Simply Impossible

Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, 28 July 1951, 189 UNTS 137 (‘Refugees Convention’) article 1A(2).

A refugee need not actually have experienced persecution in the past to be entitled to protection under art 1A(2) of the Refugees Convention. The relevant test is ‘future-focused’, assessing whether the claimant will face harm in the reasonably foreseeable future if removed. However, having experienced persecution in the past may bolster an asylum seeker's argument that such conduct would recur if removed to their country of origin (or to another jurisdiction in which they have a right to reside): Hathaway James C , The Law of Refugee Status (Cambridge University Press, 1991) 88; MIEA v Guo (1997) 191 CLR 559, 574.

Hungarian Helsinki Committee, Credibility Assessment in Asylum Procedures: A Multidisciplinary Training Module (2013) 10 <http://helsinki.hu/wp-content/uploads/Credibility-Assessment-in-Asylum-Procedures-CREDO-manual.pdf>.

UN High Commissioner for Refugees (‘UNHCR’), Beyond Proof: Credibility Assessment in EU Asylum Systems: Full Report (2013) 30 <http://www.unhcr.org/51a8a08a9.html>.

Ibid 32.

Byrne Rosemary , Assessing Testimonial Evidence in Asylum Proceedings: Guiding Standards from the International Criminal Tribunals' (2007) 19 International Journal of Refugee Law 609, 615–6.

UNHCR, Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status under the 1951 Convention and the 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees, HCR/IP/4/Eng/REV.1 (1979, reedited 1992) [197].

Ibid [196].

Glass Arthur , ‘Subjectivity and Refugee Fact-Finding’ in McAdam Jane (ed), Forced Migration, Human Rights and Security (Hart, 2008) 214.

UNHCR, above n 4, 33.

IARLJ, Assessment of Credibility in Refugee and Subsidiary Protection Claims under the EU Qualification Directive (2013) 40 <http://www.iarlj.org/general/images/stories/Credo/Credo_Paper_March2013-rev1.pdf>.

Jones Martin Houle France , Introduction: Building a Better Refugee Status Determination System' (2008) 25(2) Refuge 3, 6.

The need for a renewed focus on the ‘humanity’ of decision-makers involved in the assessment process (albeit in a somewhat different context) is discussed in Reilly Alex La Forgia Rebecca , ‘Secret “Enhanced Screening” of Asylum Seekers’ (2013) 38(3) Alternative Law Journal 143, 145–146.

Amnesty International and Still Human Still Here, A Question of Credibility: Why so many initial asylum decisions are overturned on appeal in the UK (2013) 15 <http://www.refworld.org/pdfid/518120c64.pdf>; Pettitt Jo Townhead Laurel Huber Stephanie , ‘The Use of COI in the Refugee Status Determination Process in the UK: Looking Back, Reaching Forward’ (2008) 25(2) Refuge 182, 188.

Kalin Walter , ‘Troubled Communication: Cross-Cultural Misunderstandings in the Asylum Hearing’ (1986) 20 International Migration Review 230, 234.

The Queen v Australian Stevedoring Industry Board; Ex parte Melbourne Stevedoring Co Pty Ltd (1953) 88 CLR 100, 120.

Minister for Aboriginal Affairs v Peko-Wallsend Ltd (1986) 162 CLR 24, 39.

W321/01A v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2002] FCA 210 (11 March 2002) [30].

Thevendram v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2000] FCA 1910 (21 December 2000) [59].

Valtchev v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) [2001] FCT 776 (6 July 2001) [7]; Shenoda v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) [2003] FCT 207 (20 February 2003) [7].

Bingham Thomas Sir , ‘The Judge as Juror: The Judicial Determination of Factual Issues’ (1985) 38(1) Current Legal Problems 1, 14.

Lopez-Reyes v Immigration and Naturalization Service, 79 F 3d 908 (9th Cir. 1996).

Rajamanikkam v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [1999] FCA 1411 (19 November 1999) [41].

International Association of Refugee Law Judges, above n 12, 35.

Valtchev v Canada (Minister for Citizenship and Immigration) [2001] FCT 776.

Samani v Canada (Minister for Citizenship and Immigration) [1998] CanLII 8301 [4].

Wani, re: Application for judicial review [2005] CSOH 73 [24].

Perry v The Queen (1982) 150 CLR 580, 594.

Adam v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2003] EWCA Civ 265 [14].

Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (‘DFAT’), DFAT Country Information Report Iran (2013) [5.8] <http://www.immi-gv-au.net/media/publications/pdf/dfat-cir-iran.pdf>.

Human Rights Watch, '“We Will Teach You a Lesson”: Sexual Violence against Tamils by Sri Lankan Security Forces (2013) 30 <http://www.refworld.org/docid/5130850f2.html>; DFAT, DFAT Country Information Report Sri Lanka (2013) [3.29] <http://www.immi-gv-au.net/media/publications/pdf/dfat-cir-sri-lanka.pdf>.

IARLJ, above n 11, 39.

El Moraghy v Ashcroft , 331 F 3d 195 [27] (1st Cir, 2003).

Hungarian Helsinki Committee, above n 3, 11.

Ibid.

Goodwin-Gill Guy McAdam Jane , The Refugee in International Law (Oxford University Press, 3rd ed, 2007) 547.

Hungarian Helsinki Committee, above n3, 11.

Danish Immigration Service, Human Rights Situation for Minorities, Women and Converts, and Entry and Exit Procedures, ID Cards, Summons and Reporting, etc (2009) [7.4] <http://www.refworld.org/docid/4bd9621a2.html>.

Amnesty International, ‘We are ordered to crush you’: Expanding repression of dissent in Iran (2012) 56 <http://www.refworld.org/docid/4f50acd57e.html>; 1001288 [2010] RRTA 912 (22 October 2010).

Human Rights Law Centre, Can't flee, can't stay: Australia's interception and return of Sri Lankan asylum seekers (2014) 44–47 <http://www.hrlc.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/HRLC_SriLanka_Report_11March2014.pdf>.

DFAT, above n 31, [3.72].

GJ and Others (post-civil war: Returnees) Sri Lanka CG [2013] UKUT003 19 (IAC) [356(6)].

SZSFK v Minister for Immigration [2013] FCCA 7 [31].

Kneebone Susan , ‘The Refugee Review Tribunal and the assessment of credibility: An inquisitorial role?’ (1998) 5 Australian Journal of Administrative Law 78, 88–89.

Refugee Review Tribunal, Guide to refugee law (18 September 2014) <http://www.mrt-rrt.gov.au/Conduct-of-reviews/Guide-to-refugee-law.aspx>.

ABC News, Tribunals ordered to consider new country assessments when deciding on asylum claims', AM, 17 July 2013 <http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-07-17/refugee-tribunals-ordered-to-consider-new-country-information/4824788>.

Price Matthew E , Rethinking Asylum: History, Purpose and Limits (Cambridge University Press, 2009) 92.

Ibid.

Gramatikov v Immigration and Naturalization Service, 128 F.3d 619 [2] (7th Cir. 1997); cited in Zeeshan Manzoor v United States Department of Justice, 254 F.3d 342 [20] (1st Cir. 2001).

Price , above n 47.

R (YH) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2010] 4 All ER 448 [24].