Refugee and asylum seekers’ administrative procedures
Refugee and Asylum Seekers’ Administrative Procedures
Overview
Refugee and asylum administrative procedures are the legal processes through which individuals who claim to be refugees or in need of international protection seek official recognition by the state. These procedures are governed by:
International law, especially the 1951 Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol,
National laws and administrative regulations, and
Principles of administrative law, such as legality, due process, and proportionality.
The procedures involve several key steps:
Application for asylum or refugee status,
Investigation and assessment of the claim,
Decision-making by administrative authorities,
Possibility of appeal or judicial review,
Enforcement of decisions.
States must ensure fair, efficient, and transparent procedures while balancing national security, migration control, and humanitarian protection.
Key Case Laws on Refugee and Asylum Administrative Procedures
1. European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) — M.S.S. v Belgium and Greece (2011)
Facts:
M.S.S., an asylum seeker from Afghanistan, challenged the Dublin Regulation’s application that transferred him from Belgium to Greece, alleging inhumane treatment and poor asylum procedures in Greece.
Key Points:
The Court held that both Belgium and Greece violated the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), particularly Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment).
The Court stressed the obligation of states to ensure that asylum procedures are fair and that applicants are not sent to countries where they risk serious harm (principle of non-refoulement).
Administrative authorities must conduct proper assessments of conditions in third countries before transferring asylum seekers.
Implication:
Administrative procedures must incorporate human rights safeguards, and authorities have a duty to ensure applicants' safety before transferring or deporting them.
2. Finnish Supreme Administrative Court — KHO 2013:59 (Asylum Applicant’s Right to a Fair Procedure)
Facts:
The Court reviewed a case where the asylum seeker argued that the administrative authority failed to adequately consider evidence relating to risks in their home country.
Key Points:
The Court emphasized the administrative principle of due process, requiring that authorities conduct thorough and impartial evaluations.
Authorities must provide clear reasons for rejecting asylum claims and consider all relevant evidence.
The ruling underscored the right to be heard and to receive reasons for decisions.
Implication:
Fair administrative procedures are a constitutional right in asylum decisions, mandating detailed case assessments and transparent reasoning.
3. Supreme Court of Canada — Kanthasamy v Canada (2015)
Facts:
The Court dealt with procedural fairness in the removal of a claimant with a disability, emphasizing the role of discretion and proportionality in asylum decisions.
Key Points:
The Court held that procedural fairness requires decision-makers to consider vulnerable applicants’ special circumstances.
It clarified that administrative discretion must be exercised proportionately and with compassion.
The decision reinforced the need to tailor administrative procedures to individual needs.
Implication:
Administrative authorities must adapt asylum procedures to protect vulnerable persons and exercise discretion fairly.
4. Supreme Administrative Court of Finland — KHO 2016:45 (Withdrawal of Asylum Status)
Facts:
This case involved the withdrawal of refugee status after changes in the applicant’s country of origin.
Key Points:
The Court stated that withdrawal decisions must be based on updated, reliable information.
Authorities must balance the right to protection with the evolving factual context.
Withdrawal procedures must include notice, opportunity to respond, and possibility of appeal.
Implication:
Procedural fairness and proportionality extend to decisions withdrawing protection, ensuring ongoing safeguards.
5. ECtHR — N. v United Kingdom (2008)
Facts:
N., an asylum seeker, challenged the delay in the administrative process and detention conditions during the asylum procedure.
Key Points:
The Court held that delays violating the principle of timely administrative procedures can breach human rights.
It also stressed that detention during asylum procedures must be justified, necessary, and proportionate.
Administrative authorities have a duty to process claims expeditiously and protect applicants’ rights.
Implication:
Administrative asylum procedures must be timely, and detention used only as a last resort.
Summary of Administrative Law Principles in Refugee and Asylum Procedures
| Principle | Explanation | Case Example |
|---|---|---|
| Non-refoulement | No return to a country where there is risk of harm | M.S.S. v Belgium and Greece |
| Due process and fair hearing | Full and impartial consideration with reasons given | KHO 2013:59 |
| Procedural fairness for vulnerable applicants | Special consideration for disabilities, minors, etc. | Kanthasamy v Canada |
| Withdrawal of protection | Requires updated evidence, notice, and appeal | KHO 2016:45 |
| Timeliness and detention | Decisions must be prompt; detention only if necessary | N. v United Kingdom |
Additional Notes on Administrative Procedures
Application Phase: The asylum seeker submits their claim, which must be registered and acknowledged promptly.
Investigation: Authorities gather evidence, including interviews, country reports, and security checks.
Decision: The administrative decision must be reasoned, based on law, facts, and international obligations.
Appeal: There must be judicial or independent administrative review mechanisms.
Enforcement: Decisions are enforced fairly, respecting human rights and procedural guarantees.
RELATED Blog
0 comments