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998 (UK), the England and Wales Court of Appeal has read an additional word into a provision of the Asylum & Immigration (Treatment of Claimants etc) Act 2004 (UK) to ensure human rights compatibility. Despite there being no ambiguity in the provision, the court was willing to read in the additional word so that the provision would not offend the separation of powers doctrine and, implicitly, the right to a fair hearing.
Read MoreBeoku-Betts (FC) (Appellant) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Respondent) [2008] UKHL 39 (25 June 2008)
The House of Lords held that the right to family life should be interpreted broadly, and encompass consideration of the rights of other family members, when determining an appeal against the Secretary of State's refusal of leave to remain under s 65 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (UK).
Read MoreShams & Ors v Australia, HRC, UN Doc CCPR/C/90/D/1255, 1256, 1259, 1260, 1266, 1268, 1270, 1288/2004 (11 September 2007)
In a decision regarding mandatory immigration detention, the UN Human Rights Committee has elucidated its jurisprudence on the content and application of art 9 of the ICCPR, the right to liberty and security of person and to be free from arbitrary detention.
Read MoreImmigration and Refugee Protection Act 2001 (Can)
On 23 February 2007, the Supreme Court of Canada overturned provisions of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act 2001 (Can) relating to the detention of permanent residents and foreign nationals on the basis that the provisions contravened the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Canadian Parliament was given one year to rewrite the IRPA in accordance with the Charter.
Read MoreOn 13 November 2006, the UN Human Rights Committee further elaborated on what constitutes arbitrary detention for the purposes of art 9(1) of the ICCPR, finding that there must be ‘appropriate justification’ for continued mandatory detention in light of the circumstances of the particular case.
Read MoreD and E v Australia, HRC, Communication No 1050/2002, UN Doc CCPR/C/87/D/1050/2002 (25 July 2006)
The UN Human Rights Committee (‘the Committee’) recently handed down its latest in a string of decisions concerning Australia’s policy of mandatory immigration detention. The authors of the complaint were two Iranian nationals who, together with their two children, arrived in Australiaby boat in November 2000. Pursuant to Australia’s policy, the four were held in immigration detention for a total of three years and two months. During their period of mandatory detention, the relevant provisions of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) effectively precluded judicial review of the lawfulness of their detention, while their applications for asylum were rejected. The four were ultimately granted Global Special Humanitarian visas on 13 March 2006.
Read MoreWhere a person’s visa is mandatorily cancelled on character grounds under s 501(3A) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Migration Act), s 501CA provides a procedure for the Minister to invite the former visa holder to make representations if they consider the cancellation decision should be revoked.
Read MoreXAD, a child classified as an “unauthorised maritime arrival” for the purposes of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (Act), sought (by her litigation guardian XAE) an order to compel either the Minister for Immigration[1] or the Minister for Home Affairs to consider her application for a protection visa.
Read MoreThe High Court of Australia found that section 494AB(1) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (Act), a provision which seeks to prevent legal proceedings being taken against the Commonwealth in relation to asylum seekers under the regional processing regime, does not limit the jurisdiction of any court.
Read MoreIn August, the Federal Court ordered the Minister for Home Affairs to urgently remove an elderly man with multiple health conditions from a Melbourne immigration detention centre to guard against the serious risk of COVID-19 infection.
The man was 68 years old and suffered from health issues including type-2 diabetes and high cholesterol, which meant he was at high risk of severe disease or death if he were to contract COVID-19.
Read MoreThe Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia has reminded Government decision-makers of their responsibility to properly consider risks of harm and threats to safety when cancelling or refusing a visa on ‘character’ grounds.
The Court unanimously ruled that the Assistant Minister made a jurisdictional error in deciding not to revoke the cancellation of Mr Omar’s visa, by failing to adequately consider risks of harm he would face on return to Somalia, including by deferring a consideration of Australia’s international non-refoulement obligations.
