The Refworld legal collection has been designed primarily as a tool for disseminating and promoting (international) law relating to refugees, asylum seekers, stateless persons and other persons of concern to UNHCR.
UNHCR staff, refugee lawyers, all those involved with refugee-status determination within Governments, and others concerned with the rights of refugees and asylum seekers, can find a wealth of relevant documents in the collection. Included in the collection is a unique jurisprudence collection, covering more than 40 national jurisdictions, and a vast amount of international judgments and decisions from the United Nations, the European Court of Human Rights and other international and regional courts. A comprehensive collection of international instruments relating to refugees and human rights, with the most recent lists of States Parties to key conventions, is also available. The legislation collection, contains national and international legislation relevant in assessing asylum claims and is the largest collection of its kind. Finally, Refworld contains many special agreements, such as memoranda of understanding, host-country agreements and voluntary repatriation agreements.
|UNHCR Note on the "Externalization" of International Protection|
|Annex to UNHCR Note on the "Externalization" of International Protection: Policies and practices related to the externalization of international protection|
Montenegro: Rulebook on House Rules in the Asylum Centre
27 May 2021 | Publisher: National Legislative Bodies / National Authorities | Document type: National Decrees, Circulars, Regulation, Policy Documents
GRACE, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. WILLIAM P. BARR, ATTORNEY GENERAL, et al., Defendants-Appellants
For UNHCR’s intervention at the district court level, see the Brief of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees as Amicus Curaie in Support of Plaintiff’s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment in case Grace, et. al., Plaintiffs, v. Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III, in his Official Capacity as Attorney General of the United States, et. al., Defendants. For UNHCR’s intervention in this case, see Brief of Amicus Curiae United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in Support of Plaintiffs-Appellees in case Grace, et. al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. William P. Barr, Attorney General, et. al., Defendants-Appellants. From the Court: "Twelve asylum seekers challenge a host of executive-branch policies adopted to implement the expedited-removal provisions of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA), [...]. Broadly speaking, the challenged policies concern how asylum officers determine whether an alien has demonstrated a “credible fear” of persecution, a threshold showing that permits an alien who would otherwise be immediately deported to seek asylum in the United States. The asylum seekers principally argue that the policies raise the bar for demonstrating a credible fear of persecution far above what Congress intended and that the Attorney General and various agencies violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), [...] by failing to adequately address important factors bearing on the policies’ adoption. Largely on these grounds, the district court found the policies inconsistent with IIRIRA, the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), [...] seq., and the APA, and enjoined their enforcement. For the reasons set forth in this opinion, we affirm in part and reverse in part."
20 May 2021 | Judicial Body: United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Agents of persecution - Burden of proof - State protection | Countries: United States of America
|UNHCR Observations on the New Plan for Immigration policy statement of the Government of the United Kingdom|
B.B. v. Sweden (Communication No. 3069/2015)
The Committee considered that the State party failed to adequately assess the author’s real, personal and foreseeable risk of returning to Afghanistan, in particular taking into account his father’s alleged threats of revenge and his trauma as a result of parental abuse. Accordingly, the Committee considers that the State party failed to give due consideration to the consequences of the author’s personal situation in Afghanistan and concludes that his removal to Afghanistan by the State party would constitute a violation of articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant.
|Intervention by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in the case of The Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness v. Medhanie Aregawi Weldemariam|
H.A. v ?tat belge (case C-194/19)
The court ruled that states must take into account circumstances arising after a transfer decision. See the decision for more details.
15 April 2021 | Judicial Body: European Union: Court of Justice of the European Union | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Family reunification | Countries: Belgium
Opinion of Advocate General Saugmandsgaard ?e in Case C?18/20
(1) The concept of ‘new elements or findings [that] have arisen or have been presented by the applicant’, as used in Article 40(2) and (3) of Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection, must be interpreted as meaning that it also covers elements or findings which already existed before the procedure relating to a previous application for international protection was definitively concluded, but which were not relied on by the applicant in the context of that procedure. (2) Article 40(3) of Directive 2013/32 must be interpreted as meaning that the substantive examination of a subsequent application does not require a specific procedure, provided that the national procedure fulfils the requirements laid down in Chapter II of that directive. Article 42(2) of that directive, read in conjunction with Article 40(2) to (4) and Article 33(2)(d) thereof, must be interpreted as prohibiting the setting of time limits per se. (3) Article 40(4) of Directive 2013/32 must be interpreted as meaning that the condition relating to the absence of fault laid down therein cannot be applied in the context of an administrative procedure unless that condition is expressly laid down in national law in a manner that satisfies the requirements of legal certainty. It is for the referring court to verify whether this is the case here.
15 April 2021 | Judicial Body: European Union: Court of Justice of the European Union | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Refugee status determination (RSD) / Asylum procedures | Countries: Austria - Iraq
|UNHCR comments on the Bill for partial amendments to the Immigration Control and Refugee Recognition Act submitted to the 204th Diet session of year 2021 Based on the Recommendations of the Sub-Committee on Detention and Deportation (SCDD), 7th Immigration Control Policy Discussion Panel|