Strategic litigation, searchable.
92 cases across 14 issue areas. Filter by topic, outcome, or precedent strength. Each profile is a starting point for adaptation, not a finishing line.
- Australia (National)· 2014· High Court of AustraliaadverseHigh precedent
Plaintiff S156/2013 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2014] HCA 22
Validity of the designation of Papua New Guinea as a regional processing country and the removal of asylum seekers there under the Migration Act.
refugeeasylumnon-refoulementimmigration detentionoffshore processing+1 - Northern Territory, Australia· 2014· NT Children's CommissionerpendingHigh precedent
NT Tear Gas Incident — Don Dale (2014)
Use of tear gas on children in detention
don-dalenttear-gasuse-of-force - Council of Europe (ECtHR)· 2014· European Court of Human Rightsfavorable
CASE OF HUSAYN (ABU ZUBAYDAH) v. POLAND (no. 7511/13)
Whether Poland's actions violated the applicant's rights, including the prohibition of torture and the right to liberty and security
refugeeasylumnon-refoulementarticle 3 - Council of Europe (ECtHR)· 2014· European Court of Human Rightsfavorable
CASE OF AL NASHIRI v. POLAND (no. 28761/11)
Whether Poland’s actions regarding the applicant’s arrest, detention, rendition and exposure to the death penalty violated his rights under the Convention, particularly the prohibition of torture, the right to liberty, the right to a fair trial, the right to private and family life, the right to an effective remedy and the right to life.
refugeeasylumnon-refoulementarticle 3 - Hong Kong· 2013· Hong Kong Court of Final AppealfavorableHigh precedent
C v Director of Immigration [2013] HKCFA 21; (2013) 16 HKCFAR 280 (FACV 18-20/2011)
Whether the duty to assess risk before removal extends beyond torture to a well-founded fear of persecution, when UNHCR (not the government) conducts refugee status determination in Hong Kong.
refugeeasylumnon-refoulementtorture (CAT) - Hong Kong· 2012· Hong Kong Court of Final AppealfavorableHigh precedent
Ubamaka Edward Wilson v Secretary for Security (2012) 15 HKCFAR 743; [2012] HKCFA 87
Whether the protection against torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment (article 3 of the Bill of Rights Ordinance, reflecting ICCPR article 7) is absolute, and whether the Director must assess that risk before removal.
refugeeasylumnon-refoulementtorture (CAT) - United Kingdom / EU context· 2011· CJEU (Grand Chamber)favorableHigh precedent
N.S. v SSHD; M.E. and Others v Refugee Applications Commissioner (Joined Cases C-411/10 & C-493/10)
Dublin transfers; systemic deficiencies test; suspending transfers
asylumdublin-transfersnon-refoulementrefugeesystemic-deficiencies - 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) - 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 - 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