Read MoreThe Republic of Nauru v WET040 [2018] HCA 60
On 7 November 2018, the High Court of Australia (HCA), comprised of Gageler, Nettle and Edelman JJ, unanimously allowed an appeal from a decision of the Supreme Court of Nauru.
Read MoreTTY167 v Republic of Nauru
The High Court of Australia has decided that Nauru's Refugee Status Review Tribunal (Tribunal) acted unreasonably in refusing the appellant's protection application after the appellant failed to appear before the Tribunal at a scheduled hearing.
Read MoreIn two recent interlocutory matters, the Federal Court has ordered the Australian Government to remove refugee children from Nauru to Australia in order to receive appropriate mental health treatment.
Read MoreThe Court of Justice of the European Union has held that subjecting an asylum seeker to psychological tests, designed to provide an indication of their sexual orientation, breaches their right to respect for private and family life under Article 7 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.
Read MoreMaythem Kamil Radhi (Appellant) v The District Court of Manukau (The First Respondent) and The Commonwealth of Australia (The Second Respondent) [2017] NZSC 198
The Australian Federal Police sought the extradition of a New Zealand resident, alleging that he was involved in helping asylum seekers travel from Indonesia to Australia. The New Zealand Supreme Court found that although the man was eligible for surrender, there was a "real risk" that he would be subjected to indefinite administrative detention once in Australia and that this risk constituted a compelling or extraordinary circumstance warranting referral to the Minister.
Read MoreThe Nauruan Government recently abolished the mechanism by which parties could appeal decisions from the Supreme Court of Nauru to the High Court of Australia, leaving asylum seekers without an avenue of appeal to challenge unsuccessful decisions of the Supreme Court. This move has come shortly after the High Court's recent landmark decision in BRF038 v The Republic of Nauru [2017] HCA 56 where it held that, in certain circumstances, appeals from the Supreme Court to the High Court lie as of right, without the parties first having to seek leave of the Court.
Read MoreAraya v Nevsun Resources Ltd., 2017 BCCA 401
A group of Eritrean refugees are one step closer to trial in a Canadian court case alleging serious human rights abuses against a Canadian mining company, after the British Columbia Court of Appeal dismissed a strike-out application. The decision is the first time that a Canadian appellate court has allowed a tort claim for breaches of international law peremptory norms – such as the prohibition of slavery – to proceed.
Read MoreThe High Court has held that in order for an applicant to be covered by the Migration Act’s complementary protection regime, the element of “intention” requires a person’s actual, subjective intention to bring about pain, suffering or extreme humiliation.
Read MoreOn 26 June 2017 the Supreme Court of the United States temporarily reinstated President Trump's travel ban, but a majority of the Court held that the temporary reinstatement will not apply to people who can show they have a credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or organisation already in the United States.
Read MoreThe UK Supreme Court has unanimously held that deportation certificates issued by the United Kingdom’s Secretary of State for the Home Department were unlawful. The recipients of the deportation orders in this case were entitled to appeal against the Home Secretary’s immigration decisions by a judicial review procedure to the First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber). However, the effect of the deportation orders was that the appeals could only be brought after the appellants’ removal from the UK. This is known as the ‘deport first, appeal later’ policy. The Court found that difficulties with evidence and legal representation meant these appeals were not sufficiently effective.
Read MoreIn a unanimous 3-0 decision, the United States Court of Appeal maintained the freeze on US President Donald Trump’s controversial immigration order suspending entry of people from 7 countries for 90 days, indefinitely suspending the entry of Syrian refugees and suspending the United States Refugee Admissions Program for 120 days.
Read MoreMr Nasir was an Indonesian cook on a boat that brought asylum seekers to Australia. He was convicted of aggravated people smuggling under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). Mr Nasir was detained without charge for 146 days on Christmas Island and in the Northern Territory, pursuant to an unreviewable Criminal Justice Stay Certificate. He did not appear before a judge for 177 days. At trial, Mr Nasir received the mandatory minimum sentence of five years with a three-year non-parole period pursuant to section 236B of the Migration Act, despite his undisputed minor role as a cook and non-organiser of the voyage.
