Asylum Case Summary

The focal issue of this argument is when an Asylum Seeker arrives in Australia without a visa, they are required to stay in detention well beyond the period of time it should take to gather basic information about an asylum claim, health identity or security issues. This can lead to an asylum seeker often being detained for months and sometimes for years. Under the Migration Act (Cth.) 1958 there is no time limit on this detention and only very limited review by the courts is available. The ‘United Nations Rules for the Protection of Juveniles Deprived of their Liberty’, rule 11 (b) (UNHCR) considers ‘detention as; confinement within a narrowly bounded or restricted location, where freedom of movement is substantially curtailed, and where the only opportunity

A determination of convention refugee status is made by an immigration officer or tribunal, based on several factors under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (“the Act”).

I have been asked to advise Summer Rayne whether (1) the Australian government would be able to stop him from helping the Afghanistan asylum seekers by his boat’s action under the ASIATIC Act, (2) the government would be able to forfeit his speedboats under the ASIATIC Act without returning it back to him, (3) any sales and purchase of the T-shirts would be legal, and (4) overall he would have any chances of challenging the Act.

The most commonly accepted definition of a ‘refugee’ is set out in the United Nations 1951

No. The burden of proof is on Jane to show that she has a valid asylum claim. Jane may qualify as a refugee and have a fear of being of being used for propaganda purposes and should she return to her native land, but, she has not met all of the required elements at this time to establish asylum eligibility.

Overseers at Claflin University made a startling revelation Thursday morning when they found a child kid relinquished and crying inside a junk pack.

The respondents are charged with removability pursuant to INA § 212(a)(6)(A)(i) as aliens present in the U.S. without being admitted or paroled, which respondents have conceded. Lead respondent filed an I-589 Asylum Application received by the USCIS on April 8, 2016, or within one (1) year of her arrival (see Tab J – USCIS Receipt, and Tab A – Form I-589 and Tab P – Amended Form I-589). The co-respondent is listed as

Counsel for the Department of Homeland Security has asserted that Respondent’s statements about witnessing the public burning of neighbors, who had opposed the narco-traffickers, were not corroborated by the statements made by her uncle. Therefore, Respondent’s statements should not be deemed as credible. While corroboration may bolster an asylum applicant’s credibility, an application may still be credible absent specific corroboration, especially where his or her explanations for

Last week I got an email from Marcos, the detention relief coordinator for an LGBT migrant’s rights organization here in Phoenix. Marcos, who I interviewed for the Undocumented Voices project, asked me if I wanted to join him and others on a trip down to the migrant detention center in Eloy to witness an asylum hearing. The hearing in question was that of Alfred, a gay/bisexual Ghanaian man who spent over a year in detention already. Excited with the prospect of seeing how America treats some of its undocumented citizens, I accepted Marcos’ invite.

This report examines that the impacts of immigration detention and violating of human rights with the mental health care of asylum seekers. In the recent years, increased number of illegal immigrants arriving by boat in Australia. This raises key issues concerning about mental health of asylum-seekers, especially for detained immigrants. Research shows that Australia currently own around 13,000 refugees per annum, under the Refugee Convention (1951), Australia has obligation to evaluate refugee claims, but it processes only 2.2% of them made to 44 industrialised countries (p.315).

The High Court ruled that asylum seekers could be detained indefinitely against their will. The decision was handed down in the case of Al-Kateb vs. Godwin. Ahmend Al-Kateb was a Palestinian man who came to Australia in 2000, with no passport or valid visa, Al-Kateb was detained under the Migration Act. After expressing desire to leave Australia, he was refused, being deemed stateless. The matter was taken to the High Court and revolved around the interpretation of section 196 of the Migration Act and whether there were constitutional grounds to challenge Al-Katebs continuous detention. The court held that unsuccessful people seeking asylum could continue to be held in immigration detention indefinitely question the effectiveness of the Justice

Australia, among many places, has legal restrictions and conventions in reference to the captivity and treatment of asylum seekers. These are seen through the ‘1951 Refugee Convention’ and it’s 1967 protocol. Legal guidelines are also seen in significant human rights treaties.

Asylum seekers may not be able to obtain the travel documents because they do not have the identification needed and they might not

Refugees, asylum seekers and UASC are terms which are often used interchangeably but have different legal definitions (Ruxton, 1996). For the purpose of this assignment it is important to differentiate between these terms. A refugee is a person "owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality, and is unable to or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country…" (Article 1 of the United Convention of Human Rights, 1951). An asylum seeker is “a person who has left their country of origin, has applied for recognition as a refugee in

The process of applying for political asylum is a rather long one. When a person enters the United States without the sanction to enter, he or she can claim that the purpose of his or her arrival is fleeing persecution. First, the person is given an interview by an asylum officer who decides whether or not the individual has a valid fear of persecution or torture. If they are found to have a valid claim asylum, the cases is brought before an immigration judge. The judge makes a decision of whether or not the claim of persecution is true. If the judge finds it to be concrete, the individual is granted asylum, and if not, they are to be sent back to their country in which they were fleeing. Unless, however, the individual calls for an appeal. At this point, the case is sent from the asylum office to the immigration court. One can appeal up to four times, where it reaches the Supreme Court. A denial from the Supreme Court will result in the deportation of