112-page analysis plus accompanying 136-page compilation of jurisprudence
New from the European Asylum Support Office (EASO) and the International Association of Refugee and Migration Judges (IARMJ) is the second edition of a judicial analysis providing a comprehensive overview of ending international protection in relation to refugee status and subsidiary protection status.
You can download the 112-page analysis here.
The judicial analysis is part of the EASO professional development series aimed at members of courts and tribunals. The editorial team behind the analysis was comprised of serving or retired judges and tribunal members, chaired by well-known former UK immigration judge Hugo Storey.
It focuses primarily on case law from the Court of Justice of the European Union with respect to the Common European Asylum System, along with case law from EU Member States plus Norway and Switzerland. A number of UK cases are also included in the judicial analysis.
EASO says the judicial analysis endeavours to answer the following main questions:
• On what grounds can refugee status and subsidiary protection status be ended?
• What circumstances establish voluntary re-availment of the protection of an individual's country of nationality?
• What factors might a court or tribunal consider when assessing whether a refugee has genuinely re-established themselves in the country of origin?
• What is the meaning of 'significant and non-temporary' in the context of cessation, in particular in the consideration of whether circumstances have ceased to exist?
• Under what circumstances can an individual be excluded from refugee status under Article 14(3)(a) of the recast Qualification Directive (2011/95/EU)?
• In what circumstances will misrepresentation or omission of facts lead to the ending of refugee status or subsidiary protection status?
• Must there be an intention to mislead in terms of revocation based on misrepresentation?
• What are the circumstances that give rise to a refugee or beneficiary of subsidiary protection being deemed to be a danger to the security of a Member State?
• What are the circumstances that give rise to a refugee or beneficiary of subsidiary protection being deemed to be a danger to the community?
• How are the grounds for ending subsidiary protection status similar to those for ending refugee status, and how do they differ?
• What procedural guarantees apply to the withdrawal of international protection?
• What is the standard and burden of proof applicable in the context of ending international protection?
Accompanying the judicial analysis is a 136-page compilation of jurisprudence, which you can download here.
EASO commented that the compilation is intended to be a helpful aid when hearing appeals or conducting reviews of decisions on applications concerning ending international protection.