Read MoreThe European Court of Human Rights (“the Court”) finds in favour of a Nigerian asylum seeker, who was detained pending deportation, against the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland for violations of article 5 § 1 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which enshrines the right to liberty and security of the person.
Read MoreRay Fuller v Loretta E Lynch, Attorney General of the United States, 833 F.3d 866 (7th Cir, 2016)
The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has refused to review the case of a person seeking asylum, despite the man's fear of persecution should he be returned to Jamaica. Ray Fuller testified that he identified as bisexual and there was evidence he was at risk of harassment and torture.
Read MoreOn 10 February 2014 the Department of Immigration and Border Protection inadvertently published on its website the identifying details of 9,258 applicants for protection visas held in immigration detention (“Data Breach”). The Data Breach carried the risk that authorities in the named detainees’ countries of origin would become aware that they had sought protection in Australia, creating a new and independent risk of harm if those detainees were returned to those countries. The Department conducted International Treaties Obligations Assessments (“ITOAs”) to determine if the Data Breach affected Australia’s non-refoulement obligations with respect to the detainees.
Read MoreThe European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has held that immigration detention of an LGBTI Iranian person seeking asylum in Hungary contravened article 5(1) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (the Convention).
Read MoreThe United States Supreme Court made a four-four split decision in a nine word judgement over the legality of President Obama’s deferred action immigration program. This upholds the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit's decision to maintain a nationwide injunction preventing implementation of the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents program (DAPA) and the expansion of the 2012 Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program (DACA).
Read MoreThe United Kingdom remains the only EU Member State which does not impose a statutory time limit on immigration detention prior to deportation. A challenge to that position was recently heard before the European Court of Human Rights. While the Court acknowledged that such time limits may be preferable, it concluded that the absence of a fixed time limit does not, in itself, render the UK’s immigration detention system incompatible with Article 5(1)(f) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (Convention).
Read MoreThe Commonwealth Government has a duty of care to facilitate a safe and lawful abortion for a refugee who was sexually assaulted while on Nauru awaiting resettlement. The court’s orders included an injunction to restrain the Minister from procuring an abortion for the applicant in Papua New Guinea (‘PNG’), but did not require the Minister to bring the applicant to Australia.
Read MoreIn a highly anticipated decision the High Court has rejected a constitutional challenge to the Federal Government’s regional processing framework. The majority of the Court held that s198AHA of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (Act) authorised the Commonwealth Government’s participation in the plaintiff’s detention. This decision was made after retrospective legislation was introduced after the case was filed with retrospective operation.
Read MoreThe High Court declined to overturn a decision of a Delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, which refused the grant of a permanent visa to the family of an Iranian man, who was already in Australia on a protection visa. The Court held that despite the persuasive evidence put forward by the plaintiff in advancement of the application, it was open to the Delegate to decline the grant of the visa, as the evidence was not so compelling, when factoring in the limited capacity of Australia to accommodate refugees, as to warrant special consideration by the Delegate.
Read MoreThe Supreme Court of Canada has handed down twin rulings narrowing the interpretation of people smuggling laws in relation to both the offence of people smuggling, and the inadmissibility of migrants alleged to have been involved in people smuggling. McLachlin CJ delivered the leading judgment in both cases, with whom all judges unanimously agreed. The separate but related proceedings of B010 v Canada and R v Appulonappa considered two key people smuggling provisions in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) – B010 v Canada considered the inadmissibility of people smugglers, while R v Appulonappa considered the prosecution of people smugglers.
Read MoreThe High Court of England and Wales has found that the “Fast Track” appeal process, which imposed extremely short timelines for hearing appeals against asylum seeker application decisions, was ultra vires, or beyond power, as a result of structural unfairness.
