Strategic litigation, searchable.
217 cases across 14 issue areas. Filter by topic, outcome, or precedent strength. Each profile is a starting point for adaptation, not a finishing line.
- UK· 2006
UK - House of Lords, 18 October 2006, Fornah v. Secretary of State for the Home Department (linked with Secretary of State for the Home Department v. K) [2006] UKHL 46
EDAL summary. The case concerned a woman who feared return to Sierra Leone because she would face gender specific persecution in the form of Female Genital Mutilation (FGM). The issue was whether she was entitled...
refugeeasylum - UK· 2006
UK - House of Lords, 18 October 2006, Secretary of State for the Home Department v. K (linked with Fornah v. Secretary of State for the Home Department)
EDAL summary. The case concerned the issue of whether ‘family’ constitutes a particular social group. The applicant was recognised as a refugee on the basis of her well founded fear of persecution as a member of he...
refugeeasylum - UK· 2006
UK - House of Lords, 15 February 2006, Januzi v Secretary of State for the Home Department & Ors [2006] UKHL 5
EDAL summary. In assessing whether an applicant could obtain internal protection to avoid persecution, decision makers should consider whether it would be unreasonable or unduly harsh to expect the applicant to rel...
refugeeasylum - France· 2005
France - CRR, Plenary session, 4 March 2005, Miss T., n°489014
EDAL summary. In the conditions which currently prevail in some rural areas in Eastern Turkey, the attitude of women of Kurdish origin who want to escape from a forced marriage is perceived by society and the autho...
refugeeasylum - France· 2005
France - CRR, Plenary session, 29 July 2005, Miss T., n°519803
EDAL summary. Women who want to escape from a forced marriage, whose attitude is perceived by whole or part of the society of their country of origin as an infringement of the applicable customs and laws, and who t...
refugeeasylum - Australia (National)· 2004· High Court of AustraliaadverseHigh precedent
Al-Kateb v Godwin [2004] HCA 37
Whether a stateless person who cannot be removed from Australia may be detained indefinitely under the Migration Act.
refugeeasylumnon-refoulementimmigration detentionindefinite detention - Hong Kong· 2004· Hong Kong Court of Final AppealfavorableHigh precedent
Secretary for Security v Sakthevel Prabakar (2004) 7 HKCFAR 187
Standard of fairness required when the government assesses whether removing a person would expose them to a risk of torture (non-refoulement under the Convention against Torture).
refugeeasylumnon-refoulementtorture (CAT) - UK· 2003
UK - Court of Appeal, 11 November 2003, R (Bagdanavicius) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (CA) [2005] EWCA Civ 1605
EDAL summary. The Court of Appeal gave guidance on the relevant factors to consider in assessing claims for protection against persecution from non-state actors under the Refugee Convention and Article 3 of the ECH...
refugeeasylum - UK· 2002
UK - Court of Appeal, 3 January 2002, Svazas v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2002] EWCA Civ 74
EDAL summary. Where the actors of persecution feared are themselves state agents consideration must still be given to whether the applicant can avail himself of protection, but this assessment must be made in conte...
refugeeasylum - Australia (National)· 2001· Federal Court of Australia (Full Court)adverseHigh precedent
Ruddock v Vadarlis [2001] FCA 1329 (the Tampa case)
Whether the Commonwealth executive had power, absent statutory authority, to detain and remove asylum seekers rescued by the MV Tampa and prevent them entering Australia.
refugeeasylumnon-refoulementimmigration detentionexecutive power+1 - UK· 2000
UK - House of Lords, 6 July 2000, Horvath v. Secretary of State for the Home Department [2000] UKHL 37
EDAL summary. In cases where the applicant fears persecution from non-state actors, the home state can be judged to provide protection if it has in place a system of domestic protection machinery for the detection,...
refugeeasylum - International (UN Human Rights Committee)· 1997· UN Human Rights CommitteefavorableHigh precedent
A v Australia, Communication No. 560/1993, UN Doc CCPR/C/59/D/560/1993
Whether prolonged mandatory immigration detention of an asylum seeker (over three years) breached the prohibition on arbitrary detention and the right to judicial review of detention under ICCPR article 9.
refugeeasylumnon-refoulementimmigration detentionarbitrary detention+1 - United States· 1993· US Supreme CourtadverseHigh precedent
Sale v Haitian Centers Council, 509 U.S. 155 (1993)
High-seas interdiction; scope of non-refoulement under INA & Refugee Convention
asylumextraterritorial-jurisdictionnon-refoulementpushbacksrefugee - Canada· 1985· Supreme Court of CanadafavorableHigh precedent
Singh v Minister of Employment and Immigration, [1985] 1 SCR 177
Charter s.7 & s.2(e) 'everyone' includes asylum seekers; oral hearing rights
asylumconstitutional-protectionsdue-processhearing-rightsrefugee - European Union· CJEU
C-182/26 PPU
CJEU case. Subject matter: Borders, asylum and immigration.
bordersasylumimmigration - European Union (CJEU)
Gonrieh (C-819/25 PPU)
CJEU case. Subject matter: Borders, asylum and immigration.
refugeeasylum - European Union (CJEU)
Sidilli (C-707/25 )
CJEU case. Subject matter: Borders, asylum and immigration; asylum policy.
refugeeasylum