Strategic litigation, searchable.
196 cases across 14 issue areas. Filter by topic, outcome, or precedent strength. Each profile is a starting point for adaptation, not a finishing line.
- United States· 2020· US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuitfavorable
Innovation Law Lab v Wolf, 951 F.3d 1073 (9th Cir. 2020)
'Remain in Mexico' (MPP) policy; statutory authority; refoulement risk
asylumborder-externalizationnon-refoulementrefugeestatutory-authority - Council of Europe (ECtHR)· 2020· European Court of Human RightsadverseHigh precedent
CASE OF N.D. AND N.T. v. SPAIN (no. 8675/15)
Whether Spain’s removal of the applicants without individual consideration violated the prohibition of collective expulsion of aliens under Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 and the right to an effective remedy under Article 13.
refugeeasylumnon-refoulementarticle 3article 4 prot 4 - Council of Europe (ECtHR)· 2020· European Court of Human Rightsadverse
CASE OF ASADY AND OTHERS v. SLOVAKIA (no. 24917/15)
Whether the applicants' removal would constitute a collective expulsion of aliens contrary to the prohibition on collective expulsion.
refugeeasylumnon-refoulementarticle 4 prot 4 - 9th Cir.· 2020
East Bay Sanctuary Covenant v. William Barr
Asylum Eligibility and Procedural Modifications
refugeeasylum - Council of Europe (ECtHR)· 2020· European Court of Human Rightsadverse
CASE OF B AND C v. SWITZERLAND (no. 889/19)
Whether the Swiss authorities' removal of the applicants from Switzerland would constitute a disproportionate interference with their right to private and family life.
refugeeasylumnon-refoulementarticle 3 - D.D.C.· 2020
A.B.-b v. Morgan
Children from Honduras, Ecuador, and Mexico seek asylum in the United States based on fears of kidnapping and violence
refugeeasylum - Council of Europe (ECtHR)· 2020· European Court of Human RightsfavorableHigh precedent
CASE OF M.K. AND OTHERS v. POLAND (no. 40503/17)
Whether the applicants' expulsion to a country where they faced a real risk of torture would breach the prohibition of torture, the right to an effective remedy, and the prohibition of collective expulsion.
refugeeasylumnon-refoulementarticle 3article 4 prot 4 - Council of Europe (ECtHR)· 2020· European Court of Human RightsfavorableHigh precedent
CASE OF SHIKSAITOV v. SLOVAKIA (no. 56751/16)
Whether the applicant's detention for extradition was lawful under the right to liberty and security and whether the lack of compensation for unlawful detention breached that right.
refugeeasylumnon-refoulement - European Court of Human Rights· 2019· European Court of Human Rightsfavorable
A.A. v. Switzerland
The case revolves around the assessment of persecution for religious purposes in the country of origin, specifically focusing on how an applicant's faith practices would be impacted upon return.
refugeeasylumreligious-persecution - Council of Europe (ECtHR)· 2019· European Court of Human Rightsfavorable
CASE OF HAGHILO v. CYPRUS (no. 47920/12)
Whether Cyprus has taken sufficient measures to prevent new violations and to comply with the Court's judgment, satisfying the right to enforcement of judgments.
refugeeasylumnon-refoulementarticle 3 - Court of Appeal of Douai· 2019· Court of Appeal of Douaifavorable
X v. Prefect of Pas de Calais, No RG19/00334
The case concerned the refusal of an extension of administrative detention and the release of an applicant due to the lack of examination of their vulnerability by a medical doctor.
refugeeasylumdetention - Council of Europe (ECtHR)· 2019· European Court of Human Rightsfavorable
CASE OF N.A. v. FINLAND (no. 25244/18)
Whether the applicant's expulsion from Finland to his home country would expose him to a real risk of death or torture, violating his right to life and the absolute prohibition of torture.
refugeeasylumnon-refoulementarticle 3 - European Court of Human Rights· 2019· ECtHR (Grand Chamber)favorableHigh precedent
Ilias and Ahmed v Hungary (GC), App No 47287/15 (2019)
Transit-zone confinement; removal to Serbia; procedural safeguards
asylumdetention-conditionsprocedural-safeguardsrefugeetransit-zones - Council of Europe (ECtHR)· 2018· European Court of Human Rightsfavorable
CASE OF S.Z. v. GREECE (no. 66702/13)
Whether Greece violated the applicant's rights under the prohibition of torture and the right to liberty and security by subjecting him to degrading treatment and by detaining him without lawful basis and without an effective judicial review.
refugeeasylumnon-refoulementarticle 3 - South Africa· 2018· Constitutional Court of South AfricafavorableHigh precedent
Ruta v Minister of Home Affairs [2018] ZACC 52
Right to apply for asylum; delays; non-refoulement; primacy of Refugees Act
asylumasylum-accessnon-refoulementprocedural-delaysrefugee - Council of Europe (ECtHR)· 2018· European Court of Human Rightsfavorable
CASE OF M.A. AND OTHERS v. LITHUANIA (no. 59793/17)
Whether the applicants' expulsion to Belarus would expose them to a real risk of treatment contrary to the prohibition of torture and whether they had an effective remedy to challenge that risk.
refugeeasylumnon-refoulementarticle 3 - South Africa· 2017· Constitutional Court of South AfricafavorableHigh precedent
Lawyers for Human Rights v Minister of Home Affairs [2017] ZACC 22
Immigration detention safeguards; judicial oversight
asylumconstitutional-protectionsdetention-conditionsjudicial-oversightrefugee - Council of Europe (ECtHR)· 2017· European Court of Human RightsfavorableHigh precedent
CASE OF Z.A. AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (no. 61411/15)
Whether the applicants' detention by the Russian authorities, aimed at preventing their unauthorised entry, violated their right to liberty and subjected them to treatment contrary to the absolute prohibition of torture.
refugeeasylumnon-refoulementarticle 3 - Council of Europe (ECtHR)· 2017· European Court of Human Rightsfavorable
CASE OF X v. SWITZERLAND (no. 16744/14)
Whether the applicant's expulsion to Sri Lanka would expose him to a real risk of treatment contrary to the prohibition of torture
refugeeasylumnon-refoulementarticle 3 - Council of Europe (ECtHR)· 2017· European Court of Human Rightsfavorable
CASE OF R.M. v. TURKEY (no. 81681/12)
Whether the applicant's deprivation of liberty complied with the right to liberty and security.
refugeeasylumnon-refoulement