Read MoreThe High Court of Australia has unanimously held that the Minister cannot refuse to grant a protection visa to an individual who has validly applied for a visa on the sole basis that the individual is an “unauthorised maritime arrival”. In this case, as the Minister had refused to grant a protection visa to the plaintiff on this basis, and therefore failed to consider the plaintiff's visa application according to law as he had been directed to do by the Court, the Court issued a writ of peremptory mandamus requiring the Minister to grant the plaintiff a protection visa.
Read MoreThe High Court of Australia has unanimously held that the Minister cannot refuse to grant a protection visa to an individual who has validly applied for a visa on the sole basis that the individual is an “unauthorised maritime arrival”. In this case, as the Minister had refused to grant a protection visa to the plaintiff on this basis, and therefore failed to consider the plaintiff's visa application according to law as he had been directed to do by the Court, the Court issued a writ of peremptory mandamus requiring the Minister to grant the plaintiff a protection visa.
Read MoreBy a narrow majority (4:3) the High Court found that the Australian Government’s detention of 157 asylum seekers for nearly a month on board a customs vessel was legal under Australian domestic law.
Read MoreThe European Court of Justice examined Dutch authorities’ assessment of the credibility of men seeking asylum on the basis of feared persecution because of their declared homosexuality. The Court found that assessment of the credibility of a person’s claim to be homosexual should be sensitive to individual circumstances, not based on stereotypes, and consistent with fundamental human rights.
Read MoreThe High Court unanimously held invalid the grant by the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection of a temporary safe haven visa to the plaintiff – a stateless asylum seeker – which had the effect of precluding the plaintiff from making a valid application for a protection visa, in circumstances where the plaintiff’s detention had been prolonged for the purpose of the Minister considering the exercise of power to allow the plaintiff to make a valid application for a visa of his choice.
Read MoreIn each case, the French authorities refused to issue visas for the applicants’ children. The authorities alleged that there were difficulties in establishing the children’s civil registration status as the birth certificates provided in support of the visa applications were not authentic. The applicants appealed, claiming that the difficulties they encountered in the Family Reunification Procedure constituted a violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the European Convention of Human Rights.
Read MoreThe UK High Court has found that the Detainee Fast Track system for detaining asylum seekers is unlawful because the system carried “an unacceptable risk of unfairness” primarily due to the unjustifiable delay in allocating lawyers to asylum seekers.
Read MoreThe European Court of Human Rights found that Switzerland’s intended expulsion of an Ecuadorian man who had unsuccessfully claimed asylum would violate his, his second daughter’s and his wife’s right to a family under article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, despite the man’s previous criminal convictions and his separation from his wife.
Read MoreIn two judgments handed down on 20 June 2014, the High Court held that section 85 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) does not empower the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection to make a determination limiting the number of protection visas that may be granted during a financial year. Accordingly, the Minister's determination of 4 March 2014 limiting the maximum number of protection visas for the financial year ending on 30 June 2014 to 2,733 was invalid.
Read MoreThe High Court has unanimously rejected a challenge to the constitutional validity of the sections of the Migration Act which give the Immigration Minister the power to designate regional processing countries. The High Court also rejected a challenge to the Minister’s exercise of this power with respect to the decision to designate PNG as a regional processing centre.
Read MoreThe UK Supreme Court has held that returning an asylum seeker to the country whether they first claimed asylum is prohibited, if it can be established that there is a real risk that the person transferred will suffer inhumane or degrading treatment – which is prohibited by article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Supreme Court overturned the UK Court Appeal’s decision that there needs to be systemic deficiencies in the asylum procedures of the receiving state before a transfer of an asylum seeker should be prevented under the Dublin Regulation.
Read MoreAl-Gertani v Bosnia and Herzegovina, Human Rights Committee, Communication No. 1955/2010 (6 November 2013)
An Iraqi asylum-seeker was detained in Bosnia and Herzegovina on the grounds that he was a threat to national security. The United Nations Human Rights Committee found that his prolonged detention was arbitrary in breach of article 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, because the State party did not show it was necessary and proportionate, and because he was not provided with the reasons that he was considered a threat and was therefore unable to effectively challenge the detention.
Read More